A rebel alliance claimed the capture of the biggest city in the Democratic Republic of Congo’s mineral-rich eastern region this week, pushing back against resistance from government troops backed by regional and UN intervention forces.

The takeover of Goma is yet another territorial gain for the Alliance Fleuve Congo (AFC) rebel coalition, which includes the M23 armed group – sanctioned by the United States and the United Nations.

It is also a swift expansion of the alliance’s foothold across swathes of eastern DR Congo – where rare minerals crucial to the production of phones and computers are mined – and is likely to worsen a long-running humanitarian crisis in the region.

More than a dozen foreign peacekeepers, as well as the military governor of North Kivu province, have been killed in recent days trying to fend off the rebels, as thousands of locals flee their advance into Goma.

What are the latest developments?

South Africa’s military confirmed Tuesday that four more South African soldiers deployed in DR Congo as part of the UN peacekeeping mission there had died, only days after nine were killed in the fighting.

Meanwhile, aid agencies said that hospitals were overwhelmed as hundreds of people caught in the crossfire in Goma sought treatment for injuries, among them seriously wounded children.

There were “many dead bodies” in the city’s streets, said Jens Laerke, a spokesperson for the UN humanitarian office. Fighters had reportedly raped civilians, and property had also been looted, he said. Among those killed was a famed Congolese boxer, Balezi Bagunda, according to Matthew Leutwyler, the founder of the non-profit We Are Limitless, who had been working with him to evacuate local children the organization works with.

Reports emerged Monday of Congolese troops exchanging fire with Rwandan soldiers along their shared border as fear of a blown-out war grows.

In a statement Monday, the Uruguayan army, whose troops are part of the UN peacekeeping mission in Goma, said “hundreds” of Congolese soldiers had laid down their weapons following a 48-hour ultimatum by M23.

Rwandan national broadcaster also shared footage of Congolese soldiers surrendering their arms to Rwandan forces at a Rwandan border post after fleeing Goma.

How did the conflict escalate?

DR Congo has experienced decades of militia violence, including armed rebellion by M23, which claims to defend the interest of the minority Rwandophone communities, including the Tutsi.

Since 2022, M23 has waged a renewed rebellion against the Congolese government, occupying a large expanse in North Kivu, which borders Rwanda and Uganda.

For several months, the rebels have also controlled Rubaya, a mining town in North Kivu that harbors one of the world’s largest coltan deposits. This valuable mineral is used in the production of mobile phones.

Bintou Keita, who heads the UN mission in DR Congo, told the Security Council in a September briefing that “competition over exploitation and trade of natural resources” had escalated conflict between armed groups in the country’s east.

According to Keita, coltan trade from the M23-controlled Rubaya mining site is estimated to “supply over 15 percent of global tantalum production”, and “generates an estimated $300,000 in revenue per month to the armed group.”

M23 denied these claims, insisting its presence in the Rubaya area was “solely humanitarian.”

A report by the UN Group of Experts on the Democratic Republic of Congo, released in December, revealed that “at least 150 tons of coltan were fraudulently exported to Rwanda and mixed with Rwandan production.”

Since April last year, the report said, M23, “with RDF (Rwanda Defence Force) support, has made significant territorial gains and strengthened control over occupied areas,” adding that such a pattern suggested “that the true objective of M23 remained territorial expansion and the long-term occupation and exploitation of conquered territories.”

The report added that the RDF’s military interventions “were critical to the impressive territorial expansion achieved” by M23.

Why is Goma important?

Goma is home to around two million people and is the largest city in North Kivu. M23’s incursion on Monday was the second time the group had moved to capture the provincial capital after it briefly took control in 2012.

“We do not want to capture Goma but to liberate it,” he said. “The population is in distress; we must save it as quickly as possible.”

“Goma is a strategic and highly symbolic city with an international airport, as well as proximity to Rwanda and Lake Kivu, opening the easy path with South Kivu,” he said.

But, most importantly, Saleh said, Goma’s fall to M23 “will be the symbol of its complete and total capture” of the eastern part of the DRC.”

M23’s self-proclaimed liberation agenda has been scarred by a long trail of alleged human rights violations and what rights group Human Rights Watch described in 2023 as “war crimes against civilians” in North Kivu. The group has consistently denied such claims.

Fighting between M23, Congolese forces and other rebel groups has also forced many from their homes in the country’s east, with at least 400,000 people displaced just since the beginning of this year in North and South Kivu, the UN’s refugee agency, UNHCR said in a statement.

UNHCR spokesperson Matt Saltmarsh added that “bombs have fallen” on camps housing those who’ve fled, resulting in civilian deaths, including of children.

“Humanitarian access is nearly impossible, resources are stretched to their limits, and displaced families are left in dire need of food, clean water, medicine, and shelter,” Tchwenko said.

What’s at stake for Rwanda?

UN experts believe that an estimated 3,000 Rwandan soldiers operate alongside M23 fighters in eastern DR Congo, outnumbering the rebel group’s number in the country.

