Israel says its troops will remain in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria indefinitely
Israel’s defence minister says that Israeli troops will remain in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria indefinitely, as the military tightens its grip on several occupied territories. “Unlike in the past, the [Israeli military] is not evacuating areas that have been cleared and seized,” Israel Katz said in a statement on Wednesday. The army “will remain in the security zones as a buffer between the enemy and [Israeli] communities in any temporary or permanent situation in Gaza – as in Lebanon and Syria”, said the statement. The military said that it had turned 30 percent of Gaza into a “security” buffer zone and struck around 1,200 “terror targets” since resuming its offensive on March 18, following a nearly two-month truce in Gaza with the Palestinian group Hamas. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has vowed to annihilate Hamas and return 59 captives being held by armed groups in Gaza, including 24 who Israel believes are alive. Hamas has said it will not agree to release the captives without a complete Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and a lasting ceasefire. Advertisement The Palestinian Islamic Jihad group on Wednesday released a video of captive Rom Braslavski. He appeared to be under duress, said he was covered in sores, and pleaded with Netanyahu to stop the war. The main organisation representing captives’ families accused the Israeli government in a statement of “choosing to seize territory before the hostages”. Israel says it must maintain control of what it calls “security zones” to prevent a repeat of Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attack in which some 1,139 people were killed and 250 others were abducted – includng captives who have already been released by Hamas, and those still being held by the group. Netanyahu also has said that Israel will implement US President Donald Trump’s proposal for the resettlement of much of Gaza’s population in other countries through what Netanyahu refers to as “voluntary emigration”. Lebanese President Joseph Aoun said that Israel’s continued presence in some areas of southern Lebanon was “hindering” the Lebanese army’s full deployment as required by the ceasefire between Hezbollah and Israel. According to the deal signed in November, which ended more than a year of war, both parties agreed to withdraw from southern Lebanon and leave the area to be controlled by the Lebanese army. However, Israel only partially pulled out its troops from the country’s south, leaving soldiers in at least five locations. Lebanon’s Health Ministry said two Israeli drone strikes in southern Lebanon killed two people on Wednesday. Israeli strikes in Lebanon have killed more than 70 civilians since the ceasefire took effect in November. Advertisement Israel also established several military posts inside Syrian territory, including on the summit of Mount Hermon, after warplanes launched hundreds of strikes in the aftermath of the ousting of former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The Israeli government immediately revealed its position towards the new Syrian government led by the former opposition group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), calling it “a terror group from Idlib that took Damascus by force”, and has since refused to withdraw from the territories it seized. ‘No humanitarian aid’ to enter Gaza Katz said in a statement on X that Israel’s policy was “clear”. “No humanitarian aid will be allowed into Gaza,” the defence minister said on Wednesday. Preventing humanitarian aid from entering the Gaza Strip “is one of the main pressure tools that stops Hamas from using this means against the population,” he added. “In the current reality, no one is going to allow any humanitarian aid into Gaza, and no preparations are being made to allow any aid of this kind.” Israeli Culture Minister Miki Zohar echoed this position, saying, “the despicable murderers in Gaza deserve no humanitarian assistance from any civilian or military mechanism.” “Only hellfire should be poured on the makers of terrorism until the last hostage returns from Gaza,” Zohar said on X. Israeli authorities have blocked all aid from entering Gaza for more than six weeks, worsening the already catastrophic humanitarian situation in Gaza. The United Nations on Wednesday rejected a new authorisation mechanism that purported to introduce greater control over aid delivery in Gaza by Israeli forces, stating that aid organisations already had a mechanism in place to ensure that aid is not diverted to Hamas. Advertisement “Aid delivery into Gaza has for too long been obstructed,” the UN said, adding its teams were “ready to deliver assistance to those most in need based on humanitarian principles”. Meanwhile, Israeli air raids continued on Wednesday, with at least 25 people killed in attacks across Gaza. Palestinian journalist Fatima Hassouneh and 10 members of her family were killed in an Israeli air strike that targeted their home in Gaza City. Adblock test (Why?)
