Russian President Vladimir Putin declared a brief Easter ceasefire in his war with Ukraine, saying “all hostilities” will pause for a two-day period.

There has been no immediate response from Ukraine, but if Kyiv accepts it will be the first pause in the conflict since Russia’s February 2022 full-scale invasion.

Russian fighting will halt between 6 p.m. Moscow time on Saturday (11 a.m. ET) and midnight on Monday (5 p.m. Sunday ET), Putin said.

“We assume that the Ukrainian side will follow our example,” he added.

The truce will help Russia determine how sincere Kyiv is about wanting to reach a ceasefire, Putin said.

The announcement comes at a pivotal time for the war. On the ground, Russia continues to make gains, claiming the capture of another settlement in the Kursk border region while US-led peace efforts are stuttering.

On Friday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned that the US was ready to “move on” from efforts to bring peace to Ukraine within days if there were no tangible signs of progress.

Ukraine has previously been skeptical about such temporary pauses in conflict, having rejected a temporary ceasefire in January 2023 believing that Russia had ulterior motives in calling for a stop to the fighting, such as using the pause to bring in more troops.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

The timing, the brevity, the sudden, unilateral nature of it all. If Ukraine’s allies needed proof of Moscow’s wild cynicism when it comes to peace, the announcement of an immediate truce for Easter provided just that.

It came mere hours after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and his boss president Donald Trump said they would need in the coming days an urgent sign that the Kremlin was serious about peace.

For Russia’s proponents, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s announcement on Saturday looked like a nod to Trump – but the sudden declaration is so riddled with practical flaws, before it even gets out of the box, that it is likely to be simply used by Putin to support his false notion Kyiv does not want his war to stop.

It will be a logistical nightmare for Ukraine‘s forces to suddenly, immediately stop fighting at Putin’s behest. Some front line positions may be in the middle of fierce clashes when this order comes through, and a cessation of this nature likely requires days of preparation and readiness.

Misinformation is bound to confuse troops about the truce’s implementation, how to report or respond to violations, and even what to do when it comes to an end.

It is possible this moment will prove a rare sign that both sides can stop violence for short period. But it is significantly more likely they will both use violations and confusion to show their opponent cannot be trusted. As of Saturday evening local time, Ukrainian officials said Russian strikes had continued in frontline areas.

The ongoing 30-day truce limited to energy infrastructure was born in conditions of complete chaos. The White House announced that “energy and infrastructure” were covered, the Kremlin said they’d immediately stopped attacks on “energy infrastructure”, and Ukraine said the truce started a week later than the Kremlin did. Its execution has been equally mired in mistrust and accusations of breaches.

Moscow made a similar unilateral declaration in January 2023, calling for a day of peace to allow Orthodox Christians to observe Christmas – a move that Kyiv and Western leaders dismissed at the time as a strategic pause for military purposes.

A genuine truce requires negotiation with your opponent, and preparations for it to take hold. The sudden rush of this seems designed entirely to placate the White House demands for some sign that Russia is willing to stop fighting. It will likely feed Trump’s at times pro-Moscow framing of the conflict. It may also cause complexities for Ukraine when they are inevitably accused of violating what Washington may consider to be a goodwill gesture by Moscow.

Ultimately, this brief, likely theoretical, probably rhetorical and entirely unilateral stop to a three-year war, is likely to do more damage to the role of diplomacy in the coming months than it does to support it.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed to continue the war in Gaza in the face of growing opposition to Israel’s ongoing military campaign.

In a pre-recorded video Saturday night, Netanyahu said Israel has “no choice” but to keep fighting “for our very own existence until victory.” The long-time Israeli leader called for “perseverance and resilience” in order to destroy Hamas and bring back the remaining 59 hostages.

Netanyahu pointed to Hamas’ recent rejection of an Israeli ceasefire proposal as a reason Israel will continue its bombardment of Gaza. Israel’s proposal called for a disarmament of Gaza and did not include a permanent end to the war, both of which have been red lines for Hamas.

“If we surrender to Hamas’s demands now, all the tremendous achievements gained by our soldiers, our fallen, and our wounded heroes—those achievements will simply be lost,” Netanyahu said.