According to Saleh, the Congolese analyst, Rwanda does not just support M23, “it (Rwanda) is the M23.”

Western nations, such as the US, Britain, and France, have censured Kigali’s support for the group.

She cited a UN report that found evidence DR Congo’s military had collaborated and carried out joint operations with a Hutu militia group against a mainly Tutsi rebel group, the CNDP, which M23 grew out of.

Hutu militias carried out the genocide of Tutsis and moderate Hutus in Rwanda in 1994.

“This is happening right next to our border,” Makolo said of the insecurity in eastern DR Congo, adding that “the President of the DRC has said publicly that his enemy is President (Paul) Kagame and the Rwandan Government, and that he will ‘liberate’ Rwandans.”

Rwanda’s foreign ministry also blamed DR Congo’s government for failing to engage in dialogue with M23, describing it as a “Congolese rebel group fighting to protect their community in eastern DRC.”

Congolese President Felix Tshisekedi has previously threatened to go to war with Rwanda. Rwandan leader Kagame has responded in kind.

“We are ready to fight,” Kagame told French network France 24 in June last year, adding: “We are not afraid of anything.”

When the UN Security Council convened on Sunday for an emergency meeting on the crisis, DR Congo’s foreign minister Thérèse Kayikwamba Wagner said Rwanda’s role in the conflict was “a declaration of war that no longer hides itself behind diplomatic maneuvers.”

Is there a route to peace?

Eastern African leaders plan to convene an emergency meeting within 48 hours to find solutions to the crisis, Kenya’s President William Ruto said Monday, urging Tshisekedi and Kagame “to heed the call for peace.”

Previous interventions led by Angola, including truce agreements, have failed to cease hostilities.

“But it is rather the quality of the solutions in sight that is the real question,” he said.

“The region needs a lasting solution to the security situation, and to achieve this, one of the conditions is that the DRC must be able to ensure its security and control its economy. Solutions in terms of power-sharing, tribal and ethnic integration are not a lasting solution.”

US President Donald Trump has doubled down on his proposal to “clean out” Gaza by removing Palestinians living there to Jordan and Egypt, a plan which has appalled some allies but has been quickly embraced by Israel’s far right.

Having first floated the idea Saturday, Trump warmed to his theme Monday, saying of Gaza’s population: “I’d like to get them living in an area where they can live without disruption and revolution and violence so much.”

He has not specified whether such emigration would be voluntary. The forcible displacement of civilians “can constitute a war crime and/or crime against humanity” depending on the context, according to the United Nations.

“I think you can get people living in areas that are a lot safer and maybe a lot better and maybe a lot more comfortable,” he said on Monday.

While there has been no response from the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office, the idea was applauded by far-right Israeli politicians.

Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who leads the Religious Zionism party, said Trump had recognized that Gaza was “a breeding ground for terror,” and “there is no doubt that in the long run, encouraging migration is the only solution that will bring peace and security to the residents of Israel and alleviate the suffering of Gaza’s Arab residents.”

Smotrich, who also has a ministerial position in the defense ministry, said he was working on a plan to implement Trump’s vision. “When he wants something, it happens,” he said. Smotrich has been advocating for what he calls “the voluntary emigration of Gaza Arabs to countries around the world” since 2023.

But the idea of displacement, voluntary or otherwise, is horrifying to Jordan and Egypt and likely alarming to other Arab allies of the US, threatening decades of international consensus about the right of Palestinians to a homeland. Ayman Safadi, Jordan’s foreign minister, said Sunday: “Jordan is for Jordanians and Palestine is for Palestinians.”

“Our rejection for the deportation is steadfast and unchanging.”

Trump said the removal of Palestinians might be temporary or “long-term,” but Arab critics allege that Palestinians have never been allowed by Israel to return to land once removed.

Neither Egypt nor Jordan would contemplate being party to a repeat of the Palestinian ‘Nakba’ or ‘catastrophe’ in 1948. Roughly 700,000 Palestinians were forced from their homes when the state of Israel was born. A second iteration would be tantamount to condoning and supporting ethnic cleansing.

Much like Denmark hopes Trump will abandon his ideas for US control of Greenland, the moderate Arab states will be praying that the US President forgets about transferring the Gazans.

The comparison was not lost on Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who said in an interview with Sky News Tuesday that “Palestine cannot be deleted and Palestinians cannot be expelled. My suggestion: Instead of Palestinians, try to expel Israelis to Greenland. Take them to Greenland so you can kill two birds (with) one stone.”

Saudi-UAE silence

Jordan and Egypt seem likely to huddle with their allies in the Gulf, especially Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, in an effort to present a united front.

So far, the Saudis and Emiratis have remained publicly silent on the Trump plan. King Abdullah II of Jordan has also said nothing about his call with Trump on Saturday. But the Jordanian court pointedly released a read-out of his call Monday with new Secretary of State Marco Rubio, which may have been an effort at damage limitation.

The statement said they discussed ways to “enhance regional security and stability…and means to strengthen the strategic partnership between Jordan and the United States, as well as keenness to maintain coordination and consultation on various issues.”