‘Die-in’ held in Paris to protest killing of Palestinian journalists
NewsFeed One hundred journalists staged a ‘die-in’ on the steps of the Opéra Bastille in central Paris to protest the killing of nearly 200 Palestinian journalists in Gaza since the war began. They laid on the steps in bloody press vests as the names of some of the journalists killed were read out. Published On 16 Apr 202516 Apr 2025 Adblock test (Why?)
Russia jails journalists for alleged ties to Navalny
NewsFeed Four Russian journalists have been sentenced to over 5 years in prison for alleged ties to late opposition leader Alexey Navalny. All four reject the charges and supporters say they are being punished simply for doing their jobs. Published On 16 Apr 202516 Apr 2025 Adblock test (Why?)
UK’s top court rules legal definition of ‘woman’ refers to ‘biological sex’
The decision was welcomed by some activists, but transgender campaigners warned it could lead to discrimination. The United Kingdom’s highest court has ruled that the terms “woman” and “sex” refer to a “biological woman and biological sex” under British equality laws, a landmark decision greeted with concern by supporters of transgender rights but welcomed by the government as bringing clarity. The highly anticipated ruling on Wednesday centred on whether a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate (GRC), a formal document giving legal recognition of someone’s new gender, is protected from discrimination as a woman under Britain’s Equality Act. The decision confirms that single-sex services for women such as refuges, hospital wards and sports can exclude trans women, clearing up legal ambiguity. Transgender campaigners said the decision could lead to discrimination, especially over employment issues. “The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms ‘women’ and ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex,” said Deputy President of the Supreme Court Patrick Hodge. Advertisement “But we counsel against reading this judgement as a triumph for one or more groups in our society at the expense of another – it is not.” Transgender rights have become a polarising political issue in the UK and other parts of the world. Some critics say the conservative right has weaponised identity politics to attack minority groups, while others argue that support for transgender people has infringed on the rights of biological women. In the United States, legal challenges are under way after US President Donald Trump issued executive orders that include barring transgender people from military service. The judgement in Britain followed legal action by a campaign group, For Women Scotland (FWS), against guidance issued by the devolved Scottish government that accompanied a 2018 law designed to increase the proportion of women on public-sector boards. The guidance said a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate was legally a woman. FWS, which was backed by lesbian rights groups, lost its case in the Scottish courts, but the Supreme Court ruled in its favour. “Today the judges have said what we always believed to be the case: that women are protected by their biological sex, that sex is real and that women can now feel safe that services and spaces designated for women are for women,” Susan Smith, co-director of FWS, told cheering supporters outside court. ‘Deeply concerned’ Britain’s Labour government said the Supreme Court’s decision would bring clarity for hospitals, refuges and sports clubs. Advertisement “Single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this government,” a government spokesperson said. In an example of the ruling’s potential impact, a Scottish health organisation that is being sued by a nurse it suspended over her response to a trans woman using a female changing room said it had noted the judgement. “We will now take time to carefully consider the judgement and its implications,” a spokesperson for NHS Fife said. The Supreme Court said trans people – whether trans women or men – would not be disadvantaged by its decision, as the Equality Act afforded them protection against discrimination or harassment. Trans rights campaigners said the ruling had worrying implications. “Today is a challenging day, and we are deeply concerned at the widespread, harmful implications of today’s Supreme Court ruling,” a consortium of LGBT+ organisations, including the prominent group Stonewall, said in a statement. “We need to take the time to digest the full implications of the ruling and to understand what this will mean on both legal and practical levels … it is important to be reminded that the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Equality Act protects trans people against discrimination.” Trans woman and campaigner Ellie Gomersall said the ruling was “another attack on the rights of trans people to live our lives in peace”. Legal experts said the ruling showed equality legislation might need to be urgently updated to ensure trans people were protected. Advertisement Adblock test (Why?)