He argued that allowing Hamas to remain in Gaza means “President [Donald] Trump’s important vision could never be realized.” Trump has called for moving Palestinians out of Gaza to other countries and redeveloping the coastal enclave into a “Riviera of the Middle East.” He has also floated the idea of US ownership of the narrow strip of land, which is home to more than 2 million Palestinians.

The Hostage Families Forum Headquarters criticized the Israeli premier’s taped statement.

“Many words and slogans will not succeed in hiding the simple truth — Netanyahu has no plan,” the forum said. “It’s no surprise there was no time for questions — otherwise, he would have had to answer the most basic one: What exactly is the State of Israel doing to immediately bring back all 59 hostages?”

Netanyahu also mentioned Iran during his statement, just hours after the US and Iran concluded their second round of talks on Tehran’s nuclear program. “I’m committed to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon,” he said. “I will not give up on this, I will not let go.”

Calls grow to end the war

Netanyahu’s speech comes amid growing protest and opposition to the ongoing military campaign.

Thousands of Israeli military reservists and retirees have signed public letters calling for a ceasefire deal to return all of the hostages, even at the cost of ending the war. The letters have now come from an increasing number of military units, including elite intelligence and commando units, as well as civilian professions.

Many Israelis prioritize a deal to return the hostages, even if it means ending the war, according to recent polling. A poll from Israel’s Channel 12 News, released late-last month, indicated that nearly 70% supported such a deal, while only 21% opposed an end to the war.

A two-month ceasefire that saw 33 Israeli and five Thai hostages released from captivity collapsed on March 18 when Israel renewed its bombardment of Gaza. Israel and the US blamed Hamas for the ceasefire’s end.

Shortly before Netanyahu’s statement, his spokesman, Omer Dostri, said “it’s not possible to bring everyone back,” calling it “a spin.” Speaking to Channel 12 News, Dostri added, “Right now, it’s not possible to make a single ‘all for all’ deal, because Hamas is demanding an end to the war and a withdrawal from Gaza.”

The leader of Israel’s opposition, Yair Lapid, said Dostri’s comments were “an admission that the Israeli government has given up on the effort to bring the hostages home.” Lapid called for Netanyahu to clarify the government’s position. In a statement on social media, he said, “If this is the Prime Minister’s official stance, he should stand up and say it himself. If not, he should apologize on behalf of his spokesperson.”

Netanyahu pre-recorded statement released a short time later did not address his spokesman’s comments.

Hong Kong’s oldest and largest pro-democracy political party is moving to disband as Beijing’s sweeping crackdown on the city leaves even moderate opposition groups with no room to operate.

“The message was that the party has to be disbanded or there will be consequences,” said one of them, Yeung Sum, a former Democratic Party chairman.

Fred Li, a former lawmaker, said a Chinese official told him that the party should not remain until the end of this year, when an election will be held.

Founded by liberal lawyers and academics three years before the former British colony’s 1997 handover to China, the Democratic Party had campaigned for universal suffrage and on matters from labor rights to conservation during a period when such issues were openly discussed in the city.

Widely seen as moderates willing to work with Beijing, Democratic Party leaders had spearheaded a significant voting bloc in the city’s legislature and were regularly afforded space to critique local government policy, until mass pro-democracy protests in 2019 ushered in a new and more restrictive political era.

Beijing’s crackdown in the years since, including the prosecution and jailing of pro-democracy leaders, has left the once-influential party rudderless as it contends with sweeping national security legislation and “patriots only” electoral reforms enacted in 2021 that make it nearly impossible for opposition candidates to stand for the city’s legislature.

Democratic Party chairman Lo Kin-hei told a news conference last Sunday that 90% of about 110 party members had voted to delegate power to a committee to start the dissolution process, adding he hoped a final vote would take place in the coming months.

“I hope Hong Kong’s political parties… will continue to work for the people,” Lo said. “We have always hoped to serve the Hong Kong people, and to do things that are good for society.”

The Democrats’ move to disband demonstrates Beijing’s unwillingness to allow even the mildest of dissenting voices to be heard in Hong Kong, say analysts.

John Burns, emeritus professor at the University of Hong Kong (HKU), said the party had “symbolized the promise of some kind of democratic development in Hong Kong, leading to universal suffrage as promised in the Basic Law,” referring to the city’s mini-constitution.

