Pageant contestant in Muslim majority nation ousted over pro-Israel video
The video, reportedly from her time studying abroad, showed Kogoya holding and waving an Israeli flag while dancing, with a pro-Israel caption.
Kogoya faced significant backlash in Indonesia, a majority Muslim nation with strong pro-Palestinian sentiment and no diplomatic relations with Israel.
The pageant organisers quietly removed Kogoya from the competition and replaced her with contestant Karmen Anastasya, without issuing an official statement.
Kogoya responded to the backlash by stating the video was not political but represented her Christian faith, though her Instagram bio reportedly still displayed 'I stand with Israel'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
40 minutes ago
- Telegraph
It shouldn't take Trump to tell Netanyahu to end it
Do you want to look wise before an audience of foreign policy experts? Would you like to humour the average Western diplomat? One sure-fire way is to mutter sagely that any leader who tries to reshape the Middle East is bound to come to grief. The grand panjandrums will never admit it, but the prime minister they most heartily despise – Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel – has managed to transform the strategic balance of the region with astonishing speed. In just nine months, he has eviscerated Hezbollah in Lebanon, triggered the downfall of Bashar al-Assad in Syria and wrecked the nuclear ambitions of Iran's regime. One by one, superficial and widely-believed assumptions – that Hezbollah was impregnable, that Assad was safe as houses, that Donald Trump would never send US forces into action in the Middle East, and that Iran's nuclear programme was indestructible – have tumbled ignominiously to the ground. Now, precisely because of that success, the time has come for Mr Netanyahu to draw a line. He should accept America's proposed ceasefire in Gaza and stop the killing. Everywhere else, he has succeeded. In the rubble and misery of Gaza, he can at least bring Israel's Carthaginian campaign to an end. True enough, the great minds of the foreign policy world are already questioning Israel's military achievements. Many are deeply invested in the adamantine belief that military action can only ever achieve a short delay in Iran's progress towards a nuclear weapon. Every plant can be rebuilt and every centrifuge repaired or replaced, or so runs the argument. Very soon, the vital elements of Iran's nuclear enterprise might be just as menacing as before. Hence the attention paid to Rafael Grossi, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, when he said that in 'a matter of months' Iran would have 'a few cascades of centrifuges spinning and producing enriched uranium'. But a 'few cascades' – which means, at most, a few hundred centrifuges – is only a fraction of the 20,000 that were installed in Iran's nuclear plants at Natanz and Fordow before they were bombed by America and Israel last month. Even if Mr Grossi is right and Iran swiftly rebuilds its ability to enrich uranium to weapons-grade, it would still need to convert that material into the solid form used for the core of a nuclear bomb. One problem: Israeli bombs have flattened the conversion facility required for this task. And where exactly will Iran find the scientists with the expertise for this supremely delicate operation? Are they still alive? We know that Israel has killed many of Iran's nuclear experts and training their replacements will be the work of years, if not decades. Here is another problem: given that Mr Netanyahu's spies have obviously penetrated every level of Iran's regime – particularly the nuclear programme – any scientists or officials who might be ordered to rebuild the whole effort will have to be thoroughly investigated and vetted. Those who do the vetting will themselves need to be vetted. Once again, this is the work of years. Israeli intelligence seems to have spent decades recruiting agents in the most sensitive pillars of the Iranian state; rooting them out again could take just as long, even supposing that it's possible at all. As for the destruction of Hezbollah and the downfall of Assad, our diplomats will say that Israel has been tactically adept but strategically blind. They will quote the great Prussian military theorist, Carl von Clausewitz, on how 'war is the continuation of politics by other means' and they will say that Israel's campaign has killed individuals without achieving a political outcome favourable to its interests. Yet, once again, there are good reasons to question this familiar analysis. After the elimination of Hezbollah's entire leadership and thousands of other operatives, the terrorist movement could not prevent an avowed opponent, Joseph Aoun, from becoming President of Lebanon in January. In former years, Hezbollah had the power to veto Lebanese presidential candidates but no longer. That is one squarely political benefit of Israel's campaign. Meanwhile, the disembowelling of Hezbollah deprived Assad of the most reliable force keeping him in power in neighbouring Syria. His flight into exile cleared the way for new leaders who are now negotiating through American mediators for a possible normalisation and peace agreement with Israel. Earlier efforts never got anywhere under Assad, but they might under his successor. If so, Israel will have achieved a political goal that would have satisfied Clausewitz. But Gaza is the great exception. What is the objective of Mr Netanyahu's ever more futile campaign, now the longest and bloodiest war in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict? What cause could justify such suffering among ordinary Palestinians? A deal has been on the table for months. Hamas will release all the Israeli hostages in return for a permanent truce and a withdrawal of forces. Having reshaped the region and confounded his critics, Mr Netanyahu should now do what is both right and wise. He should take what is on offer in Gaza, bring the hostages home and end the war.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Trump touts deal to put 20% tariff on Vietnam's exports
