Throughout his second term, US President Donald Trump has trained his focus on a sprawling but sparsely populated island that stretches into the Arctic circle.

The United States needs that island – Greenland, a territory of US ally Denmark – “very badly,” Trump said in an NBC interview that aired on Sunday, echoing comments he’s made repeatedly in recent months.

“Greenland is a very small amount of people, which we’ll take care of, and we’ll cherish them, and all of that. But we need that for international security,” he said, while adding, when asked, that he would not “rule out” taking the island by force.

Trump’s justification? There were Russian and Chinese boats, “gun ships all over the place — aircraft carriers, gun ships — going up and down the coast of Greenland,” he said Sunday. “We need that to be protected.”

Vice President JD Vance laid a similar assessment during a visit to the US’ singular military installation on the island, the Pituffik Space Base, in March.

The base, which lies some 750 miles north of the Arctic Circle, was not well protected from “aggressive incursions” from Russia and China, Vance told troops during an address at that time.

“Denmark has not kept pace in devoting the resources necessary to keep this base, to keep our troops, and, in my view, to keep the people of Greenland safe from a lot of very aggressive incursions from Russia, from China and from other nations,” Vance said – a claim Denmark disputes.

The Trump administration’s interest in Greenland appears to be part of what Washington sees as a broader competition for power in the Arctic, where Russia is a dominant force and China aspires to expand its footprint and capabilities.

But, when it comes to Greenland, experts are puzzled by the administration’s characterization.

Chinese firms, like others, have mounted efforts to develop expensive and geologically challenging mining projects on the resource-rich island. They’ve also bid on constructing airfields there – initiatives observers see as linked to Beijing’s broader aims to enhance its role in the Arctic and gain control of critical minerals.

But those projects have all fizzled, experts say, either due to business reasons or as governments in both Greenland’s capital Nuuk and US NATO partner Copenhagen rebuffed them, at times reportedly under pressure from Washington.

That’s left “almost no Chinese footprint in Greenland,” outside a limited presence in the fishing industry, according to Andreas Østhagen, a senior researcher at the Fridtjof Nansen Institute in Norway, who added: “There is no evidence of any ‘aggressive incursions’ by any actor in Greenland, at least not publicly available.”

And while experts say that there is Russian military activity across regional northern seas and China has scaled up naval activities off Alaska in recent years, in addition to its research and commercial operations in the broader Arctic, there’s been no publicly known signs of Chinese military vessels operating in the waters around Greenland.

Unless the administration provides more details, “I assume that Trump and his advisors are conflating various trends taking place in ‘the Arctic,’ but which in fact take place in specific (other) parts” in and around the Arctic, said Østhagen.

‘Why wouldn’t they be interested in Greenland?’

When a reporter asked JD Vance earlier this year if he had been briefed on specific threats from China and Russia on Greenland and if these were military in nature, Vance said he didn’t “want to get too specific.”

“But we know the Chinese are very, very interested in this island. We have seen some of the economic pressures they have tried to place on Greenland. We know that they are increasingly engaging in military training and military interests certainly. They have started to describe themselves as a ‘near Arctic power’ – part of that is justifying taking a firm interest in Greenland and some of the surrounding territories,” he said, in reference to the “near Arctic state” term that China has used for more than a decade.

“We have seen very strong evidence that both the Chinese and the Russians are interested in Greenland. Why wouldn’t they be interested in Greenland?” he added.

When asked to comment on Trump administration statements, Beijing has said “relations between countries should be handled in accordance with the purposes and principles of the UN.” It’s also defended its adherence to “basic principles of respect, cooperation, win-win result and sustainability in engaging in Arctic affairs.”

Close observers agree that China has looked to ramp up ties and investment in the island since the early 2000s – and has many reasons to be interested.

Greenland is rich in minerals important to the fabrication of military and high-tech goods, and, as Arctic ice melts, sea lanes alongside it are expected to become more important for global shipping.

The island and its adjacent waterways are also strategically important to the US – and its rivals. Washington’s military base plays a critical role detecting missile threats and conducting space surveillance.