As US and China escalate trade war, the world asks, ‘Who will blink first?’
As United States President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping face off in an escalating trade war that has roiled global markets and businesses big and small, the question on countless minds is who will blink first. Trump has pummelled China with a 145-percent tariff. Beijing has retaliated with a duty of 125 percent. On Tuesday, Trump ramped up his trade salvoes by ordering a national security review of imports of critical minerals, most of which come from China. Earlier, Bloomberg News reported that China had ordered its airlines not to take deliveries of Boeing jets and halt purchases of aircraft-related equipment and parts from US companies, while Hong Kong’s postal service announced it would no longer handle US-bound mail. “A 145-percent tariff will make it impossible for China to sell to the US – the costs on both economies will be exceptionally high,” Vina Nadjibulla, vice president of research and strategy at the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada, told Al Jazeera. “A complete decoupling is almost impossible to contemplate.” Advertisement “Who will blink first depends on who can stand more pain and who is better prepared,” she added. While Trump has long accused China of ripping off the US on trade, analysts have questioned whether his administration has a clear goal of what it wants to achieve with its tariffs. Harry Broadman, a former US assistant trade representative and one of the chief negotiators of the WTO, said it is not clear whether Trump wants to close the trade deficit with China or end business with the country outright. “How does Trump deal with US firms that need their goods from China for their factories to work? It’s not black and white,” Broadman told Al Jazeera. “Markets are layered through the different stages of production, you’ve got components coming from all over the world. The global economy is finely chopped up vertically, so it’s not obvious who the winners and losers are.” Broadman said Trump’s approach to trade has been simplistic and unrealistic. “He’s obviously a deals guy in real estate, but not international markets … How he thinks is, ‘How can I win and how can I make the opponent lose?’” he said. “It’s not more sophisticated than that. He’s not interested in splitting the spoils. But you don’t get very far with that.” Miscalculations Trump has made it clear that he believes it is up to China to come to the negotiating table. In a statement on Tuesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt quoted Trump as saying that “the ball is in China’s court.” “China needs to make a deal with us, we don’t have to make a deal with them,” Leavitt told a media briefing in remarks that she said came directly from Trump. Advertisement While the US economy entered the trade war in a relatively strong position compared with China – which is facing headwinds including high unemployment and low domestic demand – Beijing has been preparing for a trade war since at least since Trump’s first term, according to analysts. “The Trump administration has miscalculated that China would quickly come to the negotiating table and would respond to threats,” Dexter Tiff Roberts, a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Global China Hub, told Al Jazeera. Last week, the People’s Daily, a mouthpiece of China’s Communist Party, said the country was prepared for the tariffs after accumulating “rich experience” during the past eight years of trade tensions with the US. “For China, this is an almost existential struggle both on trade and security,” Roberts said, referring to repeated statements from Xi that the East is on the rise while the West is in decline. China has been diversifying its trade away from the US for years, including by reducing its dependence on US agricultural products such as soya beans, which it now mostly sources from Brazil. In 2024, 14.7 percent of China’s exports went to the US, down from 19.2 percent in 2018. On Monday, Xi began a five-day tour of Southeast Asia aimed at buttressing China’s self-styled image as a champion of free trade and a more reliable partner to the region than the US. There are also political considerations for China. Xi has built an image of a strong man and capitulating to the US quickly would damage this image, something he cannot risk both domestically and in China’s dealings with other countries, Roberts said. Advertisement “It is likely they’ll find some MO where both sides declare victory, otherwise it’s like going nuclear and it will shut down entire trade between US and China and I don’t even understand how that