Israel army issues evacuation warning for parts of north Gaza
OCCUPIED JERUSALEM: Israel's military issued Sunday an evacuation order for the northern Gaza Strip, warning Palestinians in parts of Gaza City and nearby areas of imminent action there, more than 20 months into the war with Hamas.
Trump slams Israel's prosecutors over Netanyahu corruption trial
Israeli forces 'will operate with intense force in these areas, and these military operations will intensify and expand… to destroy the capabilities of the terrorist organisations', military spokesman Avichay Adraee said in a statement posted on X alongside a map of northern Gaza, telling residents to 'evacuate immediately south to Al-Mawasi' for safety.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
3 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Trump brands Zohran Mamdani a ‘pure communist' in latest attack on NYC Democratic mayoral winner
Listen to article US President Donald Trump branded the winner of New York City's mayoral Democratic primary a 'pure communist' in remarks that aired Sunday, an epithet the progressive candidate dismissed as political theatrics. Zohran Mamdani's shock win last week against a scandal-scarred political heavyweight resonated as a thunderclap within the party, and drew the ire of Trump and his collaborators, who accused Mamdani of being a radical extremist. The Republican's aggressive criticism of the self-described democratic socialist is sure to ramp up over the coming months as Trump's party seeks to push Democrats away from the political centre and frame them as too radical to win major US elections. 'He's pure communist' and a 'radical leftist … lunatic,' Trump fumed on Fox News talk show 'Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo'. 'I think it's very bad for New York,' added Trump, who grew up in the city and built his sprawling real estate business there. 'If he does get in, I'm going to be president and he is going to have to do the right thing [or] they're not getting any money' from the federal government. Trump's White House has repeatedly threatened to curb funding for Democratic-led US cities if they oppose his policies, including cutting off money to so-called sanctuary cities, which limit their cooperation with immigration authorities. Mamdani also took to the talk shows on Sunday, asserting he would 'absolutely' maintain New York's status as a sanctuary city so that 'New Yorkers can get out of the shadows and into the full life of the city that they belong to.' Asked directly on NBC's 'Meet the Press' whether he is a communist, Mamdani — a 33-year-old immigrant aiming to become New York's first Muslim mayor — responded, 'No, I am not. 'And I have already had to start to get used to the fact that the president will talk about how I look, how I sound, where I'm from, who I am, ultimately because he wants to distract from what I'm fighting for,' Mamdani said. 'I'm fighting for the very working people that he ran a campaign to empower, that he has since then betrayed.' The Ugandan-born state assemblyman had trailed former governor Andrew Cuomo in polls but surged on a message of lower rents, free daycare and buses, and other populist ideas in the notoriously expensive metropolis. Although registered Democrats outnumber Republicans three to one in New York, victory for Mamdani in November is not assured. Current Mayor Eric Adams is a Democrat but is campaigning for re-election as an independent, while Cuomo may also run unaffiliated.
Express Tribune
4 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Age of ill-founded generalisations
The writer is an educationist based in Kasur City. He can be reached at Listen to article We are living in a world of ill-founded generalisations. Generalisations are our judgemental, aphoristic and summarised assessments of people or circumstances. They are mostly churned in haste, satisfying our inner cathartic or vengeful cries. They are also forged in the smithy of slothful minds who shirk viewing anything as relative. Being closed to possibilities leads one to generalise. Generalisations is also the arsenal of propagandist cultures. "My name is Khan and I am not a terrorist" is a defiant thesis statement of a Shahrukh Khan movie, My Name is Khan, against the broad-brush propaganda painting all the Muslims, particularly with the generic name Khan, as terrorists. The generalisations don't pop up out of nowhere. There are always contributions of the species being generalised. In one of Aesop's fables, the shepherd boy is labelled for crying wolf as "once a liar, always a liar". So, whosoever cries wolf is called a liar; all liars can be humans, but to label all humans as liars sounds misanthropic. Generalisations are also based on fears – fears of threats to existence, supremacy and hegemony. The Muslim countries developing and having nuclear weapons are branded as a threat to the US and its allies despite the fact that they themselves are nuclear hegemons defying all the UN nonproliferation resolutions. North Korea and Israel possessing nuclear capability are not considered as menacing to world peace as Iran which, even American analysts predict, is years behind in achieving nukes. It is said that generalisations without examples and examples without generalisations are useless. Whether it is education, politics or public discourse, communication remains infertile when one is offered without the other. The nuptial bond between the two births healthy understanding, intellectual persuasion and ideological clarity. Oversimplifying students' behaviour into binary terms (intelligent or obtuse) ignoring neurodiversity is common in our educational institutions. Kierkegaard says, "Once you label me, you negate me." Our teaching is devoid of contextual examples, hence fails to inspire students. Generalisations are handy go-to statements for politicians. At talk shows and pressers, generalisations are used as off-ramps to avoid pointed questions and blunt replies. When