Russia, a dominant military force in the Arctic with an expansive Arctic Ocean coastline, is seen by observers and US intelligence as interested in nearby naval routes, which form a key strategic chokepoint stretching from Greenland toward the United Kingdom.

When it comes to China, “I’ve yet to see any coast guard vessels, any naval vessels, let alone aircraft carriers” in waters near Greenland, said Collin Koh, a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore, noting that Chinese aircraft carriers are “confined to the Pacific Ocean.”

Chinese researchers have written about the island’s potential importance for its own critical mineral supply chains – as well as its strategic significance as an entry point for China to influence Arctic affairs and actualize its “polar silk road” – a vision to extend leader Xi Jinping’s Belt and Road global infrastructure building drive across the top of the world.

Last year, Beijing dispatched its special representative on European Affairs to Greenland for talks on economic cooperation, while Nuuk in 2021 opened a representation office in Beijing – one of only five globally – and sent delegations to the Chinese capital in the past.

But efforts from Chinese firms to gain a physical foothold in Greenland or access its raw materials have been ill-fated.

Chinese companies did become involved in four major mining projects in Greenland, all initiated between 2009 and 2015, but those have either dissolved or stalled, according to experts and research from the Danish Institute for International Studies.

The most well-known of those projects, at a mine in coastal Kvanefjeld, would have allowed a Chinese-funded Australian venture to operate what the company described as a project with the potential to become “the most significant western world producer of critical rare earths.”

The project, however, was blocked in 2021 when the government restricted mining deposits with certain uranium concentrations, citing environmental concerns. The company has launched an arbitration case and expressed hope that a new government elected earlier this year could look more favorably on the project.

But currently, “China has no footprint at all in Greenland mining,” according to Marc Lanteigne, a professor at the University of Tromsø: The Arctic University of Norway, who described China’s footprint on Greenland is “almost negligible” besides “very limited cooperation in seafood trade.”

Lanteigne also noted how the Danish government, under pressure from the United States, stepped in to finance airport refurbishment projects after a Chinese firm was shortlisted as a potential contractor, with the firm withdrawing its bid.

The Danish government in 2016 also blocked a Hong Kong firm’s bid to purchase an abandoned naval facility. Plans in 2017 from the Chinese Academic of Sciences to build a research station also didn’t get government approval, according to researchers.

Denmark has been “quite diligent” in looking to ensure that Greenland’s economic sovereignty is not “transferred to any degree to China,” said Lanteigne. “There has been a great deal of Danish-American cooperation … to monitor Greenland to make sure that there are no overt security threats.”

Meanwhile, a 1951 agreement allows the US to establish American military bases on the island.

‘The real threat’?

That raises the question of why Washington says it needs to take control of Greenland – an expansionist rhetoric that has echoes of the president’s earlier calls to take control of the Panama Canal, over false claims that China “operates” the key waterway.

Greenland has appeared keen to work with US firms on mining projects and the US’ ability to operate its military on the island would be unlikely to change even if Greenland became independent in the future, observers say.

“The reality is that Greenland, as an autonomous territory in the Kingdom of Denmark, has managed its relations to the great powers on its own accord,” said Ties Dams, a research fellow at the Clingendael Institute think tank in the Netherlands.

“If Vance’s comments are indeed a prologue to a military incursion by the US, then the US is the real threat to Greenland’s cherished and longstanding autonomy,” he added.

In response to earlier comments from Trump, Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen firmly stated that the US “won’t get” Greenland as Trump has previously suggested.

Denmark’s Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen has also said Denmark was “open to criticism” by the US but had already “stepped up” investment in Arctic security and remained open to enhanced cooperation with the United States.

The US, meanwhile, some two weeks after Vance’s visit, announced it had removed Pituffik Space Base commander Col. Susannah Meyers. Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said that “actions to undermine the chain of command or to subvert President Trump’s agenda will not be tolerated at the Department of Defense,” in a post on X that linked to a Military.com article, an independent outlet, that said Meyers had sent an email to base staff distancing herself from Vance’s visit.