WASHINGTON/HANOI, July 2 (Reuters) - The United States will place a lower-than-promised 20% tariff on many Vietnamese exports, Donald Trump said on Wednesday, cooling tensions with its tenth-biggest trading partner days before the U.S. president could raise levies on most imports. Vietnamese goods will now face a 20% tariff and any trans-shipments from third countries through Vietnam will face a 40% levy, he said. Vietnam would accept U.S. products with a zero percent tariff, he added. "It is my Great Honor to announce that I have just made a Trade Deal with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam," Trump said on Truth Social after speaking with Vietnam's top leader, To Lam. Trump's announcement comes just days before a July 9 deadline he set to resolve negotiations before he ramps up tariffs on most imports, one of the Republican's signature economic policies. Under that plan announced in April, U.S. importers of Vietnamese goods would have had to pay a 46% tariff. Details were scarce, and it was not immediately clear how any trans-shipment provision aimed at products largely made in China and then finished in Vietnam would be implemented. The Vietnamese government said in a statement that the two countries agreed on a joint statement about a trade framework. It did not confirm the specific tariff levels mentioned by Trump. Vietnam would commit to "providing preferential market access for U.S. goods, including large-engine cars," the government in Hanoi said. A deal between the two countries would be a political boost for Trump, whose team has struggled to quickly close deals with Washington's biggest trading partners ahead of the deadline. While the administration has teased a forthcoming deal with India, truces reached earlier with Britain and China were limited in scope. Talks with Japan, the United States' sixth-largest trading partner and closest ally in Asia, appeared deadlocked. The U.S. is Vietnam's largest export market and the two countries' growing economic, diplomatic and military ties are a hedge against Washington's biggest strategic rival, China. Vietnam has worked to retain close relations with both superpowers. Shares of major U.S. apparel and sportswear makers including Nike (NKE.N), opens new tab, Under Armour (UAA.N), opens new tab and North Face maker VF Corp (VFC.N), opens new tab rose on the news. Lam also asked Trump for the U.S. to recognize Vietnam as a market economy and remove restrictions on the exports of high-tech products to the country, Vietnam said. Those changes have long been sought by Hanoi and dismissed by Washington. The White House and the Vietnamese trade ministry did not respond to requests for additional comment. Since Trump imposed tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars in Chinese goods in his 2017-2021 term, U.S. trade with Vietnam has exploded, though almost all of it in the form of goods to the United States from Vietnam as importers sought workarounds for the China levies. Since 2018, Vietnam's exports are up nearly threefold from less than $50 billion that year to about $137 billion in 2024, Census Bureau data shows. U.S. exports to Vietnam are up only about 30% in that time - to just over $13 billion last year from less than $10 billion in 2018. "'Transshipping' is a vague and often politicized term in trade enforcement. How it's defined and how it's applied in practice will shape the future of US-Vietnam trade relations," said Dan Martin, business adviser at Dezan Shira & Associates, on LinkedIn. Trump announced a wave of tariffs for countries around the world on April 2, before pausing the implementation of most duties until July 9. More than a dozen countries are actively negotiating with the Trump administration to avoid a steep spike in tariffs on their exports. Britain accepted a 10% U.S. tariff on many goods, including autos, in exchange for special access for aircraft engines and British beef. Like the agreement struck with Britain in May, the one with Vietnam resembles more a framework than a finalized trade pact. China and the United States also came to a truce in a tit-for-tat tariff battle in which Beijing restored American access to some rare-earth minerals, but the two sides left most of their disagreements to later negotiations. "Had Trump stuck with 46 percent, much higher than the current tariff on China, Vietnam feared it would be disadvantaged by its competitors especially in Southeast Asia," said Murray Hiebert, a senior associate with the Southeast Asia program at CSIS, a think tank. "This likely would have dented Vietnam's trust in the U.S. and it might have toned down some of its security cooperation with Washington, particularly at a time when China has diverted its attention in the South China Sea from Vietnam to the Philippines."