“A dissolution of the party reflects official Hong Kong’s turn away from popular participation, locally accountable government, and increased transparency toward more authoritarian rule,” Burns said.

Eric Lai, a research fellow at the Georgetown Center for Asian Law, said the Democrats’ move “shows there are no more feasible ways for groups to exist as an opposition party.”

“It’s self-conflicting for the government to suggest that nothing has changed,” he said.

Criticism of the government remains permitted in Hong Kong, “however strong, vigorous or critical” it may be, so long as it is “based on facts,” the spokesperson said. The Hong Kong government would “continue to resolutely discharge the duty of safeguarding national security,” they added.

No space for compromise

The Democrats had enjoyed relative political freedom following Hong Kong’s return to Chinese rule, even holding more seats than any other party in the mostly pro-Beijing legislature until 2004.

The party’s leaders were often the figureheads of major demonstrations, including an annual June 4 vigil to commemorate the Tiananmen Square massacre and a well-attended pro-democracy march held every July. (Neither event would be permitted on the Chinese mainland, and both are now effectively banned in Hong Kong).

But support for the Democrats plunged in 2010 after its leaders negotiated directly for universal suffrage with officials from Beijing’s liaison office in Hong Kong – a move seen as a betrayal by other pro-democracy groups.

The party was then pushed further to the sidelines by the emergence of a new generation of pro-democracy leaders and student activists during months-long protests for universal suffrage in 2014.

However, when anti-government demonstrators returned to Hong Kong’s streets en masse in 2019, the Democrats’ popularity resurged as many of its leaders stood on the front lines of the massive – and sometimes violent – protests that rocked the financial hub.

Later that year, the Democratic Party was the biggest winner in local district council elections. But its participation in the protests also drew the ire of Hong Kong authorities and Beijing, paving the way for its demise.

“The party made mistakes when it failed to draw a clear line between itself and radical separatists calling for Hong Kong’s independence from 2014-2020,” said Burns, from HKU. “Authorities have punished the party, jailing and chasing out Democratic Party leaders.”

Over the past five years, the space for the Democrats to maneuver has been increasingly squeezed by Chinese authorities.

In 2020, Beijing imposed a sweeping national security law on Hong Kong, introducing the maximum sentence of life imprisonment for four main crimes of secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces.

A year later, the Chinese government rewrote Hong Kong’s electoral rules to require candidates to seek nomination from pro-Beijing groups, essentially excluding the opposition from elections. A legislature filled with Beijing loyalists last year unanimously passed a law expanding the scope of national security offenses.

Beijing and the Hong Kong government argued that the electoral changes had enhanced democracy and have repeatedly defended the security laws as restoring order and returning prosperity to the city. But critics say they have curtailed freedoms and had a “chilling effect” on civil society, including independent institutions and the media.

Steve Tsang, director of the China Institute at SOAS University of London, said political and social protests seen as challenging state security are “becoming increasingly if not well-nigh impossible.”

“Many other elements of civil rights, including that of speech and organizing political parties have also been severely curtailed,” he added.

Last year, five former Democratic Party lawmakers were among 45 opposition figures sentenced to prison terms of up to 10 years after they were found guilty of subversion for taking part in an election primary in 2020.

National security police have also placed HK$1 million ($129,000) bounties on pro-democracy activists who fled overseas, including an Australia-based former Democratic Party lawmaker accused of secession, subversion and collusion with a foreign country.

Meanwhile, the trial of media tycoon and outspoken democracy supporter Jimmy Lai is ongoing, more than four years after he was detained on charges of colluding with foreign forces, which he denies.

The Democratic Party’s announcement last weekend follows the dissolution of almost 100 civil and pro-democracy organizations in Hong Kong in the wake of Beijing’s crackdown.

The party had tried to survive as a civic group in recent years but struggled to raise funds as multiple private venues canceled their events, often at the last minute.

Former Democratic Party lawmaker Emily Lau said the party’s move to disband was “very sad.”

“I don’t know what they are thinking in Beijing. We have demonstrated, not just words, but by action, that we are reasonable. We are willing to talk, to negotiate, to compromise, reach a deal and go forward.”