works and it will have shocking global implications,” Roberts said. ‘Misguided obsession’ Robert Rogowsky, a professor of trade and economic diplomacy at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies in Monterey, California, said he expects Trump to blink first. “There’s so much blinking going on in Washington that it’s almost hard to believe there won’t be more,” Rogowsky told Al Jazeera. “Trump has this misguided obsession with tariffs and he blinks because he comes under pressure from special interests – the wealthy class that has been losing huge amounts of wealth in stock and bond markets,” Rogowsky said, adding that recent turmoil in the financial markets had damaged his support base. On Friday, the Trump administration announced it would exempt technology imports from the 145-percent levy on China, although later White House officials said that was a temporary reprieve and sectoral tariffs were in the pipeline. Trump on Monday suggested he was also considering exemptions from his 25-percent auto tariffs. “Every public policy negotiation has layers of negotiation: the negotiation with those across the table and the many with those behind you [who helped you] to get to the table,” Rogowsky said, adding that in this case, Trump had “negotiated” with special interests in the tech and auto sectors and “given in right away”. Advertisement It is possible Trump was driven by fear of losing the support of industry
Al-Shabab fighters attack strategic town in central Somalia
The armed group claims to have seized control of Adan Yabaal town, but the Somali army disputes the battle outcome. The al-Shabab armed group has claimed to have seized control of Adan Yabaal, a town in central Somalia and a logistical hub for the government forces, about 220 kilometres (130 miles) north of the capital, Mogadishu. The fighters launched the raids before dawn on Wednesday, forcing the army to retreat after fierce battles, according to a security officer quoted by the Anadolu news agency. However, the report was disputed by the army. Captain Hussein Olow, a military officer in Adan Yabaal, told the Reuters news agency that government troops had pushed the group back. “The terrorist militants launched a desperate attack on the Somali army positions in the Adan Yabaal district this morning,” Somali captain Mohamed Ali told the AFP news agency from a nearby town. “There was heavy fighting still going on in some parts of the town,” he said. There were no reports of casualties. ‘Deafening explosion’ Al-Shabab has been fighting the Somali government for more than 16 years and frequently targets government officials and military personnel. Advertisement Adan Yabaal has strategic military significance and serves as a critical logistical hub connecting Hirshabelle state to the neighbouring central state of Galmudug. It was recaptured from al-Shabab in 2022. “After early morning prayers, we heard a deafening explosion, then gunfire,” Fatuma Nur, a mother of four, told Reuters by phone from Adan Yabaal. “Al-Shabab attacked us from two directions,” she added. President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, who is from the area, visited the town in March to meet with military commanders there. A new African Union peacekeeping mission replaced a larger force at the start of the year, but its funding is uncertain, with the United States opposed to a plan to transition to a United Nations financing model. Adblock test (Why?)
Capturing Water
Campaigners in Cape Town, South Africa confront the socioeconomic and environmental problems in the city’s water management system. After three years of poor rainfall, in 2018, Cape Town announced drastic action to avoid running out of water completely. In this film, three activists fight for “water justice” and expose the socioeconomic divide and the environmental “cracks” in South Africa’s water management system. In Cape Town’s “Day Zero” water crisis in 2018, Faeza Meyer fought against water cut-offs affecting poor communities, Caroline Marx tackled sewage pollution in a local lagoon, and Nazeer Sonday defended precious groundwater from industrial developers. The film examines how market-driven water management increases the rich-poor divide and contributes to broader environmental issues in South Africa. It exposes the systemic problems behind the 2018 crisis – and the complex relationship between economic policies and access to this vital resource. It emphasises the need for sustainable solutions to growing environmental problems – and is a reminder of the importance of water management and conservation at a time of increasing climate uncertainty. Advertisement Adblock test (Why?)
