Former Iraqi FM Comments on Amr Moussa’s Memoirs

Former Secretary-General of the Arab League, Amr Moussa and former Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri Al-Hadithi in Baghdad, 2002 - Getty Images
Former Secretary-General of the Arab League, Amr Moussa and former Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri Al-Hadithi in Baghdad, 2002 - Getty Images
TT

Former Iraqi FM Comments on Amr Moussa’s Memoirs

Former Secretary-General of the Arab League, Amr Moussa and former Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri Al-Hadithi in Baghdad, 2002 - Getty Images
Former Secretary-General of the Arab League, Amr Moussa and former Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri Al-Hadithi in Baghdad, 2002 - Getty Images

Former Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri al-Hadithi commented on the memoirs of former Secretary-General of the Arab League Amr Mouss that were published by Asharq Al-Awsat. Al-Hadithi clarifies in the below text a number of issues:

In the memoirs of the former Secretary-General of the Arab League Mr. Amr Moussa, published in your newspaper on Dec. 7, 2020, there were a number of misleading points regarding his visit to Iraq on January 18, 2002, and other matters related to the crisis in the relationship between Iraq and the United Nations at the time.

As I followed his visit from its beginning in New York and accompanied him until after his arrival in Baghdad, I would like to discuss the following points to clarify the truth:

First: In the memoirs, Mr. Moussa said that on his visit to New York to attend the General Assembly meetings, he met with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Kofi Annan, and stressed the need to make “a clear effort to prevent an imminent war on Iraq.”

“I will visit the Iraqi president in January, he told him. I want a message that I can convey to him on your behalf to resolve the position over the resumption of the work of international inspectors.” Moussa said that secretary-general approved the request.

After that, the memoirs quoted Mr. Moussa as saying: “I arranged with the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Naji Sabri Al-Hadithi, my visit to Iraq.” This means that he decided on the visit, set its subject and date, and then met with me to arrange it...

In fact, I met Mr. Amr Moussa on the sidelines of the General Assembly, and talked with him about the crisis of the relationship between Iraq and the United Nations, and about the urgent need to seek a peaceful political solution that guarantees the sovereignty of Iraq, the security of its people and its national interests. I explained to him our keenness to build a positive relationship with the United Nations Secretariat and its agencies operating in Iraq, and our efforts to resume dialogue, negotiation and interaction with them, as the first essential step on the road to resolving the crisis.

I felt that he understood and supported our direction. So I suggested that the Arab League have a role in this endeavor. He showed willingness to do so. Here, I proposed that he visits Iraq to confirm this willingness. I told him it would provide a symbolic and effective evidence of the Arab League’s solidarity with the Iraqi people in the face of the siege and the continuous aggression against the country. He agreed, and an official invitation was sent to him at once. He contacted me after his return to Cairo to schedule the date of the visit. We set the visit on Jan. 18, 2002.

Therefore, Mr. Moussa’s visit to Iraq was my idea. He had no idea about it before our meeting. Moreover, it’s the first time that I hear that the Secretary-General of the United Nations has sent a message to the President of the Republic of Iraq through Mr. Amr Moussa. I don’t know how the person who wrote the memoirs (and I am not pointing to Mr. Moussa) has missed that the head of any international organization does not send messages to countries through people from outside his organization, let alone the head of the largest international organization in the world.

Second: The memoirs recount how Mr. Moussa went the next day to meet President Saddam Hussein, saying that he moved from his residence to a “military headquarters” and then to “a military unit headquarters”, providing a dramatic description of the president’s secretary...

In fact, Mr. Moussa, his assistants and I met at the National Council building in Karada Mariam before going to the place of the meeting with the president. Then the president’s secretary, Lieutenant General Abdel Hammoud, came and escorted us in his car to one of the presidential palaces in the Radwaniyah area. The National Council building is not a military barracks, as mentioned in the memoirs, but rather a large building with a beautiful classic urban style located on the Tigris River, less than 200 meters from the Republican Palace. It includes civilian offices of the Presidency of the Republic. It is usual for the building to be protected by an external fence, and for its external entrance gate to be guarded by a few security guards, like any building belonging to the Presidency of the State in any country in the world.

