Pro-Palestine protesters at Wimbledon over Barclays sponsorship
Pro-Palestine activists rallied outside Wimbledon on the first day of the tennis championships in London to protest tournament sponsorship by Barclays Bank, who they say helps to finance Israel's war on Gaza. Barclays says it is not a 'shareholder' or 'investor' in defence companies supplying Israel.
Video Duration 00 minutes 43 seconds 00:43
Video Duration 00 minutes 56 seconds 00:56
Video Duration 00 minutes 31 seconds 00:31
Video Duration 02 minutes 28 seconds 02:28
Video Duration 01 minutes 11 seconds 01:11
Video Duration 02 minutes 06 seconds 02:06
Video Duration 01 minutes 14 seconds 01:14
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
an hour ago
- Al Jazeera
UK PM Starmer gets watered-down welfare bill passed amid Labour uprising
United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer has won a key vote in Parliament on a signature plan to overhaul the country's welfare system. But the 335 to 260 House of Commons victory on Tuesday largely rang hollow, with Starmer forced to soften his promised cuts amid pushback from members of his own Labour Party, in what could represent a crisis for his leadership. 'Welfare reform, let's be honest, is never easy, perhaps especially for Labour governments,' work and pensions minister Liz Kendall told Parliament on Tuesday, acknowledging the party infighting that had defined the debate. Reporting from London, Al Jazeera's Milena Veselinovic described the vote as a 'victory in name only' for Starmer. 'His government was facing such a huge rebellion from his own Labour MPs that there was no chance that he could pass this bill in the form that it was originally laid out,' she said. Starmer had ridden into office last year on the back of the largest parliamentary majority in UK history, currently holding 403 of 650 seats. That majority, he maintained, would help him avoid parliamentary dysfunction that had defined the body throughout years of Conservative rule. But Starmer's signature plan to trim down the UK's ballooning welfare system soon ran into controversy, particularly when it came to disability benefits. Starmer's plan pitched raising the threshold for the benefits by requiring a higher threshold for physical or mental disability. That prompted more than 120 Labour lawmakers to publicly say they would vote against the bill. They included Rachael Maskell, one of the leading opponents, who called the cuts 'Dickensian' and said they 'belong to a different era and a different party'. In concessions to party members, the government backed down on implementing tougher eligibility rules for the payments until a wider review of the welfare system had been completed. The government also pivoted to only have the reforms apply to future applicants, and not current claimants, as they initially sought. While the government had at first hoped to save 5 billion pounds ($6.9bn) a year by 2030, the savings under the new plan is estimated to be closer to 2 billion pounds. 'This is a huge blow to the authority of Keir Starmer,' Al Jazeera's Veselinovic said, 'a prime minister who came into power on the back of a massive electoral landslide, who is now unable to pass what his government called flagship legislation without stripping it of nearly all its meaning.'
Al Jazeera
3 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
What Israel's attack on Iran means for the future of war
In the predawn darkness of June 13, Israel launched a 'preemptive' attack on Iran. Explosions rocked various parts of the country. Among the targets were nuclear sites at Natanz and Fordo, military bases, research labs, and senior military residences. By the end of the operation, Israel had killed at least 974 people while Iranian missile strikes in retaliation had killed 28 people in Israel. Israel described its actions as anticipatory self-defence, claiming Iran was mere weeks away from producing a functional nuclear weapon. Yet intelligence assessment, including by Israeli ally, the United States, and reports by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) showed no evidence of Tehran pursuing a nuclear weapon. At the same time, Iranian diplomats were in talks with US counterparts for a possible new nuclear deal. But beyond the military and geopolitical analysis, a serious ethical question looms: is it morally justifiable to launch such a devastating strike based not on what a state has done, but on what it might do in the future? What precedent does this set for the rest of the world? And who gets to decide when fear is enough to justify war? A dangerous moral gamble Ethicists and international lawyers draw a critical line between preemptive and preventive war. Pre-emption responds to an imminent threat – an immediate assault. Preventive war strikes against a possible future threat. Only the former meets moral criteria rooted in the philosophical works of thinkers like Augustine and Aquinas, and reaffirmed by modern theorists like Michael Walzer — echoing the so-called Caroline formula, which permits preemptive force only when a threat is 'instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation'. Israel's raid, however, fails this test. Iran's nuclear capability was not weeks from completion. Diplomacy had not been exhausted. And the devastation risked — including radioactive fallout from centrifuge halls — far exceeded military necessity. The law mirrors moral constraints. The UN Charter Article 2(4) bans the use of force, with the sole exception in Article 51, which permits self-defence after an armed attack. Israel's invocation of anticipatory self-defence relies on contested legal custom, not accepted treaty law. UN experts have called Israel's strike 'a blatant act of aggression' violating jus cogens norms. Such costly exceptions risk fracturing the international legal order. If one state can credibly claim pre-emption, others will too — from China reacting to patrols near Taiwan, to Pakistan reacting to perceived Indian posturing — undermining global stability. Israel's defenders respond that existential threats justify drastic action. Iran's leaders have a history of hostile rhetoric towards Israel and have consistently backed armed groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently argued that when a state's existence is under threat, international law struggles to provide clear, actionable answers. The historical scars are real. But philosophers warn that words, however hateful, do not equate to act. Rhetoric stands apart from action. If speech alone justified war, any nation could wage preemptive war based on hateful rhetoric. We risk entering a global 'state of nature', where every tense moment becomes cause for war. Technology rewrites the rules Technology tightens the squeeze on moral caution. The drones and F‑35s used in Rising Lion combined to paralyse Iran's defences within minutes. Nations once could rely on time to debate, persuade, and document. Hypersonic missiles and AI-powered drones have eroded that window — delivering a stark choice: act fast or lose your chance. These systems don't just shorten decision time — they dissolve the traditional boundary between wartime and peacetime. As drone surveillance and autonomous systems become embedded in everyday geopolitics, war risks becoming the default condition, and peace the exception. We begin to live not in a world of temporary crisis, but in what philosopher Giorgio Agamben calls a permanent state of exception — a condition where emergency justifies the suspension of norms, not occasionally but perpetually. In such a world, the very idea that states must publicly justify acts of violence begins to erode. Tactical advantage, coined as 'relative superiority', leverages this compressed timeframe — but gains ground at a cost. In an era where classified intelligence triggers near-instant reaction, ethical scrutiny retreats. Future first-move doctrines will reward speed over law, and surprise over proportion. If we lose the distinction between peace and war, we risk losing the principle that violence must always be justified — not assumed. The path back to restraint Without immediate course correction, the world risks a new norm: war before reason, fear before fact. The UN Charter depends on mutual trust that force remains exceptional. Every televised strike chips away at that trust, leading to arms races and reflexive attacks. To prevent this cascade of fear-driven conflict, several steps are essential. There has to be transparent verification: Claims of 'imminent threat' must be assessed by impartial entities — IAEA monitors, independent inquiry commissions — not buried inside secret dossiers. Diplomacy must take precedence: Talks, backchannels, sabotage, sanctions — all must be demonstrably exhausted pre-strike. Not optionally, not retroactively. There must be public assessment of civilian risk: Environmental and health experts must weigh in before military planners pull the trigger. The media, academia, and public must insist that these thresholds are met — and keep governments accountable. Preemptive war may, in rare cases, be morally justified — for instance, missiles poised on launchpads, fleets crossing redlines. But that bar is high by design. Israel's strike on Iran wasn't preventive, it was launched not against an unfolding attack but against a feared possibility. Institutionalising that fear as grounds for war is an invitation to perpetual conflict. If we abandon caution in the name of fear, we abandon the shared moral and legal boundaries that hold humanity together. Just war tradition demands we never view those who may harm us as mere threats — but rather as human beings, each worthy of careful consideration. The Iran–Israel war is more than military drama. It is a test: will the world still hold the line between justified self-defence and unbridled aggression? If the answer is no, then fear will not just kill soldiers. It will kill the fragile hope that restraint can keep us alive. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
Al Jazeera
3 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Israel kills 102 in Gaza as Trump says he will be ‘firm' with Netanyahu
