British soldier, 20, is killed 'by an explosive device' while fighting in Gaza
Sergeant Yisrael Natan Rosenfeld, 20, from Ra'anana, Israel died on Sunday while fighting with the 601st Combat Engineering Battalion, the Times of Israel reports.
The IDF soldier moved from London to Israel with his family 11 years ago, according to the paper, which adds that he has three siblings.
The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office said it is 'looking into reports that an IDF soldier who died in combat in Gaza is a British national'.
Israel continues to operate in Gaza, almost two years on from Hamas 's attacks on October 7, 2023.
The initial attacks saw thousands of Hamas fighters storm into southern Israel where they killed a reported 1,320 Israelis and took a further 251 hostage.
Some 50 hostages remain in captivity in Gaza but 28 of them are believed to be dead.
Israel's subsequent strikes on the Gaza Strip have reportedly killed more than 56,000 people and left thousands displaced, wounded and struggling for water, food and healthcare.
It comes after the Hamas chief allegedly behind the October 7 attacks was killed by an Israeli airstrike, according to the IDF.
In a post on X on Saturday, the IDF reported it 'eliminated' Hakham Muhammad Issa Al-Issa in a targeted airstrike on the Sabra neighbourhood of Gaza on Friday.
Describing him as both 'one of the founders of Hamas' military wing' and Hamas itself, it said: 'Issa led Hamas' force build-up, training, and planned the October 7 massacre.'
It continued: 'As Head of Combat Support, he advanced aerial & naval attacks against Israelis.'
The force has killed several other high-ranking Hamas officials since October 7.
The Israeli military said earlier this month it killed the leader of a Palestinian militant group that took part in the October 7 attacks.
Asaad Abu Sharia, who led the Palestinian Mujahideen Movement and its armed wing the Mujahideen Brigades, was killed in a joint operation with Israel's Shin Bet internal security agency.
His death and that of his brother Ahmed Abu Sharia were announced after it was reported by Gaza's civil defence agency an Israeli airstrike had hit their home in Gaza City's Sabra area.
Israel also said at the end of May its forces had killed Hamas' Gaza chief Mohammad Sinwar.
He became the leader of the militant group in the Gaza Strip after his older brother Yahya Sinwar was killed last October.
The Israeli military said at the time he was the target of a strike on a southern Gaza hospital on May 13.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu then told parliament he had been 'eliminated'.
In the last 20 months, repeated US-led attempts at a ceasefire have fallen through but on Friday it emerged that US President Donald Trump and Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had agreed on a rapid end to the war in Gaza.
They discussed a solution during a phone call after the US bombing of Iranian nuclear sites, Israeli media has reported quoting a source 'familiar with the conversation'.
The two leaders agreed that four Arab states, including the United Arab Emirates and Egypt, would jointly govern the strip in place of Hamas, Israel Hayom is reporting.
Leaders of the Hamas terror group would be exiled and all hostages released, a source is said to have told the outlet.
But it remains unclear how such a proposal would be implemented, with Hamas vowing it will not leave the territory and Arab states repeatedly asserting that they would not step into a governing role.
Trump and Netanyahu held the call on Monday a day after US bombers hit nuclear targets in Iran, with a source reportedly describing the call as 'euphoric'.
They were joined on the call by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer, according to the report.
Under the agreement, Palestinians who wished to leave Gaza would be taken in by unnamed states, the men reportedly said, and Saudi Arabia and Syria would establish diplomatic ties with Israel.
Israel in turn would express support for a future two-state solution on the condition that the Palestinian Authority bring in reforms, according to the report.
The United States would recognise Israeli sovereignty over parts of the West Bank as part of the agreement, it also said.
Israel Hayom reports that the 'ambitious' nature of the plan explains Trump's fury over Israel's planned retaliation against Iran for its 'minor' breach of the US-brokered ceasefire on Tuesday.
