 The brutal Israeli bombing of Gaza is resumed after the end of a seven-day truce. What is the latest from the ground? Another round of negotiations on the pandemic treaty is beginning on Monday. What is missing in the draft document? This is the daily debrief. These are your stories from the day. And before we go any further, if you're watching this on YouTube, please hit that subscribe button. After seven-day truce, Israel resumed the brutal bombing of Gaza on Friday, as we are recording over 100 people have already been killed, hundreds have been injured, and an already grim humanitarian situation is set to worsen once again. The international community had seven days to prevent this from happening, but failed to do so yet again. We go to Abdul for details as to what is happening. Abdul, a developing story and a horrifying story, the death toll continuing to rise rapidly. So, could you maybe first give us a bit of context into what happened with regard to the truce that had lasted for seven days? As per the reports, there were negotiations going on on Thursday night to basically extend the truce and Egypt and Qatar. Those who were the mediators in Doha, they were claiming that they are looking for two more days of extension. But on Friday, seven o'clock in the morning, Israel basically resumed its bombing all across Gaza, claiming that Hamas has not fulfilled the demands of the truce. And since then, there has been bombing all across Gaza, more than dozens of people, you can say, have been killed. Most of them are civilians. Meanwhile, there is a report that the negotiations are still going on, but there is no clarity on that. In fact, Anthony Blinkel and the U.S. statesmen have given multiple statements which basically confirms that Israel is in a mood to basically have a longer version or second round of kind of its war on Gaza and it will not stop until what it claims basically it is able to kind of eliminate Hamas. So this has been the development so far. Of course, the breaking out of the truce does not, there are no clarity yet whether what will happen to the aid delivery which was going on all these days. And of course, it leads to another round of uncertainty among the people on the ground in Gaza and the aid agencies are also not very sure what to do now. So yeah, this is the situation as of now since Friday morning. Abdul, of course, is pointing to the failure I think of countries, the global community, so to speak, which there was a seven day gap and like we said at the very beginning of this truce, a lot really depends on the amount of pressure that is brought to bear on Israel and clearly it seems to have not have been enough but like you said US officials in fact expressing support for Israel's claim once again saying that it is all about Hamas etc etc and pretty much giving them a form of, pretty much giving them a go ahead so to speak. So clearly a massive failure as far as the international community is concerned despite the fact that the horrors of this war were there for all of us to see. Exactly. If you read what Hamas spokesman have been saying about the real objective, they have been proposing the extension of truce. Hamas has been very willing, if you read different media reports, they are very much willing to extend the truce but Israel was completely reluctant to do so and that basically confirms to a certain extent the claims made by Hamas that this truce was basically a period which was sought by Israelis to realign their forces, to reposition them and if you see the things which happened on Friday morning, they dropped leaflets in southern Gaza asking the residents of Khan Yunus to basically evacuate to where they did not, were very clear. In the northern Gaza, the Israeli defense forces issued a map in which they basically had divided the entire region into more than hundreds of blocks and basically all those blocks represent a clear sign that each and whenever the Israeli forces move into one block, they will basically ask the people to evacuate and then move in. So this is a plot by plot, block by block project. It means there were preparations going on all this way and Israel was able to kind of start the bombing at the time when Blinken was still there in Israel and before the bombing started, in fact, he made a statement saying that Israel is basically going to restart the bombing. So it seems that despite the pressure and if you see different countries have made statements, France, Spain and other countries asking Israel to basically resume the truce, but US, as you rightly pointed out, has been very upfront in basically supporting the re-resumption of the bombings and in fact offering technical and material support in their quote-unquote mission to eliminate Hamas. So all these things shows that the pressure which we were thinking is there, of course, was not applied in a correct way and it was not there. It was more of a statement than the real intent and that's the only thing which explains the resumption of the truce, even when Blinken was still there and so fast, US moving to basically upheld the Israeli decision. Abdul, of course, ironic also because the ICC official Karim Khan is also supposed to in the region and but on the other hand, it doesn't seem to show any path forward as far as actually addressing some of the war crimes are concerned that are being that Palestinians are facing. Exactly. See, all across the region, there has been a growing understanding that the truce would lead to further basically extension and this may turn into a permanent truce but it seems that Israelis and the US were prepared to basically break the truce and restart the war despite the extent of humanitarian situation inside Gaza, which apart from the international criminal court and the WHO, the UN bodies, other UN bodies have basically repeated that if the war restarts, all the attempts to kind of provide some kind of relief to the millions of people inside Gaza will basically fail and that would also mean that the most of the aid agencies, which were barely surviving and the truce provided some kind of breathing space to them will basically completely become unable to work in the region. So given the fact that there has been a worst humanitarian situation and everyone acknowledges it, given the fact that there are already claims of different kinds of war crimes in the first 48 days of the Israeli bombing and despite the various complaints filed by different countries, it seems that Israel is not bothered about all those things and that sense of impunity is basically very clear when in the decision which it took on Friday morning to basically start the bombing in Gaza again. Thank you, Abdul. So much. We'll come back to you because definitely a developing story, even though talks might be taking place. Nonetheless, it seems like like you said, the horrors being Palestinians in Gaza facing definitely another round of horrors. Another round of negotiations in the pandemic treaty is set to begin on Monday. Now, the origins of this treaty lie in the COVID-19 pandemic and the common desire that humanity should be better prepared if another disaster of this sort takes place. However, the devil as always is in the details and health activists are unhappy at the language of the draft that is being discussed. If the pandemic showed us anything, it was a sheer lack of equity when it came to dealing with such situations and it seems like the draft as it is will not address this problem. To know why, we go to Jyotsna Singh. Jyotsna, thank you so much for joining us. So once again, discussions on the pandemic treaty. We have talked about this on this show before and of course, the pandemic treaty, the genesis coming from the COVID-19 pandemic. But it does look like