The Trump administration’s focus on Greenland – and China’s in recent years – come amid increasing focus on the Arctic as an arena for rivalry between the world’s great powers.

China announced its Arctic strategy in a 2018 white paper, where it declared itself “an active participant, builder and contributor in Arctic affairs.”

The document also laid out its aims to explore, conduct research and combat climate change in the Arctic – as well as its ambitions to develop shipping routes and become more involved in fishing and resource extraction, while building its polar silk road.

Today, China has built out its ice breaker fleet, operates research stations in Norway and Iceland, and has partnered with international scientists on a range of projects, in additional to some commercial activities in the non-Russian Arctic.

But growing suspicion in Europe about Beijing’s ambitions in the region – and what experts say is the likely dual military use of its scientific data and research missions – have led to similar instances of cancelled or rejected projects elsewhere in Europe.

“China is in a position now where pretty much its only entry ticket to the Arctic is through Russia,” said Lanteigne from the University of Tromsø.

China has been an important investor in Russian energy extraction and emerged as a dominant presence on increasingly viable shipping lanes along Russia’s Arctic coastline, though at least some of those operations have been affected by Chinese firms not wanting to run afoul of international sanctions on Russia for its war in Ukraine.

Meanwhile, there are other areas of the Arctic where Russia genuinely has been making “somewhat aggressive incursions,” according to Østhagen of the Fridtjof Nansen Institute. That’s particularly in “the European Arctic, where Norway and Finland must manage an increasingly belligerent Russian neighbor,” he said. “But there’s not more Russian activity off the coast of Greenland than elsewhere – in fact, there’s less.”

And China has “scaled up its naval – and eventually also airborne – activity off Alaska in recent years,” he added.

Last year, Russian and Chinese jets were spotted for the first time conducting a joint patrol near Alaska. Months later, Chinese and Russia coastguards also had a first joint patrol in Arctic waters, according to Chinese state media. The two countries have also conducted joint exercises in the Baltic Sea in Europe and the Bering Strait between Russia and Alaska in past years.

But observers say Russia is likely to remain wary of a Chinese security presence in its Arctic region, and Beijing is likely to continue to focus on looking for ways to engage economically, scientifically and diplomatically in the broader region.

That’s especially as Beijing expects the US to try “to push China off that area of the map,” according to Dams of the Clingendael Institute.

China “will resist absolutely, trusting the US strategy of clinging to supremacy will fail on its own accord, if only given time,” he said.

When the cardinals enter the Sistine Chapel on Wednesday at the start of conclave, the process of electing a new pope, they will be sealed off from the world.

But that doesn’t stop people trying to influence the thinking of the 133 prelates who will choose a successor to the late Pope Francis. The electors are allowed to take in written materials and, in the days leading up to the conclave, have been offered a book on their fellow cardinals – one which contains a clear message.

Titled “The College of Cardinals Report,” it offers profiles on around 40 papal candidates, including a breakdown on where they stand on topics such as same-sex blessings, ordaining female deacons and the church’s teaching on contraception. The subtext: Choose a pope who will take the church in a different direction to Pope Francis – whose progressive reforms angered some conservatives.

The project has been led by two Catholic journalists, Edward Pentin, who is from Britain, and Diane Montagna, from the United States – both of whose work appears on traditionalist and conservative Catholic news sites. Montagna has been handing the book to cardinals entering and leaving the pre-conclave meetings, Reuters reported.

The creators of the report say they produced the resource to help cardinals get to “know one another better” and that it was compiled by an “international and independent team of Catholic journalists and researchers.” It comes ahead of a conclave where the cardinals – a diverse group drawn from 71 countries, many of them appointed by Francis over the last decade – don’t know each other well and have been wearing name badges during their meetings.

The report was compiled in association with Sophia Institute Press, a traditionalist-leaning publishing house based in New Hampshire, and Cardinalis, a magazine based in Versailles, France. Sophia Institute Press publishes the radically anti-Francis “Crisis Magazine” and in 2019 published the book “Infiltration,” which claims that in the 19th century, a group of “Modernists and Marxists” hatched a plan to “subvert the Catholic Church from within.” Meanwhile, Cardinalis regularly features articles on prominent conservative cardinals.