Her Name is Nanny Nellie: Reclaiming Aboriginal History
The discovery of Aboriginal statues in the archives of the Australian Museum prompts a quest to reclaim dignity. A trio of nameless statues buried in the archives of the Australian Museum triggers a great-granddaughter’s quest to honour her ancestors and reclaim their life stories. In 1925, Australia’s Census declared Aboriginal people a “dying race”. The Australian Museum commissioned three statues of Aboriginal people: a child, a man and a woman, exhibited as nameless objects to be studied. The woman was Nellie Bunjil, Irene Ridgeway’s great-grandmother. Irene embarks on a journey to retrace Nanny Nellie’s life and redisplay the statues, this time with her name, identity and dignity. Her Name is Nanny Nellie is a documentary film by Daniel King. Adblock test (Why?)
Ukraine prolongs martial law amid Russian air attacks, heavy ground battles
The measure enables Ukraine to further delay elections, despite pressure for a presidential vote from the US and Russia. Ukraine’s parliament has voted to extend martial law and military mobilisation for another three months, prolonging the wartime measures until at least August 6. Lawmaker Yaroslav Zheleznyak said the extension of martial law passed by a 357-1 vote, while a measure to maintain troop mobilisation was approved 356-1. Under Ukraine’s constitution, elections cannot be held during martial law – a provision that remains in effect despite external calls, including from Russia and the United States, for a timeline on a future vote. Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, whose five-year term was originally due to end in May last year, and even raised the prospect of a temporary United Nations-backed government to lead Ukraine to elections. Reacting to the martial law extension, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov accused Kyiv of trying to “preserve its unstable structure”. In February, US President Donald Trump described Zelenskyy as a “dictator without elections”, prompting Ukrainians to rally around their leader and boosting his approval ratings. Advertisement As peace talks led by the Trump administration created hopes for a potential ceasefire and eventual elections, some Ukrainian opposition politicians have grown more vocal in their criticism of Zelenskyy. Still, there is broad support for maintaining martial law. Petro Poroshenko, a former president and leader of the country’s largest opposition party, said there was no doubt martial law should be prolonged, but accused Zelenskyy of attempting to use the measure to shore up his powers. “I want to stress that we should recognise the obvious – the government has started to abuse martial law, using it not only to defend the country, but to build an authoritarian regime,” Poroshenko said during parliamentary debates on Tuesday. Uncertainty over energy strike moratorium The martial law vote came as heavy fighting and air attacks continued between Russia and Ukraine, now in the 38th month of gruelling war. An overnight Russian drone attack on the Black Sea port city of Odesa injured three people and damaged homes, while various morning air and artillery attacks killed at least one person in the southern city of Kherson, according to Ukrainian officials. A resident of Odesa stands in the back yard of his house, damaged by a Russian drone attack, April 16, 2025 [Nina Liashonok/Reuters] Meanwhile, the Russian military said its forces captured the eastern Ukrainian village of Kalynove, another small claimed advance in the embattled Donetsk region. The Russian Ministry of Defence also accused Ukraine of carrying out six attacks on the country’s energy infrastructure, despite a mutually-agreed 30-day moratorium on such strikes. Advertisement It is unclear if the pause on attacks on energy infrastructure, due to expire on Wednesday, will be extended. “We’ll keep you informed. I am not yet ready to tell you what decision has been made,” Peskov told reporters when asked about whether Russia would extend the moratorium. Adblock test (Why?)
Can Trump legally deport US citizens to El Salvador prisons?