people run out of arguments, they generalise. The failure to substantiate generalisations causes mistrust. In science, a theory (generalisation) must stand the test of experiments and observations (examples). At the crossroads of world crises, the generalisations are the fence sitters' choice. Instead of taking sides and doing something practically, statements of condemnation and support are issued as policy statements. We heard this lip service at the Israeli genocide of Palestinians and its unprovoked attacks on Iran. In written outpourings, generalisations make the writing abstract. Examples are actually stories – the time-tested means to better communicate, understand and retain information. An idea becomes palpable when it is embodied. When a writer doesn't show but tells, his writing goes abstract. Our politicians are well-known for showcasing their flagship achievements. The public must not be befooled by the cherry-picked examples as one swallow doesn't make a summer. The public can differentiate between a well-annealed generalisation and a manipulative one by observing the consistent performance of their representatives. The gap between a generalisation and examples bespeaks of craft and hypocrisy. In the realms of morality and ethics, the gap becomes the acid test for one's character and charisma. In our political discourse, a line is drawn between a leader's personal and public life. If his public persona is taken as a generalised life statement, his personal life stands for the telltale examples. The unparalleled yardstick to assess a leader is the life of the last Prophet of Allah, Hazrat Muhammad (PBUH and his progeny). All the biographers of his life concur that there was no discord between his personal and public life. In Mohsin-e Insaniyet, the biographer writes on page 120: "The greater the gap between a person's private and public life, the lower their true status." [Disclaimer: the space here necessitates generalisations]
Express Tribune
4 hours ago
- Express Tribune
The dangerous new normal in Middle East
Listen to article Who won the 12-day war between Iran and Israel? To answer that, one must first examine the objectives of all parties involved in the conflict. Israel publicly stated that its main goal was to degrade or eradicate Iran's ability to develop a nuclear bomb. Before launching direct attacks, the hardline Israeli government claimed that Tehran was only weeks away from achieving nuclear capability. This, it insisted, justified its preemptive strikes. The US initially maintained distance. When Israel, on June 13, launched a series of strikes on Iranian nuclear sites and assassinated senior military leaders and top nuclear scientists of Iran, the Trump administration said it was a unilateral Israeli action. Interestingly, just three months earlier, US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard had assessed there was no indication Iran was close to making a nuclear bomb. Trump, however, publicly dismissed the assessment. Despite Israel's claims of initial success, it continued to press for the US involvement. It wanted the US to deploy B-2 bombers capable of dropping bunker-busting bombs needed to destroy deeply buried facilities like Fordow, located hundreds of metres beneath the mountains near the historic city of Qom. For over 45 years, no American president took the bait, even while maintaining close ties with Israel. The reason was simple: any direct attack on Iran's nuclear facilities risked triggering a full-scale regional war. But Trump, who often brands himself a man of peace, broke with the precedent. He ordered direct strikes on three major Iranian nuclear sites including Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz. The US B-2 bombers dropped over a dozen 30,000-pound bombs in an attempt to destroy Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Trump swiftly claimed victory, announcing that Iran's nuclear capability had been "totally obliterated". However, a leaked report by the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) contradicted this, revealing that the strikes caused only limited damage and had set back Iran's programme by just a few months. Trump dismissed the report as a deliberate attempt to undermine his administration's success. Reports later confirmed that there was no radiation leak from any of the bombed sites, indicating that Iran might have moved its enriched uranium and sensitive materials to safe locations before the attacks. While Iran continued to retaliate against Israel with its limited resources, the direct US involvement escalated the stakes. Until then, Iran had avoided targeting American military bases in the Gulf. But after the strikes, Tehran altered its approach. It had promised retaliation and the obvious targets were the US bases in the neighborhood. When Iran launched missiles at a major US base in Qatar, fears surged that the world was entering uncharted territory. However, it soon became clear that the strike was a choreographed move and coordinated in advance with both Qatar and the US. It was intended to pave the way for a ceasefire. Tehran needed a symbolic response to show its people it had avenged the strikes. Trump even thanked Iran for the advance notice. All the missiles were intercepted over Doha, resulting in no casualties or damage. Hours later, Trump announced a ceasefire deal. Although there were initial violations from both sides, the US president publicly rebuked Tel Aviv, ensuring the truce was held. In Trump's own words, Iran had fought "bravely" and Israel was hit "very very hard". This meant Israel needed a breather. Iran too, under immense pressure, could not afford to prolong the conflict. Israel's ultimate goal of regime change in Tehran did not materialise. Iran, despite heavy losses, survived to fight another day. For decades, Israel and Iran had avoided direct confrontation. That precedent is now broken. The real danger going forward is that such exchanges may become the new normal.