The College of Cardinals Report website attempts to ward off accusations of bias, saying, “Our approach is fact-based and we strive to be impartial, offering as accurate a picture as possible of the sort of man who might one day fill the shoes of the Fisherman”– a reference to the first pope, St. Peter.

Its authors also say there is historical precedent for their initiative, pointing to times when “diplomats and other trusted scribes would compile more in-depth and reliable biographies of the cardinals and distribute them to interested parties.”

In his rules on the election of popes, John Paul II prohibited, on pain of excommunication, “all possible forms of interference, opposition” from political authorities, including “any individual or group” who “might attempt to exercise influence on the election of the Pope.” The idea behind the secrecy of the conclave is to prevent outside influence. In the past, European monarchs held a power of veto in a papal election, with the last one exercised in 1903.

But the 2025 conclave has been subject to various kinds of attempts to influence it. Clerical sexual abuse survivors have set up a database to vet cardinals’ records on handling the issue, while social media has been full of controversial content – from AI-generated videos of cardinals partying in the Sistine Chapel to US President Donald Trump releasing an artificially created image of himself as the pope.

Well-funded conservative Catholic groups are among the would-be influencers. Sophia Institute Press publishes books in partnership with The Eternal Word Network (EWTN), the largest religious broadcaster in the world and one which has often given a platform to Francis’ critics.

The Napa Institute, a conservative Catholic group, has been present in Rome in the run-up to the conclave, as has the Papal Foundation, a group of Catholic philanthropists. “This room could raise a billion to help the church. So long as we have the right pope,” an anonymous Papal Foundation backer told the Times of London.

Some members of these groups are also supporters of Trump. Tim Busch, a Californian lawyer and the co-founder of Napa, has described the Trump administration as the “most Christian he’s ever seen.” While Busch has rejected the claim he is “anti-Francis,” he said that the ultra-conservative Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò had “done us a great service” when he released a 2018 dossier calling on the late pope to resign. Viganò was last year excommunicated for schism.

Kurt Martens, a professor of canon law from the Catholic University of America, said church legislation seeks to “protect the cardinals against all kinds of outside influencing and interference.” He pointed to the “Red Hat Report,” a US group that back in 2018 was seeking more than $1 million to compile dossiers on candidates in an attempt to prevent a repeat of the conclave that elected Francis.

Martens said initiatives such as the cardinals’ report and the Red Hat Report “intend to not just give objective information, but colored information, and thereby seeks to influence the outcome of the conclave.” He added: “Per the rules of St. John Paul II, that is absolutely forbidden.”

Nearly 600 million people in sub-Saharan Africa live without access to electricity, creating huge barriers to development. Not only does it stifle industrial growth and agricultural efficiency, but it also has implications on health and education: students often have little lighting by which to study, vaccinations cannot be refrigerated, and a lack of access to clean cooking technologies has led to severe household air pollution – causing 700,000 premature deaths a year.

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), energy investment in Africa has fallen in recent years, although recent programs such as Mission 300, launched by the World Bank and African Development Bank, aim to unlock investment and provide power to 300 million people in the next six years.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Eleni Giokos: When we talk about 600 million people on the continent having some kind of energy insecurity or no access to electricity, what does that mean in terms of investment required to bridge that gap?

Fatih Birol: Africa is a continent of contrasts when it comes to energy. Africa has a lot of energy sources: oil, gas, solar, wind, geothermal energy, hydropower, all of them. But at the same time, Africa is very poor when it comes to use of energy. Every second (person) in Africa (has) no access to electricity, and at the same time, four out of five families use open fire to prepare their meals. Lack of energy hinders Africa’s development, (it is) maybe (the) number one problem when it comes to Africa’s economy.

What do we need? In Africa, we need these huge energy sources to meet with investment, with money to make projects, to bring energy to the people and to the economy. So, this is the key issue today in Africa.

Let’s look at the energy supply mix right now on the African continent. According to IEA statistics, coal accounts for 13%, oil 26%, gas 18%, biofuels 40%. Renewables are a small portion. Where is the money meant to come from to really tap into this abundant resource?