Trump called the Israeli Prime Minister and warned him to 'stop the planes', reportedly telling him he did not understand why Netanyahu was 'disrupting' their agreed upon 'plan for peace' because of a 'small tactical incident'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
17 minutes ago
- Telegraph
BBC admits it is still letting biological men use women's lavatories
The BBC has admitted it is still letting biological men use women's lavatories. In response to a Freedom of Information (FoI) request, the corporation said it would only change its policies once guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is approved by the Government. In the meantime, the BBC said that 'sanitary facilities vary' across its estate, which includes studios and offices across the country. Signs will not be changed until the guidance is approved this autumn. The Supreme Court ruled in April that the word 'sex' in the Equality Act refers to biological sex and not to a person's gender identity. It means that facilities such as lavatories, changing rooms and showers should be segregated by sex and gender. The EHRC followed this up with interim guidance which confirmed that transwomen – biological males – should not be allowed in such women's spaces. And last month, Sir Keir Starmer said public bodies must implement the ruling 'as soon as possible'. However, the BBC said it would wait until the final guidance is published and signed off by the Government before taking any action. Catherine Leng, advocacy lead at the gender-critical group Seen in Journalism, said: 'We know that before the ruling, the BBC did not signpost facilities for women only by biological sex – in fact, it refused requests to do so – and they've done nothing since the Supreme Court judgment to change that. 'The BBC itself said the judgment gives clarity, so why is it dragging its feet on single-sex spaces? 'How can female journalists and other staff feel confident their employer will support them in being impartial when it won't respect the law itself? The law is the law now, it doesn't depend on EHRC guidance and the EHRC chair has made that clear. 'It needs to stop asking its diversity teams what to do and start asking lawyers.' 'Deeply shocking' In its FoI request, Seen in Journalism asked: 'Do all or any BBC buildings and workplaces in the UK have single-sex toilets, changing rooms and/or showers which are accessible only to members of one sex and not to trans-identified members of the opposite sex?' The response was: 'Sanitary facilities vary across the BBC property estate. We fully intend to comply with any new guidance once approved, while ensuring that we provide facilities that respect the needs and rights of all staff and visitors to our buildings.' A BBC spokesman said: 'We want to ensure dignity and respect for all colleagues. We currently have self-contained facilities and/or mixed-sex toilets everyone can use at most of our sites. 'We are now working through what steps we might need to take, noting the EHRC's interim update, to ensure we have sufficient provision of facilities everyone can use across all BBC sites. No signage has been changed at this time. 'An EHRC consultation on its Code of Practice for services, public functions and associations following the Supreme Court Ruling closed on 30 June. After this, a new Code of Practice will be sent for ministerial approval. 'Following this we will be reviewing our policies and practices to consider if they need to be updated, to meet any legal obligations across any applicable legislation.' Fiona McAnena, the director of campaigns at women's rights charity Sex Matters, said: 'It is deeply shocking that the UK's flagship broadcaster, which covered the Supreme Court judgment extensively, cannot give a straight answer to a very clear question on whether it provides single-sex facilities for its employees. 'In fact, the BBC's response suggests that the organisation could currently be operating outside the law, and gives the impression it is in no hurry to ensure it complies with the law. 'The ruling laid out clearly how the Equality Act should be interpreted, with single-sex toilets and changing rooms operating on the basis of biological sex. 'The Prime Minister himself has said that public bodies refusing to implement the Supreme Court ruling on the definition of a woman must do it 'as soon as possible'. The BBC surely has the legal resources to interpret and implement a clear judgment. It is only putting itself at increased risk of legal action with each day it delays.'
Daily Mail
17 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Parliament's chief bell ringer is hit with £100,000 court bill after ripping out banker neighbour's gate to his £2m west London home on day he moved in
Parliament's master bellringer has been hit with a £100,000-plus court bill after tearing out the front gates of his banker neighbour's £2m west London home. Retired financier Nicholas Partick-Hiley bought his mews cottage in Fulham, in August 2023, planning to make the property a dream home for his retirement alongside wife, Lisa. But the 64-year-old was shocked when he arrived on the day of completion to find his new neighbour bell-ringer neighbour, Adrian Udal, 65, demolishing the door and roller gate securing the front of his home. Mr Udal, who had lived next door to the couple's property for 30 years, insisted he had a right to do what he did as he owns the land the gate was on. However, the couple sued and won the case last month after Judge Nicholas Parfitt branded Mr Udal's actions 'wanton destruction' and 'carefully pre-planned'. And now Mr Udal - Secretary of the Belfry at St Margaret's Church, a medieval building next to Westminster Abbey which acts as place of worship for the Houses of Parliament - has been left facing a £100,000-plus bill after being ordered to pay the legal costs of the case. In a short hearing at Mayor's and City County Court, Judge Parfitt ordered him to pay £85,000 up front towards his neighbours' estimated £100,000-plus legal bill. He will also have to pay the couple £10,000 compensation for what he did, as well as his own lawyers' significant costs, which have not been revealed in court. Mr Udal is a veteran bell-ringer, whose Secretary of the Belfy role involves liasing with clergy when bellringing is needed for special church, state and parliamentary events, while he is proud to have 'rung in' the New Year almost every year since 2000. He also works as a broadcast editor and has a keen interest in antique clocks, while his wife, Helen, is also a campanologist, being bell tower captain at St Gabriel's Church Pimlico. Mr Partick-Hiley is a retired financier and former managing director and head of sales for North America investment banking specialists Panmure Gordon. During the trial last month, Judge Parfitt was told how the two neighbouring homes are in an unusual layout, with the Partick-Hileys' house located behind Mr Udal's property and reachable across a drive and through a passageway, which passes under part of his house and into their courtyard. The drive and passageway are owned by Mr Udal, but the Partick-Hileys have the right to pass over it to get to their house, the court heard. Explaining the background to the row, Mark Warwick KC, for the Partick-Hileys, said: 'On the day of completion, Mr Partick-Hiley arrived at the property at about 12.10. 