After deporting 238 alleged Venezuelan gang members and 23 members of a Salvadoran gang to a maximum-security El Salvador prison last month, US President Donald Trump is now contemplating deporting criminals who are United States citizens there as well, he told reporters on Monday. But Trump’s latest plan will probably face multiple legal challenges. Forcibly sending American passport holders outside the country is likely illegal, experts say, and Trump himself signed a bill during his first term that could make such deportations even more difficult. So what is Trump’s plan, what are the legal challenges and can it ever be legal to deport a US citizen from the US? Who has Trump already deported to El Salvador? Last month, Trump deported 238 members of the Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua, as well as 23 members of the Salvadoran gang MS-13 to El Salvador. These men are now being held in the Centre for the Confinement of Terrorism (Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo) or CECOT, a 40,000-capacity, maximum-security prison in El Salvador. Advertisement To facilitate this, the Trump administration struck a deal under which the US government will pay El Salvador about $6m to detain alleged Tren de Aragua members for a year. Trump also invoked a wartime “zombie” law from 1798, the Alien Enemies Act, to enable the deportations. This law permits US presidents to detain or deport noncitizens during wartime. Prior to Trump’s use of it, the Alien Enemies Act has only been invoked three times: during the War of 1812, World War I and World War II. A prison guard transfers deportees from the US, alleged to be Venezuelan gang members, to the Terrorism Confinement Center in Tecoluca, El Salvador, on March 16, 2025 [File: El Salvador presidential press office via AP] Trump’s use of the law is controversial, as critics argue that the US is not currently under any threat of “invasion” as a result of being at war. An explainer article from the Brennan Center for Justice argued in 2024 that invoking the act “in peacetime to bypass conventional immigration law would be a staggering abuse” and such an attempt should be struck down by the courts. Another point of controversy is that, as well as the alleged gang members, Trump also deported Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a 29-year-old Salvadoran citizen who has lived in Maryland for 14 years and is married to a US citizen. In 2019, Abrego Garcia was arrested by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Maryland after an informant told the police that Abrego Garcia was an MS-13 terrorist. Abrego Garcia’s lawyers have denied this allegation, citing a lack of any proof that Abrego Garcia is affiliated with the MS-13. Advertisement Later in 2019, an immigration judge granted Abrego Garcia an immigration protection called “withholding of removal”, which shielded him from being returned to El Salvador and allowed him to remain in the US. The government has described his deportation as an “administrative error”, but still claims that Abrego Garcia has ties to MS-13. El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele said he would not return Abrego Garcia, who is now being held in CECOT, to the US. “The question is preposterous. How can I smuggle a terrorist into the United States?” Bukele told reporters on Monday. In an unsigned order on Thursday, however, the US Supreme Court unanimously ruled in a 9-0 decision that Trump should facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return to the US. The court currently comprises a conservative majority of 6-3. What has Trump said about deporting US citizens to El Salvador? Trump hosted El Salvador’s President Bukele at the White House for bilateral talks on Monday, during which they discussed the recent deportations as well as plans for more – this time of US citizens. Trump told Bukele during the meeting: “I said homegrowns are next, the homegrowns. You gotta build about five more places.” By “homegrowns”, Trump was referring to criminals who hold US citizenship. The US president told reporters on Monday after that meeting that he hopes to deport US citizens who are criminals to El Salvador. Bukele said that he would be open to housing US prisoners as well. Trump acknowledged, however, that he would only be able to proceed with this plan if it is shown to be legal, and that he would only deport citizens who are “violent criminals”. Advertisement “We always have to obey the laws, but we also have homegrown criminals that push people into subways, that hit elderly ladies on the back of the head with a baseball bat when they’re not looking, that are absolute monsters,” said Trump. “I’d like to include them in the group of people to get them out of the country, but you’ll have to be looking at the laws on that.” During a media briefing on Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters that Trump “would only consider this [sending US citizens to El Salvador], if legal, for Americans who are the most violent, egregious, repeat offenders of crime who nobody in this room wants living in their communities”. She did not provide additional comments about the legal considerations the administration would make. Would it be illegal to deport US citizens? When Fox News host Jesse Watters asked Attorney General, Pam Bondi on Tuesday if the plan to deport US citizens was legal, she said only: “These are Americans who he is saying have committed the most heinous crimes in our country, and crime is going to decrease dramatically because he has given us a directive to make America safe again. “These people need to be locked up as long as they can, as long as the law allows. We’re not going to let them go anywhere, and if we have to build more prisons in our country, we will do it.” However, immigration law experts say the plan would not be legal. “No, he [Trump] can’t send US citizens to El Salvador,” human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith told Al Jazeera. Advertisement Bruce