Today in Africa, the energy sector receives about $100 billion of investments. If we want to see an Africa which is providing energy – clean energy – to its citizens, we need to see at least three times higher, about $300 billion investment. This needs to come from the countries themselves, and Africa has such huge potential, that with right investment policies, it shouldn’t be difficult to attract foreign investments. The problem is foreign investors think Africa is a risky investment climate. The governments’ job is to minimize those risks, minimize the bureaucracy, increase transparency … rather than providing uncertainties for the investors. Investors should know that if (they) invest in African energy, they will get a decent return, and this is guaranteed. This is the way that governments need to prepare the investment framework for the investors.

When I look at the overall global carbon emissions from the continent related to energy emissions, Africa accounts for only 3% of what we see globally. The continent has an amazing opportunity, firstly, to industrialize, but doing it in a different way to the rest of the world. What strategy do you think that should be adopted?

Africa’s sins in terms of climate change are almost negligible. Africa’s share (of the world’s energy-related carbon dioxide emissions) is less than 3%, but the worst effects of climate change are felt in Africa. When we look at the future of African energy, especially for electrification, I see that renewables will play a very important role: solar, wind, hydropower and others. But it is not only electrification you need for the industrialization of the (continent), you also need other energy sources. For example, I believe Africa should make use of natural gas in a responsible way – it has huge natural gas resources. Africa should use its solar, wind, hydropower, natural gas, maybe nuclear (power) in some countries, all its energy sources, to develop. It is Africa’s time to develop now, and Africa needs a lot of energy – and Africa needs to get this energy in a clean, secure and affordable way.

The African Continental Free Trade Area, the ambition to create the largest trading block in the world, how is that going to change the game, in terms of African countries collaborating?

The idea is very good. If we can find (a way) to foster trade among African countries, it can increase the cost effectiveness of many projects and reduce the tax issues. It can provide a boost to the investment needs in Africa, if it is rightly implemented.

What countries are you hopeful about, where are you seeing major progress?

I wouldn’t like to pick one country, but I see that (across) Africa, governments are now understanding more and more that without fixing the energy problem, they cannot make their citizens happy or wealthy. If there is no energy, there is no stability. If there is no energy, there is no economic development. And Africa needs to solve this problem. Some governments are making very good steps in sub-Saharan Africa, but some others are lagging, unfortunately.

India said early Wednesday it had launched a military operation against Pakistan, hitting “terrorist infrastructure” in both Pakistan and Pakistan administered-Kashmir, in a major escalation of tensions between the two neighbors.

“These steps come in the wake of the barbaric Pahalgam terrorist attack in which 25 Indians and one Nepali citizen were murdered,” India’s Ministry of Defense said in a statement, referring to an attack last month tourists in India-administered Kashmir.

“Our actions have been focused, measured and non-escalatory in nature. No Pakistani military facilities have been targeted. India has demonstrated considerable restraint in selection of targets and method of execution,” the statement added.

India said nine sites in total were targeted.

Pakistan’s military said three locations had been struck with missiles.

“Pakistan will respond to it at a time and place of its own choosing,” Pakistani military spokesperson Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry told Geo TV. “This heinous provocation will not go unanswered.”

This is a developing story and will be updated.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu kept up appearances for nearly 19 months: Freeing the hostages and defeating Hamas, he insisted, stood equally atop the pyramid of Israel’s war goals.

Even as members of his right-wing governing coalition threatened to topple his government if he agreed to a ceasefire and hostage release deal. Even as he himself threw up eleventh-hour obstacles to reaching such a deal. And even as evidence mounted that Israel’s military operations had both directly and indirectly led to the killing of Israeli hostages. Amid all those contradictions, Netanyahu insisted both objectives were just as important.

But not anymore. Now, Netanyahu is unabashedly prioritizing war – and the survival of his government – over the fate of 59 hostages still in Gaza and the will of most Israelis.