Third: The memoirs give a different version of the meeting with President Saddam Hussein. It claimed that Mr. Moussa was furious and talked to President Saddam in a tone as if he were shouting at him, and that the President addressed him with the title of Doctor… etc.! Everything that was mentioned about the meeting is absolutely untrue. The meeting began with Mr. Moussa’s talk about the Arab League’s position on the issue of Iraq and its keenness on the country’s sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity, as well as its support in the face of violations and threats, and against the continued siege on its people.

Within the framework of the visit, which we have agreed upon in New York, Moussa touched on the importance of working for a peaceful political solution to the crisis with the United Nations by communicating and negotiating with its secretary-general on all pending issues between the two sides. He expressed the readiness of the Arab League General Secretariat to contribute to this endeavor.

President Saddam Hussein responded by explaining Iraq’s stance on the relationship with the United Nations, and reviewing the arbitrary decisions imposed by the United States and Britain on the Security Council, their violations of Iraq’s sovereignty, their attacks on its citizens and locations, as well as their insistence on maintaining the siege on its people.

He also talked about their threats to wage war against Iraq, and the practices of the United Nations inspection teams, which violated the country’s sovereignty and security. He expressed no objection to the resumption of negotiations with the UN General Secretariat.

The meeting ended with Mr. Moussa’s pledge to contact the UN Secretary-General to agree on arrangements for the resumption of comprehensive negotiations between Iraq and the United Nations at the earliest possible. Consequently, we agreed with Mr. Annan to start the negotiations on March 7, 2002 at the United Nations headquarters in New York.

However, what’s strange is the memoirs mentioning Mr. Moussa’s anger, his shouting at President Saddam Hussein, and other allegations. How did Brother Amr accept that the person, who wrote his memoirs, attributes this blatant lie to him and to the Egyptian diplomacy? This contradicts the simplest characteristics of a successful diplomat, which are graciousness, politeness and good speech.

Fourth: The memoirs quoted Mr. Amr Moussa as saying that his visit to Iraq was to persuade President Saddam Hussein to bring back the inspectors, and that the President had agreed and authorized Moussa to speak on behalf of Iraq.

The truth is that the return of the inspectors was not raised during the meeting. It was also not mentioned in the first round of negotiations with the United Nations, which was held at the headquarters of the international organization in New York on March 7, 2002.

Moreover, the issue was neither raised in the second round of talks, which took place on May 2, 2002, nor in the third meeting, which was held at the UN headquarters in Vienna on May 7, 2002, based on my request to avoid the US intelligence’s harassment of the members of the Iraqi delegation.

Before the end of the third round, Mr. Kofi Annan met with me privately, and told me that he needed a promise from us that the Iraqi government would consider the return of the inspectors, so that he could continue negotiations and agree with us on a fourth round. But I apologized as I did not have my government’s permission to do so. Therefore, how do the memoirs say that Mr. President has approved the return of the inspectors and authorized Mr. Amr Moussa to speak on behalf of Iraq?

On Sept. 9, 2002, I met President Saddam Hussein before I went to New York to attend the 57th session of the United Nations General Assembly. I asked him about any new position regarding the return of the inspectors, and he told me to wait, meaning that the refusal was still valid.

Upon my arrival at the United Nations, the Arab League General Secretariat called for a meeting of Arab foreign ministers in a hall in the building of the international organization on Sept. 15, 2002. Before entering the meeting room, I learned that US Secretary of State Colin Powell had begun consultations with his legal advisers to draft a Security Council resolution authorizing any country to launch war on Iraq under the pretext of its refusal to allow the return of the international inspectors. The draft-resolution imposes exorbitant demands on Iraq within short deadlines, which are impossible to meet even if the country desired to comply.

Thus, I was convinced that the inspectors should be returned. The focus of the Arab ministers meeting was the crisis between Iraq and the United Nations. The secretary-general and ministers called on Iraq to work on resolving the crisis and to deal flexibly with Security Council resolutions. One of my best memories is the moving appeal of His Highness the late Prince Saud Al-Faisal, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

After we left the meeting, Mr. Amr asked me what I would do. “We will allow the return of the inspectors,” I replied, and he welcomed that. I asked him to join me in arranging the matter with the Secretary-General so that the decision would guarantee the United Nations’ respect for Iraq’s inalienable rights to protect its sovereignty, the sanctity of its territories and the right of its people to lift the inhuman blockade in accordance with the UN Charter, the relevant Security Council resolutions and international law. He expressed his readiness for that.