Canada is heading into federal elections, where Prime Minister Mark Carney is vying for a chance to continue leading the country, as tensions grow with its closest neighbor.

The former central banker’s main competition is Pierre Poilievre, Canada’s Conservative party leader whose political capital has declined as US-Canada relations nosedive amid threats from US President Donald Trump.

Canadians do not vote directly for prime minister – they vote for lawmakers representing political parties in their district or riding. The party with the largest number of lawmakers elected to parliament will form the government, and its leader will become prime minister.

While Carney’s Liberal Party and Poilievre’s Conservative Party are the frontrunners, other major political parties will also be on the ballot, including left-leaning New Democratic Party (NDP) led by Jagmeet Singh, the Green Party and the exclusively-Quebec-based Bloc Québécois.

Trade war and house prices

Poilievre was the favorite to win when former prime minister Justin Trudeau stepped down last month. But Trump’s steep tariffs on Canada, and threats to its sovereignty, dramatically transformed the race.

Trump’s decision to levy a 25% duty on Canadian steel and aluminum, cars and car parts, and threats to tariff pharmaceuticals and lumber have shaken Canadian businesses. It’s a reality Carney has not sugarcoated, warning of “tough days ahead” with pressure on Canadian employment.

“These tariffs are fundamentally damaging to the American economy and by extension to the global economy,” Carney told a press conference this month after Trump announced sweeping tariffs, which partially spared Canada but sent global markets into chaos.

Canadians are also grappling with the high cost of living, especially an affordable housing crisis – an issue likely to feel the sting of a trade war with the US.

The Ontario Home Builders’ Association warned last month that tariffs and counter-tariffs on steel and aluminum products would likely drive up the costs of construction materials, making building and buying new homes more expensive, worsening the housing affordability issue.

US and Canadian tariffs on automobiles, for example, will make cars more expensive on both sides of the border, says economist Randall Morck, a professor at the University of Alberta’s business school.

“Stock prices have gone down, so everybody is poorer,” he said, adding that this likely reflects investors’ estimates that recession and higher unemployment could be on the horizon.

Finance man versus the career politician

Carney, a political newcomer, has not ruled out continued talks with Trump, but he has been moving to deepen ties with more “reliable” allies. In an unusual move, his first prime ministerial trip abroad was to Europe where he spoke to French and British officials about deepening security, military and economic ties.

While a rookie politician, unlike his challenger, Carney’s decades in finance saw him steering governments through major global crises and periods of upheaval. As governor of the Bank of England, he helped the United Kingdom navigate Brexit – which he said mirrors what can happen to the US in the face of tariffs.

“I have seen this movie before. I know exactly what’s going to happen to them, the Americans are going to get weaker,” he said at a campaign event in Ontario this month.

Many Canadians see Carney as someone well-placed to navigate a trade war with a long-standing ally, experts say.

“In a crisis it’s important to come together and it’s essential to act with purpose and with force. And that’s what we will do,” Carney said earlier this month as he positioned himself as the person to take on the US president.

Tensions with the US have slowed the ascent of Poilievre, a career politician who served as a cabinet member in former Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government. Throughout his campaign he has aimed to appeal to working-class Canadians, painting himself as someone outside the “Ottawa elite” and casting himself as a family man.

Poilievre’s fiery rhetoric about slashing tax and bureaucracy, and his populist “Canada First” policy have won him supporters tired of Liberal rule. But Poilievre now appears to be distancing himself fro comparisons to US President Donald Trump; he has slammed Trump’s threats to make Canada the 51st US state, supported reciprocal tariffs and repeatedly declared he is “not MAGA.”

His decades of political experience and modest background – as the son of two schoolteachers – also set him apart from Trump, says Charles-Etienne Beaudry, political science professor at the University of Ottawa and author of “Radio Trump: How he won the first time.”

Experts say Carney’s lead over Poilievre has widened primarily because the ex-banker has been more vocal than his opponent about how exactly Canada will forge trade ties with other countries and organize retaliatory tariffs.

“I expect that [voters] are going to vote for the candidate that they think will minimize the cost of the trade war with the US,” says Morck, the economist, pointing to the level of anti-American sentiment and distrust among Canadians. “I haven’t seen anything like it since the Vietnam war.”