A week after calling the defeat of Israel’s enemies the “supreme objective” of the war, Netanyahu is turning that rhetoric into action: calling up tens of thousands of reservists to pummel, seize and occupy large swaths of Gaza – what the prime minister calls the “final moves” against Hamas.

Israeli officials say the plan won’t be implemented immediately, giving Hamas at least another week-and-a-half to agree to another limited hostage and ceasefire deal on Israel’s terms – with some insisting that is the government’s preference. The deadline, they say, is the conclusion of US President Donald Trump’s visit to the region next week. But such a deal is unlikely to materialize in that timeframe and these are no longer idle threats.

The right-wing ministers who have sabotaged previous ceasefire deals and long called for conquering Gaza are now celebrating, viewing the newly approved plans as the first step toward their vision of occupying and ultimately annexing the enclave. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich now vows that there will be “no retreat from the territories we have conquered, not even in exchange for the hostages.”

For Netanyahu, that means political security – taking Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir’s repeated threats to leave the government and force new elections off the table, keeping him in the prime minister’s office.

It also means going against the will of a clear majority of Israelis – 56% according to Israel’s Kan 11 and 69% according to Channel 12 – who support a deal to end the war in exchange for the release of all remaining hostages.

Hamas has repeatedly said it is open to such an all-in-one deal, hoping to salvage its position of power in Gaza, but the Israeli government has rejected any end to the war that leaves the group armed and governing the strip.

For the families of Israeli hostages, Netanyahu’s decision has been a gut punch, one they fear won’t just delay the return of their loved ones but actively endanger them.

“It seems the government has placed defeating Hamas above rescuing and returning the hostages, because doing so would require stopping the war,” Anat Angrest, the mother of captive Israeli soldier Matan Angrest, told Haaretz. “Ministers are sending soldiers into harm’s way and putting the hostages at further risk, when all that was needed was a pause to develop a real strategic plan. What’s happening now is a war fueled by revenge and conquest, not by a genuine desire to save lives.”

“It doesn’t reflect the will of the people, or the Jewish heart,” she said.

The expanded Israeli assault in Gaza won’t just bring the risk to the hostages of more Israeli bombs. Hamas has repeatedly said it will execute hostages if Israeli forces close in on their positions, a threat it carried out last August in murdering six of them. Israel’s plan to displace nearly all of Gaza’s population to its southern part while continuing to starve the rest of the strip of humanitarian aid could also endanger the hostages’ access to the already limited food they are given.

For the people of Gaza, Netanyahu’s decision threatens catastrophe beyond the dire humanitarian crisis already gripping the besieged territory. The expanded Israeli assault guarantees another mass forced displacement of Palestinians, more death and destruction and the continued use of starvation as a weapon of war.

Even as Netanyahu’s decision to prioritize destroying Hamas over the fate of the remaining hostages becomes clear, the Israeli military’s ability to achieve its aims vis-à-vis the group remain uncertain.

The factors that have allowed Hamas to survive and stay in power in Gaza after nearly 19 months of war still remain, and Israeli national security analysts remain skeptical that tens of thousands of additional troops will fundamentally change the dynamics of the conflict. Sending them with the goal of occupying large swaths of Gaza could drive up Israeli military casualties, with the risk of bogging the military down for years in a counterinsurgency morass.

Perhaps that is why Netanyahu did not barrel headfirst down the path he has now chosen.

Trump’s return to power allowed Netanyahu to shed the guardrails imposed on him by President Joe Biden during the first 15 months of the war. But even as Trump and his administration made clear they would not seek to constrain Israel’s military actions in Gaza, Netanyahu did not immediately pursue the expanded war his right-wing allies have been clamoring for.

But in a fulcrum moment, he has now chosen – a decision that will shake the Gaza Strip, forever altering the fate of more than 2 million Palestinians and 59 hostages.

Israel’s military has issued an unprecedented evacuation warning for Yemen’s international airport in Sana’a.

It marks the first time the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has put out an evacuation warning in Yemen, more than 1,000 miles from Israel.

“Failure to evacuate the area endangers your lives,” Avichay Adraee, the IDF spokesperson in Arabic, said on social media.