what should be fairly common-sensical does not appear to be in the text. So could you maybe first take us through what are the key issues of contention at this point of time? Yeah. So just to say that from Monday, that is from 4th of December onwards, the second part of the seventh round of the pandemic treaty negotiations is beginning and that is one week where all the governments will come together at the level of WHO, the WHO staff will be there and they will be discussing and this will be a closed door meeting where we'll discuss how to shape the pandemic treaty. And so as you have said, yes, the genesis of this treaty lies in COVID-19, where the idea was that the kind of death and destruction we saw during the COVID-19. Hopefully, we should try that for that not to happen in case there is a pandemic in the future as well. So that was a basic premises on the basis on which the treaty started to be negotiated. But unfortunately, it looks like the world leaders have not learned absolutely anything from the experience of COVID-19 and there are a lot of problems with the current text and the discussions began in 2021. So we are easily one and a half years into the discussion and still we just see that it is the same problems which actually caused so much of problems in COVID-19 continue to be a part of the treaty. For example, there is very, very diluted language when it comes to intellectual property barriers. We all know that if there was so much of disparity between the vaccination rates of the developed countries and the developing countries, and especially the content of Africa, that was because the pharmaceutical companies were not agreeing to give up their patent. They were not agreeing to share the technical knowledge with the other companies who could produce those vaccines. And that is why there were less vaccines and whatever was there, only few companies had control over it and they kept selling it only to the global north. Not only for the want of money, but it has been pointed out multiple times. It was a racist attitude also where Pfizer would say that I will give the vaccines first in global north and then it will go anywhere else. So we had seen all of this and this is because of the monopoly that these companies have over these vaccines. And that is despite a lot of research and development for those very vaccines being done in the government institutes in the US or the Oxford University of the UK, etc. So we do not have much where these monopolies can be broken in event of a future pandemic, which is a very sad thing. So also during COVID, it was said that they had the WHO and other international agencies had put, they came together, philanthropies came together and put something in place which was called COVAX where voluntarily the companies could share their know-how and they would be provided some royalty and then others could make use of it. It did not work. Voluntarily no company would give its technical know-how to others to be able to produce. So because it is a power game. So we know voluntary measures don't work. We need compulsory and binding measures and it is completely lacking in the text when it comes to intellectual property barriers. So that is one major issue. The other is about the health workers rights. Again, during COVID-19, one because of the monopolies and but otherwise also with complete apathy towards the health workers. We saw how the health workers were badly treated. They did not have access to N95 masks because only a few companies could produce them. And also the very fact that we have shortage of staff of the health workers in normal times, it hit us so much worse during COVID-19 when there was an emergency. So health workers had to work overtime. They were actually treating COVID-19 patients without enough equipment. They did not have PPE. They did not have N95 masks. So how do you deal with this? So there has to be a strong language which protects the health workers during these times. The June draft did have something positive where it did recognize frontline workers and talked about their rights. But unfortunately, the drafts that came out subsequently in October, that language was taken away, which is also a very sad thing. So that should be brought back. And in fact, a stronger language should be brought back in the text. Of course, like you said, we were discussing these are very straightforward demands. Not much is being asked of the global north and the rich. But what are the kind of sections who are placing a barrier here? Because I believe countries in the global south, many of them at least, are in favor of some of these demands, especially on IP. So what are the kind of restrictions to these demands being implemented in this language coming to the draft? Yeah. So one, it is very obvious that the language of the big pharmaceutical companies is making inroads in the text, and that is primarily happening through developed countries. And though it is not a surprise, also because the Pfizer's and the Johnson and Johnson's influence how U.S. speaks and Novartis influences how Switzerland would speak. And Sanofi has an influence over the French government and so on and so forth. So we can see that language there, which aware regarding IP and many of the things, they want more protection and they don't want to give up their rights and privileges. But there's another thing which is the governments from the global north themselves have this racist attitude which comes blatantly through the text and their way of negotiating. So there is something called surveillance and security, which means you need to have good surveillance across the world to see what are the new pathogens that are infecting the populations, what are the possibilities, and if you really have a good network of surveillance, you can stop the spread of the virus. So that is one part. The problem is that the governments of the global north want only that to happen because they want to protect their populations and they do not care about the rest of the world. So if once they know, as soon as one knows that there is a fear of a spread of a disease, they can shut their borders, not allow mobility from certain nations and then protect their population. Also what it does is with this information also comes understanding and the information about the pathogen. For example, if China had not shared the genetic sequencing of coronavirus free of cost with everyone, so many vaccines and medicines could not have been developed so fast. And this is the case with many other pathogens. So that they would like to have at the earliest and then produce medicines. But these governments do not want to have binding agreements which would ensure that everyone in the world has access to them. So it is a very one sided thing. So that is also, so there is another demand by the health activists and civil society groups and everyone in the health workers or something called PPAs that is pathogen benefit and access sharing system that has to be put in place so that you can deal with this kind of inequality as well. Everyone has right over medical tools that are produced and that's what treaty should be doing but unfortunately that's not happening. Right, Joestar, thank you so much for that very detailed analysis of you know why a pandemic treaty or why a pandemic treaty at least in this shape may not actually achieve what was originally conceived and we'll be following the negotiations and we'll come back to you for further analysis on this. And that's all we have in today's episode. We'll be back tomorrow for another episode. In the meanwhile, do visit our website peoplesdispatch.org, follow us on social media and if you're watching this on YouTube, you have to hit that subscribe button.