'He was astonished to find Mr Udal and another man. The two men were in the process of destroying the door and gate. They were also disconnecting wiring that connected the property to various services. 'No advance warning of any kind had been given by Mr Udal, or anyone on his behalf, that such extraordinary behaviour was going to happen. 'Mr Partick-Hiley endeavoured to remain calm. He contacted his solicitors, he felt helpless. 'Mr Udal and (the other man) continued with their demolition work until about 5pm. 'His actions were plainly carefully pre-planned. No amount of persuasion, including the involvement of the police, has caused him to resile, or seemingly regret, his actions. 'The impact of these actions, and contentions, has been serious, their quiet enjoyment and actual enjoyment of their home has been disrupted.' The couple sued for an injunction against Mr Udal, claiming the right to put up new gates across the opening which leads to their house, citing 'security concerns' in the affluent street. They said they were aware of a conflict between their home's previous owner and Mr Udal before moving in, but thought it was settled until Mr Udal was witnessed dismantling the disputed gate. Through their solicitors, they had contacted him two months before the move, explaining that they planned to install 'better looking and more functional gates' once they moved in, although making clear they would welcome Mr Udal's input on the style and design of those gates. But in response, the couple alleged their new neighbour began to plot how to remove and install new gates, buying his own set of metal barriers on July 13, 2023, which Mr Warwick claimed showed that 'he was planning to carry out the destruction of the existing gates'. When the day of completion arrived, 'Mr Udal and his accomplice duly set about destroying the gates and disconnecting services running through the driveway', he added. Their barrister claimed Mr Udal had 'carefully planned' what he did and did so 'at a time to cause maximum disruption and distress.' Soon afterwards, the couple's lawyers wrote to Mr Udal insisting that the removed gates were their property and that it was up to them to decide what alternatives should be put in their place. 'Mr Udal disagreed,' said the KC, adding: 'On September 10, he began to hang metal gates, of his own choosing, right next to the pavement.' In court, the couple insisted they have the right to erect and site entrance gates 'on either side of the opening that runs under part of Mr Udal's house,' plus the right to park a car in the area. But Mr Udal insisted their right only extends to having the strip gated at the front of the property next to the pavement and they have no right to have a car on his land. He said that in removing the existing roller gate and door, and installing a new gate next to the pavement at the end of the driveway, he had done no more than assert his legitimate rights as freehold owner of the passage between the two homes. Handing victory to the bell master's neighbours, Judge Parfitt slammed his 'wrongful act of wanton any reasonable and objective person should have realised would cause considerable upset and discomfort' and ordered him to pay £10,000 damages. 'Mr Udal was a poor witness who came across as preferring his own perception of what might be helpful to his own case, regardless of any objective reality,' he continued. 'The overall impression was that truth for him, in the context of legal proceedings at least, was no obstacle to a clever argument about language or the other evidence. 'He referred to his destruction of the roller shutter and furniture as his having 'returned' it to (the former owner). 'This is also using expressions normally used to describe something helpful - getting something back to the owner - as a means of sugar-coating the reality of what he was doing: destroying part of the claimants' property on the very day they were moving in and would have expected to find the roller shutter and furniture providing a secure and private barrier between the road and their new house. 'On a balance of probabilities, the defendant had planned to destroy the roller shutter and furniture on the day of completion and perhaps hoped that it would be a fait accompli by the time the claimants arrived. 'In any event, he continued his actions even after they had arrived and it was clear that they objected.' The judge found that the gates Mr Udal removed were in the correct position and that the couple have a right 'to pass and re-pass either on foot, or with or without vehicles' down the drive and passage. He added: 'Mr Udal's actions in respect of the roller gates and furniture was an inappropriate and wrongful act of wanton destruction designed, in my view, to, at best, take advantage of the gap between owners occurring at completion, and conduct which any reasonable and objective person should have realised would cause considerable upset and discomfort to the new owners.' Returning to court last week to decide on matters consequential to his judgment, Judge Parfitt ordered Mr Udal to tear out the gate he installed within two weeks. He said the Mr Partick-Hileys would have the right to install their own, but that if it is to be lockable they must ensure that Mr Udal is able to get in if he wants to get to the back of his house. He also ordered him to pay £85,000 towards their lawyers' bills - estimated at over £100,000 - ahead of an assessment at a later date. His own lawyers' bills were not revealed in court papers. Representing himself via a video link, Mr Udal said he was planning to challenge the decision on appeal.
The Independent
24 minutes ago
- The Independent
What Rod Stewart has said about his split from ex-wife
Rod Stewart reflected on his marriage to Rachel Hunter, admitting their 24-year age gap ultimately caused their relationship to end. Stewart met Hunter in 1990 when she was 21 and he was 45, marrying three months later before separating in 1999 and officially divorcing in 2006. Despite his heartbreak, Stewart met his current wife, Penny Lancaster, the day after his split from Hunter in 1999. Stewart and Lancaster married in 2007 and have two children, with Stewart noting Lancaster has become 'more bossy' since becoming a special constable. The musician has recently drawn attention for his public support of the Reform party and its leader, Nigel Farage.