The United States and Iran are due to hold their second round of nuclear talks on Saturday, as what both sides are looking for in a deal begins to take shape.

Delegations from both countries met in Oman last weekend for talks mediated by the Gulf Arab nation. The next round is being held in Rome.

Since last weekend’s talks, which both parties described as “constructive,” remarks from various members of the Trump administration have flip-flopped, oscillating between maximalist demands that Iran has said were “red lines” and a more conciliatory approach the Islamic Republic may concede to.

This comes amid threats by President Donald Trump that the US will resort to military strikes against Iranian nuclear sites, with Israel’s help, should Tehran fail to reach a deal with its interlocutors.

Here’s what we know about the talks.

How the two sides got here

A nuclear deal was reached in 2015 between Iran and world powers, including the US. Under the deal, Iran had agreed to limit its nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of sanctions.

That agreement was, however, abandoned by Trump in 2018 during his first presidential term. Iran retaliated by resuming its nuclear activities and has so far advanced its program of uranium enrichment up to 60% purity, closer to the roughly 90% level that is weapons grade.

Iran insists its nuclear program is peaceful.

Days later, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said the Islamic Republic rejected direct negotiations with the US. He said however that Iran’s response, delivered by Oman, left open the possibility of indirect talks with Washington.

What does Trump want and what are the key issues?

Trump has said that the deal he seeks with Iran would not be similar to the 2015 agreement inked under the Obama administration.

“It’ll be different, and maybe a lot stronger,” he said.

Comments from Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, who represented the US last weekend, have suggested differently as of late.

Iran has in recent weeks been vocal with its concerns about striking a nuclear deal with Trump, who it says has a history of backtracking. The Islamic Republic has also voiced objections to any deal that fully dismantles its nuclear program, as opposed to only limiting its uranium enrichment to civilian-only use – as was stipulated under the 2015 agreement.

Formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the 2015 deal ensured through a number of mechanisms that Iran’s nuclear program would be exclusively peaceful.

But conflicting remarks from US officials before and after last Saturday’s meeting have muddied Washington’s demands.

Witkoff, who represented the US last weekend, said that moving forward, talks with Iran would be about verification of its nuclear program, but stopped short of mentioning a demand to fully dismantle Iran’s nuclear program, as other US officials have said in the past. In other words, indicating a deal that would be similar to the Obama-brokered agreement.

“The conversation with the Iranians will be much about two critical points,” Witkoff told Fox News on Monday. The first is verification of uranium enrichment, “and ultimately verification on weaponization, that includes missiles, type of missiles that they have stockpiled there, and it includes the trigger for a bomb.”

However, Witkoff later reversed his position in a statement on X in which he said any final deal with Iran would require it to “stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program.”

Other officials have been hawkish on what the US expects from Iran. On Sunday, a day after Witkoff started talks with Iranian negotiators in Oman, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth called on Tehran to fully dismantle its nuclear program.

“Iran, come to the table, negotiate, full dismantlement of your nuclear capabilities,” he said on Fox News.

Iranian officials have dismissed that proposal as a non-starter, accusing the US of using it as a pretext to weaken and ultimately topple the Islamic Republic. Tehran is entitled to a civilian nuclear energy program under a UN treaty.

The UN nuclear watchdog has however warned that Iran has been accelerating its enrichment of uranium up to alarming levels.

What is Iran saying?

Iran this week doubled down on its right to enrich uranium and accused the Trump administration of sending mixed signals.

“Iran’s enrichment (program) is a real and genuine matter, and we are ready to build trust regarding potential concerns, but the issue of enrichment is non-negotiable,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told reporters on Wednesday, state-run Press TV reported.

Foreign ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baqaei weighed in early Thursday on X, likening the shifting US position to “a professional foul and an unfair act in football.”

“In diplomacy any such shifting (pushed by hawks who fail to grasp the logic/art of commonsensical deal-making) could simply risk any overtures falling apart,” he wrote. “It could be perceived as lack of seriousness, let alone good faith. … We’re still in testing mode.”