I immediately sent an encrypted message to President Saddam Hussein, requesting his consent for the return of the inspectors unconditionally. Three hours later, I received the approval. This happened nine months after Mr. Amr Moussa’s visit to Baghdad, during which the memoirs claim that the President had informed him of his consent over the return of the inspectors!

I called Mr. Amr and we went together to Mr. Annan to inform him of the decision. Then, he joined me in all the necessary contacts until we put the final wording of the Iraqi decision, in coordination with Mr. Annan, and presented it to him in the evening of Sept. 16, 2002.

The good and friendly working relationship that brought me together with Brother Amr Moussa continued until the last Arab ministerial meeting I attended on March 25, 2003 at the Arab League’s headquarters after the start of the US invasion of Iraq. At the end of the meeting, Mr. Amr escorted me to the outside gate of the building on the main street to bid me farewell.

Naji Sabri al-Hadithi – Foreign Minister of Iraq (2001-2003)



What Egypt’s Red Lines Mean for Sudan’s War

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi holds talks with Sudan’s army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan in Cairo on Thursday (Egyptian Presidency)
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi holds talks with Sudan’s army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan in Cairo on Thursday (Egyptian Presidency)
TT

What Egypt’s Red Lines Mean for Sudan’s War

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi holds talks with Sudan’s army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan in Cairo on Thursday (Egyptian Presidency)
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi holds talks with Sudan’s army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan in Cairo on Thursday (Egyptian Presidency)

In unusually blunt language, and following a visit by Sudan’s Sovereignty Council Chairman and army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan to Cairo, the Egyptian presidency issued a statement on the war in Sudan outlining three points it described as red lines.

It said Egypt would not allow any of them to be crossed or compromised, as they directly affect Egypt’s national security, which it said is inseparable from Sudan’s national security.

The reference to activating the joint defense agreement between the two countries was seen as a signal that Egypt could bring its military, political, and diplomatic weight to bear in support of the Sudanese army.

Joint defense agreement

In March 2021, Egypt signed a military cooperation agreement with Sudan that covers training, border security, and the confrontation of shared threats. That agreement followed a joint defense pact signed in 1976 during the presidencies of Sudan’s Gaafar Nimeiry and Egypt’s Anwar Sadat.

Articles One and Two of the pact stipulate that any attack on one party is considered an attack on the other, and require immediate consultation, including the use of armed force to repel aggression. The agreement also commits both sides to coordinating their defense and military policies on matters related to their national security.

After the fall of Nimeiry’s regime in the 1985 popular uprising, then Prime Minister Sadiq al-Mahdi informed the Egyptian leadership of his desire to cancel the joint defense agreement. Instead, the two sides signed what became known as the Brotherhood Charter in 1987. While it did not explicitly cancel the 1976 agreement, its mechanisms have not been discussed or activated since then.

Regional and international messages

Sudanese journalist Osman Mirghani, editor-in-chief of Al-Tayar newspaper, said the Egyptian statements amounted to regional and international messages linked to recent developments and what he described as serious security threats facing Sudan.

He pointed to the expansion of the Rapid Support Forces in the Darfur and Kordofan regions in a way that threatens shared Sudanese and Egyptian national security, warning of risks of geographic fragmentation that could endanger Sudan’s unity.

Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat, Mirghani said Egypt was, for the first time, using direct and tough language and signaling the possibility of intervention under international law in Sudan’s conflict. He said this reflected the level of Egyptian concern over the situation in Sudan.

Mirghani added that the reference to red lines was a message directed at all parties, noting that there are many influential players in Sudan.

The red lines

The first red line cited by Cairo was the preservation of Sudan’s unity and territorial integrity, preventing any tampering with its resources or those of the Sudanese people, and rejecting the secession of any part of the country. Egypt reiterated its categorical refusal to the establishment or recognition of any parallel entities, saying such moves would undermine Sudan’s unity and territorial integrity.

The statement also stressed the need to preserve Sudanese state institutions and prevent any harm to them. Egypt affirmed its full right to take all necessary measures permitted under international law, including activating the joint defense agreement between the two brotherly countries, to ensure these red lines are not crossed.