Israeli forces have killed at least 102 Palestinians in attacks across the Gaza Strip, medical sources told Al Jazeera, even as United States President Donald Trump claimed that he would be 'very firm' with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on ending Israel's war on the Palestinian enclave. Israeli attacks on Tuesday destroyed clusters of homes in the north and south of Gaza, amid fears of yet another looming ground invasion. The attacks come ahead of a planned visit next week by Netanyahu to Washington, DC. Trump said on Tuesday that the Israeli prime minister wanted to end the war on Gaza, even as his forces ramp up attacks in Gaza. Among the Palestinians killed were 16 hungry aid seekers who died when Israeli soldiers attacked crowds at aid distribution hubs run by the controversial US- and Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), according to medical sources. They are the latest victims in a wave of daily killings at these sites, which have killed nearly 600 Palestinians since GHF took over limited aid deliveries in Gaza in late May amid a crippling Israeli blockade. More than 170 major international charities and nongovernmental organisations have called for an immediate end to GHF, which rights groups say is operating in violation of international principles. 'Palestinians in Gaza face an impossible choice: starve or risk being shot while trying desperately to reach food to feed their families,' a joint statement read. GHF brings 'nothing but starvation and gunfire to the people of Gaza,' it added. Israeli forces also attacked Gaza City in the north, where it recently issued forced evacuation orders for residents of the area, which has already been bombarded into rubble. At least five people were killed when an Israeli quadcopter struck a gathering of people, local news agency Wafa reported. At least 82 percent of Gaza is now an Israeli-militarised zone or under forced displacement threats, according to the United Nations, warning people have nowhere to go. Ismail, a resident of the Sheikh Radwan suburb of Gaza City, said that newly displaced families were setting up tents in the road, after fleeing from areas north and east of the city and finding no other ground available. 'We don't sleep because of the sounds of explosions from tanks and planes. The occupation is destroying homes east of Gaza, in Jabalia and other places around us,' he said. 'Waiting room for death' In Khan Younis and its al-Mawasi area in the south, at least 12 Palestinians were killed when a home belonging to the al-Zanati family was targeted. Separately, a child was killed and several others wounded when an Israeli air strike struck a displacement camp. Several more were killed in an Israeli attack west of the Nuseirat refugee camp in central Gaza, according to sources at al-Awda Hospital, while two others were killed and several wounded in a separate attack on a UN-run school sheltering displaced families in the al-Maghazi refugee camp. In a statement, the Israeli army said it attacked Gaza more than 140 times in the past 24 hours, claiming all those hit were 'terror targets' and 'militants'. The attacks come as hospitals in the devastated enclave struggle to cope with the influx of people amid a severe shortage of medical supplies and much-needed fuel. Al Jazeera's Hani Mahmoud, reporting from Gaza City, said critical services at the al-Shifa Hospital – which has come under attack and besieged several times throughout Israel's assault on Gaza – will soon come to a halt. 'Critical services at al-Shifa Hospital have either stopped or will stop in the coming hours as backup generators are running out of fuel,' Mahmoud said. 'This hospital was once the largest healthcare facility in Gaza, but has slowly turned into a waiting room for death, not just because of the war wounds, but because of a lack of fuel that keeps everything running,' he said. Hope for deal 'next week' The desperate situation in Gaza is increasing the pressure on world leaders to secure a deal that would end the war. Trump continues to maintain that a ceasefire deal is close, and that he hopes one will be secured 'sometime next week', during Netanyahu's White House visit. Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer, a close Netanyahu ally, is in Washington this week for talks with senior officials on a Gaza ceasefire, Iran and other matters. Senior Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri said pressure by Trump on Israel would be key to any breakthrough in stalled ceasefire efforts. 'We call upon the US administration to atone for its sin towards Gaza by declaring an end to the war,' he said. Al Jazeera's Hamdah Salhut, reporting from Amman, said there is 'cautious optimism' in Israel regarding a ceasefire. 'But there are still a lot of concerns, especially among family members of Israeli captives who have been calling for a deal,' Salhut said, adding that Netanyahu 'has never signalled he wants to end the war'. But Hamas has insisted it would not agree to any deal that does not include a full Israeli withdrawal from the Strip and a permanent halt to the war, which has so far killed more than 56,000 Palestinians since it began in October 2023.