Iranian media has reported that Tehran had set strict terms ahead of the talks with the US, saying that “red lines” include “threatening language” by the Trump administration and “excessive demands regarding Iran’s nuclear program.” The US must also refrain from raising issues relating to Iran’s defense industry, Iranian media said, likely referring to Iran’s ballistic missile program, which the US’ Middle Eastern allies see as a threat to their security.

Meanwhile, Iran’s highest leadership has approached the talks with extreme caution.

In his first comments on the issue since the Iranian and American negotiators met in Oman, Khamenei said Tuesday that Tehran is “neither overly optimistic nor overly pessimistic” about talks with the United States over its nuclear program.

Where does Israel stand?

Israel has been among the staunchest advocates for Iran to fully dismantle its nuclear weapon and never acquire a nuclear bomb.

On Thursday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office issued a statement defending his aggressive policy towards Iran, saying, “Israel will not allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons.”

Dermer was sitting beside Netanyahu in Washington last week when Trump suddenly announced the US-Iran talks would begin imminently. The surprise revelation of the start of negotiations appeared to startle Netanyahu, who has increasingly pushed for a military option against Iran.

Sitting beside Trump at the Oval Office earlier this month, Netanyahu touted a Libya-style nuclear deal between the US and Iran, which in 2003 dismantled the North African nation’s nuclear program in the hopes of ushering in a new era of relations with the US after its two-decade oil embargo on Moammar Gadhafi’s regime.

After relinquishing its nuclear program, Libya descended into civil war following a 2011 NATO-backed uprising that toppled Gadhafi’s regime and led to his killing. Iranian officials have long warned that a similar deal would be rejected from the outset.

Dermer and Mossad director David Barnea met Friday with Witkoff in Paris ahead of the second round of Iran talks.

Earlier this year, US intelligence agencies warned both the Biden and Trump administrations that Israel would likely attempt to strike facilities key to Iran’s nuclear program this year, according to sources familiar with the assessments.

However, The New York Times reported Wednesday that Trump had urged Israel not to strike Iran’s nuclear sites as soon as next month in order to let talks with Iran play out, which could impact planned engagements for Trump’s national security team in the coming days.

The Israeli Prime Minister’s Office did not deny the veracity of the article, instead asserting that Israel’s actions have delayed Iran’s nuclear program.

Responding to the New York Times’ report that he’d waved off Israeli strikes, Trump said on Thursday: “I wouldn’t say waved off,” but “I’m not in a rush to do it because I think that Iran has a chance to have a great country and to live happily without death.”

“I hope they (Iran) want to talk, it’s going to be very good for them if they do, and I’d like to see Iran thrive in the future, do fantastically well.”

Fatima Hassouna, a war documentarian who had covered the conflict in Gaza on the ground for 18 months, was killed along with seven members of her family in an Israeli strike this week.

“If I die, I want a resounding death, I do not want me in urgent news, nor in a number with a group,” Hassouna wrote in a post on Instagram in August 2024. “I want a death that the world hears, an effect that remains for the extent of the ages, and immortal images that neither time nor space buries,” added the photojournalist, who is the subject of a new documentary to be screened at the Cannes Film Festival next month.

The Palestinian Journalists’ Protection Center (PJPC) said it mourns the loss of Hassouna. It said that the strike that killed her targeted her family’s home on Al-Nafaq Street in Gaza City and also killed several of her family members. It described the attack as a “crime” against journalists and a violation of international law.

“Fatima’s powerful photos documenting life under siege were published globally, shedding light on the human toll of the war,” the center said.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said on Wednesday that the target was “a terrorist in Hamas’ Gaza City Brigade” and that steps were taken to mitigate the risk of harm to civilians. “The terrorist planned and executed terror attacks against IDF troops and Israeli civilians,” the IDF said in a statement without providing further details.

Hassouna posted her photos on Facebook and Instagram, where she had more than 35,000 followers. Her images documented the challenges of everyday life in Gaza and the threat of living under Israeli bombardment.

She was featured in Sepideh Farsi’s documentary film, Put Your Soul On Your Hand And Walk, which has been selected to be screened in the ACID section at the 78th Cannes Film Festival in May 2025. A director’s statement describes the film as “a window, opened through a miraculous encounter with Fatima” into the “ongoing massacre of the Palestinians.”