Timing of the visit

Former Sudanese Foreign Minister Ali Youssef noted the timing of Burhan’s visit to Cairo, stating that it occurred after his trip to Saudi Arabia earlier this week and following a visit by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to the United States.

Youssef said the trip was part of efforts to end the war in Sudan through the Quartet mechanism, which includes Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and the United States.

Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat, Youssef said Burhan briefed Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi on the outcomes of his Saudi visit and the latest developments in Sudan.

He stated that the visit did not follow the usual ceremonial protocol and was a result of developments in the war, noting that Egypt’s security is linked to Sudan’s security. He added that Egypt is part of the Quartet, which seeks to end a war that is approaching its third year.

Military implications

Sudanese military expert Al-Muatasim Abdel Qader said activating the joint agreement would imply Egyptian intervention in various forms, including supplying weapons and ammunition or direct military involvement.

He said the provisions of the agreement obligate each army to defend the other, adding that the red lines outlined by the Egyptian presidency represented a significant step and carried major implications for the Sudanese state.

In remarks to Asharq Al-Awsat, Abdel Qader described mutual protection between the two countries as a historically rooted matter, dating back to wars Egypt fought in the last century in which Sudanese armed forces took part.

Rapid Support Forces response

Basha Tabiq, an adviser to the commander of the Rapid Support Forces, said in posts on X that Egypt’s position amounted to blatant interference, bias toward one party, and a colonial mindset that views Sudan as a backyard.

Another source aligned with the RSF said accusations against Egypt of backing the Sudanese army have persisted since the early days of the war. The source pointed to the presence of Egyptian forces at Merowe air base in northern Sudan at the start of the conflict, when several Egyptian soldiers and officers were captured before later being handed over to Cairo.

The source also cited accusations by RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, who said in October 2024 that the Egyptian army had carried out air strikes against his forces and supplied the Sudanese army with drones and training.

He said Hemedti renewed those accusations last June, alleging that Cairo supported the Sudanese army with aircraft flown by Egyptian pilots that bombed areas under his forces’ control, and supplied weapons and aviation fuel. Hemedti described this as a blatant aggression against the Sudanese people.

The source, who requested anonymity, said Egypt has been intervening in the war from the outset and that activating the joint defense agreement would merely formalize an existing reality.

No time to spare

Sudanese ambassador Al-Sadiq al-Maqli said Egypt is working with Saudi Arabia and the international Quartet, in coordination with the United States, to give fresh momentum to efforts on Sudan.

He said Washington is currently using soft power rather than force, which he described as an option deferred until shuttle diplomacy by US President’s senior adviser Massad Boulos is exhausted.

Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat, Maqli said the United States fully understands the influence of Saudi Arabia and Egypt and their ability to persuade and soften the stance of Sudan’s government, which has rejected the latest US initiative.

He said Burhan currently has no time to spare, as what is unfolding in Sudan represents the world’s worst humanitarian disaster, according to the international community.

Maqli noted that Egypt, represented by Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty, has been almost fully dedicated to making the Quartet mechanism succeed, given that the continuation of the current situation in Sudan poses a threat to Egypt’s national security.

He described Burhan’s visits to Riyadh and Cairo as short but necessary steps toward accepting the Quartet initiative, saying the Saudi visit marked a qualitative shift in the Sudanese government’s official position.

He added that Sudan’s foreign ministry later expressed Port Sudan’s readiness to cooperate with President Donald Trump, his secretary of state, and Boulos in efforts to achieve peace in Sudan, predicting imminent developments that could lead to a major breakthrough in the crisis.


Iraq Negotiates New Coalition Under US Pressure

Election workers count ballots as they close a polling station, during the parliamentary elections in Baghdad, Iraq, Nov. 11, 2025. (AP)
Election workers count ballots as they close a polling station, during the parliamentary elections in Baghdad, Iraq, Nov. 11, 2025. (AP)
TT

Iraq Negotiates New Coalition Under US Pressure

Election workers count ballots as they close a polling station, during the parliamentary elections in Baghdad, Iraq, Nov. 11, 2025. (AP)
Election workers count ballots as they close a polling station, during the parliamentary elections in Baghdad, Iraq, Nov. 11, 2025. (AP)

More than a month after Iraq's parliamentary elections, the country's top leaders remain locked in talks to form a government while facing pressure from Washington to exclude Tehran-backed armed groups.