The response from Cairo was more puzzling. A senior Egyptian official denied that President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi had spoken with Trump, despite the latter’s assertion Monday that they had spoken. Trump declined to say directly if the Egyptian president had an opinion on taking additional Palestinian refugees.

“He’s in a very rough part of the world, to be honest, as they say, it’s a rough neighborhood, but I think he can do it,” Trump said.

The Egyptian official added that readouts between the Egyptian president and heads of state are released when they take place. The Egyptian Presidency itself has made no comment about any call and the White House hasn’t released a readout.

Trump also appears to have nodded towards the belief among some Israelis that Gaza isn’t really Palestinian land anyway.

“You know, when you look at the Gaza Strip, it’s been hell for so many years, and it just seems to be this – various civilizations start here, started thousands of years before,” he said Monday.

That fits right in with the perspective of people like the former Israeli Minister of National Security Itamar Ben Gvir, who leads the Jewish Power party.

Foreign aid as potential leverage

After a year of transformative upheaval in the Middle East, even the idea that millions of Palestinians might be moved from their homes is potentially a source of still greater instability. Sisi has previously said that taking in Gazans would threaten Egypt’s peace agreement with Israel because of the risk that some of them would resume fighting the Jewish state from within his country’s borders.

The risk is existential to Jordan, which has more than a million refugees from neighboring countries as well as about 2.4 million registered Palestinian refugees. Indeed, more than half of its inhabitants are of Palestinian descent, and its demography would be transformed by another influx. But Jordan cannot afford to dismiss Trump’s idea out of hand. A country of few resources, its 2023 budget deficit stood at 5.1% of its economic output, and a fifth of its workforce is unemployed. It is heavily reliant on foreign aid and is the second biggest recipient of US aid in the Middle East after Israel, with more than $1.7 billion delivered in 2023.

Trump has already moved to put foreign aid and tariffs at the center of a foreign policy whose first tenets have been more stick than carrot. That will not be lost on the Jordanian and Egyptian governments now in the crosshairs. Egypt is the region’s third-biggest recipient of US aid, with $1.5 billion delivered in 2023.

“I wish he would take some,” Trump said of Sisi on Monday, referring to Gazans. “We help them a lot, and I’m sure he can help us, he’s a friend of mine.”

Were Trump to persist with the idea, the prospect of extending the Abraham Accords to include normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia – a centerpiece of his Middle East policy – would also be jeopardized. While Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has close personal ties with Trump, he has repeatedly made clear that normalization is linked to a pathway to a Palestinian state. Emptying Gaza would not fit with that priority.

When Google announced it was complying with US President Donald Trump’s executive order to rename the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, many Mexicans responded with a laugh and a long, exhausted sigh.

At her daily press briefing on Tuesday, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum largely shrugged off Google’s move, noting that Trump’s order only applies to the US continental shelf, suggesting that her country would not abide by it.

“The Gulf of Mexico is still the Gulf of Mexico,” she said.

Many of her fellow Mexicans have been similarly dismissive.

On social media, users shared images poking fun at what some called Trump’s “obsession” with their country and the unorthodox nature of his decision. Some soccer fans suggested sarcastically that Trump was paying tribute to the popular Mexican football team, Club América.

But not everyone is laughing. In an editorial for the Mexican newspaper El Universal, legal expert Mario Melgar-Adalid advised the country to push back.

“Mexico must firmly oppose this interference, otherwise the next step could be that instead of the United Mexican States (Mexico’s formal name), as established in our Constitution, they will begin to call us Old Mexico,” he wrote.

In the Mexican coastal state of Veracruz, which borders the gulf, Governor Rocío Nahle rejected Trump’s move. “Today and always … for 500 years it has been and will continue to be our rich and great ‘Gulf of Mexico,’” the governor wrote on social media last week.

Juan Cobos, a former resident of Veracruz who now lives in Mexico City, called it “absurd,” saying hundreds of years of history could not be erased by a pen stroke.

“You can’t change something overnight, what we’ve grown up with – history, geography, all that. You can’t be so authoritarian that you can change it from one day to the next.”

Google said on Monday its move was in line with its “practice of applying name changes when they have been updated in official government sources.” The company noted that the change would be applied only in the United States. Users in Mexico will continue to see the “Gulf of Mexico” on Google Maps. The rest of the world will see both names.

Trump, in his executive order last week, said he directed that the body of water be renamed the Gulf of America “in recognition of this flourishing economic resource and its critical importance to our nation’s economy and its people.” The order calls for all federal government maps and documents to reflect the change.

He also ordered that the nation’s highest mountain, Denali, change its name back to Mount McKinley, in honor of President William McKinley. Google said it would also update the name of its maps when the Geographic Names Information System, a government database of names and location data, is updated.

Sheinbaum responded with ridicule at the time. At a press conference, she presented a 1607 map that labeled parts of North America as “Mexican America,” and dryly proposed that the gulf should be renamed as such.

She said: “It sounds nice, no?”