Following the news of Hassouna’s death, the Iranian film director on Friday shared a photo on social media featuring herself on camera with Hassouna, who was smiling. “My last image of her is a smile. I cling to it today,” Farsi wrote alongside the picture.

Farsi said the last time she contacted Hassouna was one day before her death to give her “the happy news” about the documentary. “We both discussed her traveling to France in May to present the documentary in Cannes with me, since she is the main protagonist,” Farsi said.

“I thought it was a mistake when I heard about her death,” Farsi added. “I hope this documentary will shed light on her life in Gaza and serve as a tribute to her memory.”

According to the PJPC, the number of journalists who have died in the Gaza Strip since October 7, 2023, has risen to 212, an unprecedented toll according to numerous journalist groups. The organization called on the international community to open an immediate investigation into the incident and hold those responsible to account.

Hassouna’s neighbor, Um Aed Ajur, described Hassouna as proud of the work she was doing. She questioned the strike on her house, saying she and her family “have no connection” to any group. “We have been neighbors for 35 years and have never heard that they are connected to any (group),” she added.

Hassouna’s final post on her Facebook page was a series of photos of Gaza fishermen by the sea last Saturday, less than a week before she was killed. She posted the pictures with a short poem.

“From here you get to know the city. You enter it, but you don’t leave, because you won’t leave, and you can’t,” she wrote.

Despite being dead for more than 300 years, this Indian ruler is still making waves in the nation’s politics.

Aurangzeb Alamgir has become so central to India’s fraught political moment, his memory is leading to sectarian violence across the country.

The sixth emperor of the famed Mughal dynasty, he is considered by many detractors to be a tyrant who brutalized women, razed Hindu temples, forced religious conversions and waged wars against Hindu and Sikh rulers.

And in a nation now almost entirely under the grip of Hindu nationalists, Aurangzeb’s “crimes” have been seized upon by right-wing politicians, turning him into the ultimate Muslim villain whose memory needs to be erased.

Sectarian clashes erupted in the western city of Nagpur last month, with hardline Hindu nationalists calling for the demolition of his tomb, which is about 400 kilometers away.

Seemingly spurred on by a recent Bollywood movie’s portrayal of Aurangzeb’s violent conquests against a revered Hindu king, the violence led to dozens of injuries and arrests, prompting Nagpur authorities to impose a curfew.

As tensions between the two communities continue to mount, many right-wing Hindus are using Aurangzeb’s name to highlight historical injustices against the country’s majority faith.

And they are causing fears among India’s 200 million Muslims.

‘Admiration and aversion’

The Mughals ruled during an era that saw conquest, domination and violent power struggles but also an explosion of art and culture as well as periods of deep religious syncretism – at least until Aurangzeb.

Founded by Babur in 1526, the empire at its height covered an area that stretched from modern-day Afghanistan in central Asia to Bangladesh in the east, coming to an end in 1857 when the British overthrew the final emperor, Bahadur Shah II.

Its most well-known leaders – Humayun, Akbar, Jahangir and Shah Jahan – famously promoted religious harmony and heavily influenced much of Indian culture, building iconic sites such as the Taj Mahal and Delhi’s Red Fort.

But among this more tolerant company, Aurangzeb is considered something of a dark horse – a religious zealot and complex character.

Aurangzeb “evoked a mixture of admiration and aversion right from the moment of his succession to the Mughal throne,” said Abhishek Kaicker, a historian of Persianate South Asia at UC Berkeley.

“He attracted a degree of revulsion because of the way in which he came to the throne by imprisoning his father and killing his brothers… At the same time, he drew admiration and loyalty for his personal unostentatiousness and piety, his unrivaled military power that led to the expansion of the Mughal realm, his political acumen, administrative efficiency, and reputation for justice and impartiality.”

Born in 1618 to Shah Jahan (of Taj Mahal fame) and his wife Mumtaz Mahal (for whom it was built), historians describe the young prince as a devout, solemn figure, who showed early signs of leadership.