Amid seismic changes in the Middle East, where new alliances are forming and old powers waning, Iraqi leaders face a daunting task: navigating relations with US-blacklisted pro-Iranian factions.

The US has held significant sway over Iraqi politics since leading the 2003 invasion that ousted long-time ruler Saddam Hussein.

But another specter also haunts Iraq's halls of power: Washington's arch-foe, Iran.

Iraq has long been caught between the two, with successive governments negotiating a delicate balance.

Now, after November's election, Washington has demanded the eventual government must exclude Iran-backed armed groups and instead move to dismantle them, Iraqi officials and diplomats told AFP.

A State Department spokesperson, speaking on condition of anonymity, said: "Iraqi leaders well know what is and is not compatible with a strong US-Iraq partnership".

Washington, the spokesperson said, "will continue to speak plainly to the urgency of dismantling Iran-backed militias".

But some of these groups have increased their presence in the new chamber and have joined the Coordination Framework, an alliance of Shiite parties with varying ties to Iran and which holds the majority.

For weeks, the Coordination Framework has been embroiled in talks to nominate the next prime minister.

"The US has put conditions that armed factions should not be part of the new government," a senior Iraqi official said. The factions must disarm and "sever ties with Iran's Revolutionary Guard," he added.

In recent tweets, the US special envoy to Iraq, Mark Savaya said that Iraqi leaders are at a "crossroads".

Their decision "will send a clear and unmistakable signal to the United States... that Iraq is ready to claim its rightful place as a stable and respected nation in the new Middle East.

"The alternative is equally clear: economic deterioration, political confusion, and international isolation," Savaya said.

The US has blacklisted as "terrorist organizations" several armed groups from within the pro-Iran Popular Mobilization Forces, a former paramilitary alliance now integrated into the armed forces.

They are also part of the Iran-backed so-called "Axis of Resistance" and have called for the withdrawal of US troops -- deployed in Iraq as part of an anti-ISIS coalition -- and launched attacks against them.

Most of these groups hold seats in parliament and have seen their political and financial clout increase.

The Asaib Ahl al-Haq faction, led by Qais al-Khazali, who is a key figure in the Coordination Framework, won 27 seats in the latest election, making it harder to exclude it from the government.

A potential compromise is to deny it a key portfolio, as in the current government.

"The US has turned a blind eye before, so they might after all engage with the government as a whole but not with ministries held by armed groups," a former Iraqi official said.

Other blacklisted groups are:

+ Kataeb Hezbollah, one of the most powerful armed groups, supports a parliamentary bloc (six seats).

+ Kataeb Sayyid al-Shuhada, Kataeb Imam Ali and Harakat Ansar Allah al-Awfiya.

+ The al-Nujaba movement is the only group that has steered clear of elections.

Iraq has its economic growth to worry about.

After decades of turmoil, it has only begun to regain a sense of normalcy in recent years.

Washington has already imposed sanctions on several Iraqi entities and banks, accusing them of helping Tehran evade sanctions.

But Iraqi leaders hope for greater foreign investments and support partnerships with US companies.

The most striking endorsement came from Khazali, an opponent of the US military presence who now argues that it would be in Baghdad's interest for major US companies to invest.

Since the Israel's war with Hamas in Gaza began in October 2023, Iraq has remained relatively unscathed by the turmoil engulfing the Middle East.

Iraqi armed groups did launch attacks on US troops and largely unsuccessful ones on Israel. Washington responded with heavy strikes, and the attacks have long since halted.

Iraq remained the only close regional ally of Iran to stay out of Israel's crosshairs.

So far, the US has acted as a buffer, helping to prevent an Israeli attack, but Iraqis have been warned of strikes against the armed groups, multiple sources said.

But as the presence of American forces dwindles, fears are growing.