The warning comes a day after the Israeli military carried out a series of strikes against the port in Yemen’s Hodeidah and a nearby cement factory. The Houthi-run Ministry of Health said at least one person had been killed and another 35 injured in an Israeli strike on the factory in Bajil, east of Hodeidah.

The IDF strikes came after a Houthi ballistic missile penetrated Israel’s air defenses and hit near Tel Aviv’s international airport on Sunday. Several attempts to intercept the missile failed, the IDF said.

Israel struck Sana’a international airport in December, killing at least three people and injuring 30 others, according to the Houthi-run al-Masirah satellite television network.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

At least 22 people, including seven children, were killed Tuesday in an Israeli strike on a school compound sheltering thousands of displaced people in the Al Bureij camp in central Gaza, hospital officials said.

Dozens more were injured in the strike, they said.

At the site of the attack, video from the scene showed a large crater where people searched through the rubble of the school for survivors, the remnants of tents and belongings littering the ground.

Safaa Al Khaldi, who was sheltering at the school, said that her son was injured in the strike.

“Our children are starving, our children cannot find a piece of bread,” she said, referring to Israel’s complete blockade of Gaza, now in its third month. “What did we do wrong?”

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said it struck “terrorists who were operating within a Hamas command and control center,” on Tuesday, but did not provide any further information about the strike.

At the school compound, one woman screamed at Hamas, an expression of anger at Gaza’s ruling militants once virtually unthinkable. “Hamas should get out of the school, they are hiding between the people,” she cried. “Get them out, what’s the fault of the children who are torn apart?”

Tuesday’s strike on the refugee camp comes less than 24 hours after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the population of Gaza will be displaced to the south after his security cabinet approved an expanded military operation in the enclave.

“There will be a movement of the population to protect them,” Netanyahu said of the “intensified operation,” which by one far-right minister said would be a plan to “conquer” the besieged territory.

Since the Israeli cabinet approved an expanded military operation in Gaza on Sunday, at least 48 Palestinians have been killed and another 142 injured, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health. More than 2,500 Palestinians have been killed since Israel resumed its bombardment of Gaza on March 18, according to figures provided by the ministry.

On Monday, the Palestine Red Crescent Society said 13 of its 29 clinics in Gaza have shut down. The ones that are still functioning have “limited capabilities,” it said. Meanwhile, 21 out of Gaza’s 36 hospitals are only partially functioning, according to the UN health agency.

Israel’s blockade, which has prevented the entry of food and medicine, is pushing the Gaza’s ravaged healthcare system towards collapse, aid agencies have warned.

Near the site of the latest Israeli strike, a woman hugged her crying daughter, saying that all her daughter’s friends were killed.

“My friend Leen is gone, my friend Yousra is gone, my friend Miral is gone,” the daughter said as tears streamed down her face.

The UN’s humanitarian agency (OCHA) warned Tuesday of a “deepening catastrophe” in Gaza amid the blockade.

“OCHA stresses that under international humanitarian law, civilians must be protected, and their essential needs – including food, shelter, water and healthcare – must be met, wherever they are in Gaza and whether they move or stay,” OCHA said.

India launched military strikes on Pakistan on Wednesday and Pakistan claimed it shot down five Indian Air Force jets, in an escalation that has pushed the two nations to the brink of war.

The escalation puts India and Pakistan, two neighbors with a long history of conflict, in dangerous territory, with Islamabad vowing to retaliate against India’s strikes and the international community calling for restraint.

New Delhi said the strikes are in response to the massacre of 26 people – mostly Indian tourists – who died in April when gunmen stormed a scenic mountain spot in the India-administered part of Kashmir, a disputed border region. India has blamed Pakistan for the attack, which Islamabad denies.

Here’s what we know so far.

What happened with India’s strikes?

India launched “Operation Sindoor” in the early hours of Wednesday morning local time (Tuesday night ET) in both Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

Indian officials said nine sites were targeted, but claimed no Pakistani civilian, economic or military sites were struck. They said the 25-minute operation targeted “terrorist infrastructure” belonging to two militant groups – Lashkar-e-Tayyiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed.