He held several appointments from the age of 18, in all of which he established himself as a capable commander. The glory of the Mughal empire reached its zenith under his father, and Aurangzeb’s scrambled for control of what was then the richest throne in the world

So when Shah Jahan fell ill in 1657, the stage was set for a bitter war of succession between Aurangzeb and his three siblings in which he would eventually come face-to-face with his eldest brother, Dara Shikoh, a champion of a syncretic Hindu-Muslim culture.

Aurangzeb imprisoned his ailing father in 1658 and defeated his brother the year after, before forcibly parading him in chains on a filthy elephant on the streets of Delhi.

“The favorite and pampered son of the most magnificent of the Great Mughals was now clad in a travel-tainted dress of the coarsest cloth,” wrote Jadunath Sarkar in “A Short History of Aurangzib.”

“With a dark dingy-colored turban, such as only the poorest wear, on his head. No necklace or jewel adorning his person.”

Dara Shikoh was later murdered.

A sudden shift

By now, Aurangzeb’s authority had reached extraordinary heights, and under his leadership the Mughal empire reached its greatest geographical extent.

He commanded a degree of respect and for the first half of his reign, ruled with an iron fist, albeit with relative tolerance for the majority Hindu faith.

Until about 1679, there were no reports of temples being broken, nor any imposition of “jizya” or tax on non-Muslim subjects, according to Nadeem Rezavi, a professor of History at India’s Aligarh University. Aurangzeb behaved, “just like his forefathers,” Rezavi said, explaining how some Hindus even held high rank within his government.

In 1680 however, that all changed, as he embraced a form of religious intolerance that reverberates to this day.

The zealot ruler demoted his Hindu statesmen, turning friends into foes and launching a long and unpopular war in the Deccan, which included the violent suppression of the Marathas, a Hindu kingdom revered to this day by India’s right-wing politicians – including Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Members of Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have been quick to point out the cruelties inflicted on Hindus by Aurangzeb – forcing conversions, reinstating the jizya, and murdering non-Muslims.

He also waged war on the Sikhs, executing the religion’s ninth Guru Tegh Bahadur, an act makes Aurangzeb a figure of loathing among many Sikhs to this day.

This brutality was on display in the recently released film “Chhaava,” which depicts Aurangzeb as a barbaric Islamist who killed Sambhaji, the son of the most famous Maratha king, Chhatrapati Shivaji.

“Chhaava has ignited people’s anger against Aurangzeb,” said Devendra Fadnavis, the chief minister of Maharashtra, where Nagpur is located.

Muslims alleged members of the right-wing Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) burned a sheet bearing verses from their holy Quran.

Yajendra Thakur, a member of the VHP group, denied the allegations but restated his desire to have Aurangzeb’s tomb removed.

‘Neither praise nor blame’

Modi’s invocation of the man who led India before him is no surprise.

The prime minister, who wears his religion on his sleeve, has been a long-time member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a right-wing paramilitary organization that advocates the establishment of Hindu hegemony within India. It argues the country’s Hindus have been historically oppressed – first by the Mughals, then by the British colonizers who followed.

And many of them want every trace of this history gone.

The Maharashtra district where he is buried, once known as Aurangabad, was renamed after Shivaji’s son in 2023. The triumphs of his forefathers, the great king Akbar and Shah Jahan, have been written out of history textbooks, Rezavi said, or not taught in schools.

“They are trying to revert history and replace it with myth, something of their own imagination,” Rezavi said. “Aurangzeb is being used to demonize a community.”

Modi’s BJP denies using the Mughal emperor’s name to defame India’s Muslims. But his invocation of India’s former rulers is causing fear and anxiety among the religious minority today.

While historians agree that he was a dark, complex figure, and don’t contest his atrocities, Rezavi said it is necessary to recognize that he existed at a time when “India as a concept” didn’t exist.

“We are talking about a time when there was no constitution, there was no parliament, there was no democracy,” Rezavi said.

Kaicker seemingly agrees. Such historical figures “deserve neither praise nor blame,” he said.

“They have to be understood in the context of their own time, which is quite distant from our own.”

Back in Nagpur, demands for the tomb’s removal have gone unanswered, with some members of the Hindu far right even dismissing the calls for demolition.

Local Muslim resident Asif Qureshi said his hometown has never seen violence like that which unfolded last month, condemning the clashes that convulsed the historically peaceful city.

“This is a stain on our city’s history,” he said.