New Statesman
an hour ago
- New Statesman
The BBC is afraid
Photo by Mark Kerrison/In Pictures via Getty Images Since 27 May, Israel has killed and wounded hundreds of unarmed Palestinians at aid distribution sites – the latest in 21 months of continuous Israeli violations of international law. Here in the UK, the government's support for Israel has resulted in increasing state repression of those who support Palestine. A South Asian woman was tried and acquitted over a coconut placard at a Palestine protest. The group Palestine Action will soon be proscribed as a terror organisation. Meanwhile, Kneecap and the rap duo Bob Vylan are under police investigation for their Glastonbury sets. Well-worn methods of protest – direct action, placards, and chants – have all drawn a heavy-handed response from the state. In such a climate, we need our fourth estate to stand firm while focusing on accurately and bravely covering what's happening on the ground in Gaza. Instead, our public broadcaster is afraid. The past six months have been a sorry saga for the BBC. In February, the broadcaster apologised for 'serious flaws' in the documentary Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone, because its child narrator was the son of a Hamas civil minister. In March, it apologised 'unreservedly' to the Israeli embassy in London after a BBC producer asked someone at the embassy for an anti-Netanyahu voice to interview. In June, it shelved a documentary it had commissioned but not yet aired, Gaza: Doctors Under Fire, after months of delay without adequately explaining why to the filmmakers. This week, it has expressed 'regret' at airing Bob Vylan's Glastonbury set live, after the lead singer chanted 'death to the IDF' onstage. Apology after apology. But nowhere has it apologised for failing to communicate the disproportionality, illegality, and gravity of Israel's actions in Gaza across the past 21 months. This includes a clear disparity in emotive language between Israelis and Palestinians, and the omission of context that should be regularly mentioned, like the International Court of Justice ruling in January 2024 or the International Criminal Court arrest warrant out for Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. These are a few of many examples cited in a new Centre for Media Monitoring report on how the BBC's Gaza coverage has failed. Taken together, these apologies and obfuscations depict a BBC that caves to complaints from only 'one side' – a BBC that's compromised and enfeebled, unable to safeguard its own independence. The bad faith critics demanding these apologies aren't interested in either the BBC's independence or the quality of its journalism. Their aim is to establish more oversight and to ensure that the BBC stays editorially anxious, unwilling to take risks and commission the sort of ground-breaking journalism that fearlessly follows the evidence to its conclusion. This is already happening: Gaza: Doctors Under Fire, the documentary the BBC shelved, will now be aired by Channel 4. We need an editorially brave BBC, willing to battle against external pressure and back its best journalists. More than a hundred BBC journalists have just signed a letter calling the board's decision not to air Gaza: Doctors Under Fire a 'political decision', that doesn't reflect the quality of journalism in the film. The job of the board and the executive should be to protect the conditions under which good journalism can happen – journalists shouldn't have to be concerned that they'll be trolled when they cover Gaza, or that their painstaking work will be delayed and canned without adequate editorial justification. A meeting between BBC board members and the Culture Secretary should not be a reason for journalists to panic. Working at the BBC on Gaza over many months, I watched many journalists make crucial decisions within this culture of fear. The BBC felt more exposed than independent, and many colleagues were concerned about complaint campaigns on social media or getting told off by bosses. I watched too many gently dislocate from the critical journalistic burden of speaking truth to power, or burn themselves out fighting to get good quality work published. We also need a BBC that stands firm around the core freedoms this government is eroding – like free speech, and freedom to protest. 'Impartiality', reads the BBC's own guidelines, 'does not mean detachment from fundamental democratic values, including freedom of expression, the right to vote, the rule of law and freedom from discrimination.' The BBC isn't expected to be detached when human rights and basic freedoms are under threat, whether this is the human rights of Palestinians or the basic freedoms of the British public. So why isn't it ready to act in accordance with this line of its own policy? While the BBC claims it's independent, the public increasingly believes otherwise. Many of us saw a palpable shift in tone around its Gaza coverage at the end of May, when the UK joined France and Canada in calling on the Israeli government to 'stop its military operations' and 'immediately allow humanitarian aid to enter Gaza'. Instead of standing as a lighthouse in a growing storm – the collapse of international law, the erosion of democratic freedoms – the BBC sways with the prevailing wind. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe As state repression grows, we have no evidence that the BBC will act as part of a robust fourth estate – challenging and resisting government influence. My issue is not that the BBC makes decisions I disagree with. My issue is that it makes panicked decisions while its independence is under threat. To the bosses at the top of the BBC, I say: amid all the apologies and prevarications, audiences are losing trust in their public broadcaster and government ministers are talking about a 'leadership' problem at the organisation. Was it all worth it? [See also: Stop taking Glastonbury so seriously] Related