Bethlehem Camp's 'Lifeline' Football Field Faces Israeli Demolition

 Displaced Palestinian youths take part in a training session at the Aida Refugee Camp's football pitch, next to the separation wall outside Bethlehem in the occupied West Bank, on December 16, 2025, a few weeks after an Israeli military decision to demolish the field. (AFP)
Displaced Palestinian youths take part in a training session at the Aida Refugee Camp's football pitch, next to the separation wall outside Bethlehem in the occupied West Bank, on December 16, 2025, a few weeks after an Israeli military decision to demolish the field. (AFP)
TT

Bethlehem Camp's 'Lifeline' Football Field Faces Israeli Demolition

 Displaced Palestinian youths take part in a training session at the Aida Refugee Camp's football pitch, next to the separation wall outside Bethlehem in the occupied West Bank, on December 16, 2025, a few weeks after an Israeli military decision to demolish the field. (AFP)
Displaced Palestinian youths take part in a training session at the Aida Refugee Camp's football pitch, next to the separation wall outside Bethlehem in the occupied West Bank, on December 16, 2025, a few weeks after an Israeli military decision to demolish the field. (AFP)

Earlier this month a group of Palestinian boys turned out to train at their local football pitch in the shadow of the wall separating Israel from the West Bank's Aida refugee camp -- and found a note at the gate.

The children took the ominous message from Israeli authorities to Muhannad Abu Srour, sports director at the Aida Youth Center in the camp near Bethlehem, and the news was not good.

"We were shocked to discover that it was a decision to demolish Aida camp's football field," Abu Srour told AFP, adding that more than 500 children regularly train on the field roughly half the size of a regulation soccer pitch.

"The football field is the only open space we have. If the field is taken away, the children's dream is taken away," Abu Srour said.

The planned destruction of the Aida field is one of many points of contention in the occupied West Bank, but it is a particularly painful one for young Palestinians yearning for a better future.

One of the older members, 18-year-old Abdallah al-Ansurur, hopes to make it into the national Palestinian team, and, like many other youth at Aida camp, took his first steps in the game on the pitch flanked by the eight-meter concrete Israeli wall.

"I started when I was about 13 years old. This field gave me a real opportunity to train," said Ansurur, who was born and raised in Aida camp, one of the smallest in the West Bank.

Ansurur, who trains to be a goalkeeper, calls the astroturf-covered piece of land a "lifeline".

"Without this field, I wouldn't have had this chance. If it didn't exist, we'd be playing in the streets -- or not playing at all," he said.

Israel has occupied the West Bank since 1967 and frequently demolishes Palestinian homes or infrastructure, arguing they were built without permits.

AFP was shown the note from COGAT, the Israeli defense ministry body in charge of Palestinian civilian affairs, which says the field was not authorized.

But Anton Salman, who was mayor of adjacent Bethlehem when the field was built in 2021, told AFP the construction was legal.

Salman said his municipality leased the land from the Armenian Church authorities to whom it belongs, before allowing Aida camp's popular committee to manage it for the benefit of residents.

Saeed al-Azzeh, head of the popular committee, confirmed the information, calling the space, "the only breathing space" for camp residents.

"Today, more than 7,000 people live on the same piece of land. Streets are narrow, alleys are cramped -- there is nowhere else," Azzeh said, referring to the camp.

Like other Palestinian refugee camps, Aida was built to accommodate some of the hundreds of thousands of people who either fled their homes or were forced out during the creation of Israel in 1948.

With time, tents gave way to concrete buildings, with the football field representing one of the few open spaces in the camp's dense patchwork.

Abu Srour is proud of what came out of the field, with youth sports delegations able to travel abroad to play, a welcome escape from the West Bank's myriad restrictions.

This is because checkpoints, a fixture of the West Bank since the start of Israel's occupation, have multiplied since the start of the war in Gaza.

Abu Srour mentioned that bringing a local team to Ramallah, a city 20 kilometers (12.5 miles) away as the crow flies, took six hours recently, instead of one hour in the past.

Restricted mobility is a major issue for most Palestinian athletes as it makes it nearly impossible for athletes of similar levels from different cities to train together.

Waseem Abu Sal, who was the first Palestinian boxer to participate in the Olympics, told AFP he frequently sparred with athletes of different levels or weight categories for lack of mobility.

Taking a short break from running a practice for 50 excited five- to 10-year-old boys, coach Mahmud Jandia told AFP he hoped the field would remain.

"Yes, the wall is there -- it feels like a prison -- but despite that, the most important thing is that the field remains and the children keep playing."

"If the field is demolished, all the children's dreams will be demolished with it."