The name ‘Sindoor’ appears to be a reference to the red vermilion, or powder, many Hindu women wear on their foreheads after marriage. The April tourist massacre – which singled out men as victims – left several Indian women widowed.

A Pakistani military spokesperson said six locations were hit with 24 strikes. Some of those strikes hit the densely populated province of Punjab, Pakistan’s military said, and were the deepest India has struck inside Pakistan since 1971, when the two countries fought one of their four wars.

How did Pakistan respond?

Pakistani security sources claimed they had shot down five Indian Air Force jets and one drone during India’s attack.

They did not say exactly where, or how, the jets were downed – but said three Rafale jets were among those planes. India’s Rafale fighter jets are prized military assets that it bought from France only a few years ago.

An eyewitness and local government official said an unidentified aircraft crashed in the village of Wuyan in Indian-administered Kashmir. Photos published by the AFP news agency showed aircraft wreckage lying in a field next to a red-brick building.

It was not immediately clear from the photos who the aircraft belonged to.

Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said on Wednesday the country “has every right” to respond, calling India’s actions an “act of war.”

How many casualties are there?

At least 26 civilians were killed and 46 injured by India’s strikes, a Pakistan military spokesperson said, according to the news agency Reuters.

Lt. Gen. Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry, a spokesperson for Pakistan’s military, said those killed include teenagers and children – the youngest of whom was three years old.

Seven civilians in Indian-administered Kashmir were also killed by shelling by Pakistani troops from across the border, Reuters reported, citing police there.

What else is happening on the ground?

On Wednesday, the two sides also exchanged shelling and gunfire across the Line of Control (LOC), the de facto border that divides Kashmir.

Authorities in Indian-administered Kashmir have ordered citizens to evacuate from areas deemed dangerous, saying accommodation, food and medicine will be provided.

The strikes have disrupted flights, with Pakistan closing parts of its airspace. Multiple major international airlines are avoiding flying over Pakistan, while several Indian airlines have reported disrupted flights and closed airports in the country’s north.

Some context: There have been regular exchanges of gunfire along the Line of Control in the weeks following the Pahalgam massacre.

What prompted all of this? What is Kashmir?

Muslim-majority Kashmir has been a flashpoint in India-Pakistan relations since both countries gained their independence from Britain in 1947.

The two nations to emerge from the bloody partition of British India – Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan – both claim Kashmir in full and, months after becoming independent, fought their first of three wars over the territory.

The divided region is now one of the most militarized places in the world.

India has long accused Pakistan of harboring militant groups there that conduct attacks across the border, something Islamabad has long denied.

The massacre in the tourist hotspot of Pahalgam in April sparked widespread anger in India, putting heavy pressure on the Hindu-nationalist government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

India immediately blamed Islamabad, sparking tit-for-tat retaliatory measures in which both countries downgraded ties, canceled visas for each other’s citizens, and saw India pull out of a key water-sharing treaty.

What could come next?

The three previous wars over Kashmir have each been bloody; the last one in 1999 killed more than a thousand Pakistani troops, by the most conservative estimates.

In the decades since, militant groups have fought Indian security forces, with violence killing tens of thousands. The two countries have clashed multiple times, most recently in 2019 when India conducted airstrikes in Pakistan after it blamed Islamabad for a suicide car bomb attack in the region.

But those recent clashes did not explode into all-out war. Both sides are aware of the risks; since 1999, the two countries have worked to strengthen their militaries, including arming themselves with nuclear weapons.

How is the world reacting?

The strikes have raised global alarm and pleas for the two nations to prevent further escalation.

United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres voiced “deep concern” over India’s strikes, warning that the world “cannot afford a military confrontation” between the two nations.

The United States – which had urged restraint from both countries last week – said it was “closely monitoring developments,” according to a State Department spokesperson.

“We are aware of the reports, however we have no assessment to offer at this time,” the spokesperson said Tuesday. “This remains an evolving situation, and we are closely monitoring developments.”

The United Arab Emirates, China and Japan have also called for both sides to de-escalate.