Pope Leo laments 'diabolical intensity' of Middle East conflicts
At a meeting in the Vatican, the pontiff said countries in the region were being "devastated by wars, plundered by special interests, and covered by a cloud of hatred that renders the air unbreathable and toxic."
"Today, violent conflict seems to be raging... with a diabolical intensity previously unknown," he said, adding that the humanitarian situation in the Palestinian enclave of Gaza was "tragic and inhumane".
Leo, elected on May 8 to replace the late Pope Francis, appealed last month for Israel to allow more humanitarian aid to enter Gaza. He did not name Israel in his remarks on Thursday.
The U.S.-born pope also did not directly address the recent 12-day war between Israel and Iran that also saw the United States bomb suspected Iranian nuclear facilities but he called for countries to show better respect for international law.
"It is truly distressing to see the principle of 'might makes right' prevailing in so many situations today, all for the sake of legitimising the pursuit of self-interest," he said.
"It is troubling to see that the force of international law and humanitarian law seems no longer to be binding, replaced by the alleged right to coerce others," Leo added.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
ICE may deport migrants to countries other than their own
ICE could remove them, however, to a so-called "third country" with as little as six hours' notice "in exigent circumstances," said the memo, as long as the person has been provided the chance to speak with an attorney. The memo states that migrants could be sent to nations that have pledged not to persecute or torture them "without the need for further procedures." The new ICE policy suggests President Donald Trump's administration could move quickly to send migrants to countries around the world. The Supreme Court in June lifted a lower court's order limiting such deportations without a screening for fear of persecution in the destination country. Following the high court's ruling and a subsequent order from the justices, the Trump administration sent eight migrants from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, Sudan and Vietnam to war-torn South Sudan. The administration recently pressed officials from five African nations - Liberia, Senegal, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania and Gabon - to accept deportees from elsewhere, Reuters reported. The Washington Post first reported the new ICE memo. The administration argues that the third-country deportations help swiftly remove migrants who should not be in the United States, including those with criminal convictions. Advocates have criticized the deportations as dangerous and cruel, since people could be sent to countries where they could face violence, have no ties and do not speak the language. Trina Realmuto, a lawyer for a group of migrants pursuing a class action lawsuit against such rapid third-county deportations at the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, said the policy "falls far short of providing the statutory and due process protections that the law requires." Third-country deportations have been done in the past, but the tool could be more frequently used as Trump tries to ramp up deportations to record levels. During Trump's 2017-2021 presidency, his administration deported small numbers of people from El Salvador and Honduras to Guatemala. Former President Joe Biden's Democratic administration struck a deal with Mexico to take thousands of migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela, since it was difficult to deport migrants to those nations. The new ICE memo was filed as evidence in a lawsuit over the wrongful deportation of Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador. Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston and Ted Hesson in Washington; Editing by Diane Craft
Scotsman
2 hours ago
- Scotsman
Readers' Letters: Israel/Gaza conflict shows Labour Party has lost it's moral compass
Readers are appalled innocents are dying daily in Gaza while the West does, apparently, little Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... On Sunday, Israel killed six children waiting in a queue for water. This follows on from the killing of 24 people on Saturday at a food distribution site. The silence of Keir Starmer and the Labour Party about these and many other atrocities is deafening. This contrasts starkly with Labour's over the top reaction to the Glastonbury chants, to the absurd decision to designate Palestine Action a terrorist group, and the demand by the ridiculous Lisa Nandy that BBC journalists be sacked. I have been a member of the Labour Party for 55 years but it appears that under the current leadership it has completely lost its moral compass. Robert Cairns, Ceres, Cupar, Fife Children queue with pots to receive meals from a charity kitchen in Gaza City yesterday (Picture: Bashar Taleb/AFP via Getty Images) All talk Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad As thousands join to mark the 30th anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre (your report, 12 July), the latest missile attack by an Israeli drone on a group of civilians queuing for water is a timely reminder of such terror attacks on civilians. Ten killed including six children, many more die each day in separate attacks on civilian areas. Where is the justification? The West does nothing. Since 27 May, when US/Israeli-managed food distribution points were set up, over 600 have been killed and nearly 5,000 injured. Some describe it as genocide and ethnic cleansing. Israel has decided it can no longer live next to the people of Gaza. Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu stated in May that all of Gaza will come under Israeli military control, while some within his government openly talk about starving its people. He backs Donald Trump's Riviera plan for a holiday haven for the super rich. The UN claimed that Israel is 'weaponising food aid' while the UK, France and Canada warned of 'further concrete actions' if the humanitarian position did not improve. Two months later the situation appears to have deteriorated. Where are these actions and how much longer must this continue? More than 55,000 killed and 120,000 injured yet the West continues to supply Israel with weapons. Neil Anderson, Edinburgh Keep out of it The SNP failed to get independence for Scotland for a very good reason, its arguments were very flawed. Fast forward to just now and the SNP is calling for a Palestinian state. What due diligence has the SNP done to assure Israelis that this is a safe thing to do? This entire current war is based upon Israel's fears for its own future. In keeping with the rest of us I am sure that the growing casualty toll in Gaza is intolerable, but given Hamas's prime function is to wipe Israel off the map would it not be more helpful to pressurise Hamas to give back all the hostages now rather than facilitate an aggressive state on Israel's border? Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Independence for Scotland was never a serious consideration by the SNP even at the height of Nicola Sturgeon's powers, so surely meddling in international affairs is way beyond its pay grade. Why does it not just sort out the Scotland's ever growing number of SNP-self induced problems instead? Gerald Edwards, Glasgow Staying resolute Each day, more and more Palestinians are murdered in Gaza, a daily trickle dripping to a massacre, now amounting to over 58,000 and rising. Undoubtedly, far too many of those killed are innocent women and children, aid workers and medics. A new word has emerged from the ongoing catastrophe, namely 'simaud', meaning resilience, not giving up. At a time when Palestinians are not welcome in their own homes, they are all the more determined to stay, believing, against all the odds, that their resilience will eventually win the day. The Israeli government will, hopefully sooner rather than later, have to answer for their continuing war crimes, and face the consequences, not least Benjamin Netanyahu, who has even managed to alienate Donald Trump. One thing is for sure, the Palestinians' simaud will prevail, as the tide of world opinion turns in their favour. Ian Petrie, Edinburgh All or nothing Susan Dalgety articulates much of what I was thinking about the possibility of increasing the age at which you can get married in Scotland (Perspective, 12 July). One point in particular which she touches on needs to be articulated more – there needs to be consistency in when someone becomes an adult. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad There is at best a contradiction, and at worst a hypocrisy, in saying that people aged 16 or 17 cannot get married, yet they are old enough to make adult decisions about how to vote. It needs to be all or nothing to have any credibility. Andrew Anderson, Forfar, Angus Be afraid After the 2026 election, we could face extremists in position of power in Scotland once again, and just think what that could mean. The Scottish Greens, for most of whose elected members a telephone box full of voters would be a triumph, could once more be in a position to get leading ministerial roles, due to the voting system used by Holyrood. The SNP will need them to cling to power. The others tend to cancel each other out. Think of the gender obsessions, the off-the-spectrum ideas that would embarrass a Primary Five class, the insane tax and spend policies, these and much more would be on the cards. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad A vote for the SNP will bring Green rule to Scotland. Vote SNP and get Ross Greer & Co to decide your future. Alexander McKay, Edinburgh High-risk Brian Wilson is correct when he says 'Betting the house on offshore wind is a high-risk strategy', and he also advises that 'much of the ScotWind programme may never be built because lower cost alternatives may emerge' (Perspective, 11 July). A balanced energy policy cannot rely on renewables alone, but must retain nuclear and gas for base load electricity generation, with gas for heating – the alternatives are too expensive. Wilson hints at this aspect. Going all electric will increase peak day power generation by three times, which will require additional transmission and distribution lines, and we should also recognise this planet that we live on can cope with a reasonable increase in greenhouse gases. Cars will be electric, but we must retain hybrids for emergency vehicles, and to make certain of access to remote areas – diesel pick-up trucks and petrol chainsaws are a necessity as well, and don't forget about retaining oil as a feed stock – not imported oil. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The Government needs to plan an energy policy which works for everyone and will also save the planet. James Macintyre, Linlithgow, West Lothian EV money The UK Government (the one scrabbling to close the £22 billion 'black hole' in its finances, many of whose politicians parrot the 'heat the house or put food on the table' mantra) is poised to announce a £700bn fund to encourage people to buy more electric cars. This includes paying for 'infrastructure' such as pavement gullies for cables to enable roadside charging, and grants to make electric vehicles cheaper to buy. This is seemingly one of the legendary 'tough decisions' for a country faced with a huge list of problems including rising poverty, a housing crisis due to poor supply and unaffordable prices, and cuts in care home staff. The climate is definitely changing, but how will £700 million on a few thousand more electric cars on UK roads solve that when the UK only contributes to 1 per cent of global warming. But we will experience, if we are to believe the forecasts, a massive impact, including floods, due to more rain and higher tides, fires and millions of immigrants fleeing drought and famine. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Economics and public spending is all about choices based on politics, risk and outcomes and £700m – almost certainly borrowed – would be better spent on shoring up public services, building good, cheap homes or planning and constructing proper defences from the predicted problems. Or is this more about shoring up Ed Miliband's defences and providing an 'off ramp' for car manufactures who face a £15,000 fine for every internal combustion car sold above their quota limit? Allan Sutherland, Stonehaven, Aberdeenshire Robbed? After 'It's Scotland's oil', now it's 'Scotland's Renewables'. It's all part of the long-running 'we wuz robbed' farce, and the latest exponent is Jim Finlayson (Letters, 14 July). According to him, 'we are here to produce renewable energy and to put up with the costs without deriving any benefit'. Funnily enough, the one thing nationalists never mention in the energy debate is that renewables are heavily subsidised and that the majority of the funding for these subsidies comes from a levy on electricity suppliers which is then passed on to consumers throughout the UK through their electricity bills. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Certainly, Scottish consumers pay for this. But the vast bulk of the subsidies is paid for by consumers in the rest of the UK, some 62 million or more of them. The annual subsidy cost is £25.8bn – almost half of spending on defence – to replace cheap gas with expensive electricity. Since 2002, when subsidies were tiny, the cost to UK households of the subsidies has been almost £8,000 each. What would happen to the cost of electricity consumed by five million Scots if the subsidies for renewables were slashed by some 62m UK contributions? We certainly would not be better off. Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh Write to The Scotsman
Spectator
4 hours ago
- Spectator
The BBC Gaza documentary report is a cover-up
The BBC's long-awaited editorial review of its documentary Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone was published today. It reads not like a rigorous investigation into serious journalistic failures, but like a desperate institutional whitewash. The report bends over backwards to defend the indefensible, trying to sanitise a catastrophic editorial misjudgment as little more than 'a significant oversight by the Production Company.' At the heart of the scandal lies the BBC's failure to disclose that the documentary's narrator, a Palestinian boy named Abdullah Al-Yazouri, is the son of Ayman Al-Yazouri, a senior official in the Hamas-run government in Gaza. This, the report acknowledges, was 'wrong' and constituted a breach of guideline 3.3.17 on accuracy, specifically the obligation to avoid 'misleading audiences by failing to provide important context.' Yet this is the only breach the report concedes, despite a litany of other egregious failures. According to the BBC, the production company hired to make the film was 'consistently transparent' in believing that the narrator's father held 'a civilian or technocratic position' and 'made a mistake' by not informing the BBC. This is absurd. The director, co-director, and one Gaza-based crew member were all aware of the father's identity. In my opinion, the notion that anyone could mistake a deputy minister in the Hamas government for a non-political figure is either wilful blindness or calculated deceit. Even more damning is the revelation that the production company met directly with both the narrator and his father in August 2024. And yet, the report states with astonishing credulity: 'I have been told by the Production Company that there was no discussion of the father's position at this meeting.' Somehow, though, the report's author considers this not to be evidence of concealment, but merely an unfortunate omission. The BBC claimed contributors' social media had been checked, yet it took just one independent journalist a single evening after broadcast to uncover everything they missed, and they still aired it again two days later. The narrator's family was paid around £1,817 in goods and cash. The report assures us that sanctions checks were performed and 'no positive results returned'. One wonders how the family of a senior Hamas official could possibly escape UK sanctions, given that Hamas is a fully proscribed terrorist organisation under British law, but then again the money was paid to the narrator's sister, intended for his mother. Even more startling is the admission that the BBC 'was only made aware of the disturbance fee paid for the Narrator after the broadcast of the Programme.' Aside from the Hamas minister's son, perhaps the most brazen deception in the film was also swept under the rug in just two short paragraphs of the BBC's report; its use of non-sequential editing in a sequence portraying a supposed mass-casualty incident. The programme presents us with a child volunteer paramedic (an entirely unbelievable notion anyway) responding to an Israeli airstrike. It opens with a graphic reading '245 days of war' signalling to viewers that the events depicted occurred on a single, specific date. The narration references a particular airstrike and location, accompanied by a map pinpointing the area, further reinforcing the impression that this is a chronological slice of a real event. And yet, the child appears in multiple shots wearing different shoes and with visibly different hair lengths. He looks freshly shorn in one scene and noticeably untrimmed in another. The only constant is a T-shirt, which the BBC admits created an illusion of continuity. The report concedes the sequence 'included scenes shot on different days', and that the impression of a continuous event was 'reinforced by the fact that the child was wearing the same clothes throughout'. Despite this orchestrated consistency, the report ludicrously claims: '[The sequence] did not make any assertions as to how what was shown fitted into the broader chronology of the Israel-Gaza war.' This seems to me to be indefensible. The film used date-stamped graphics, mapped coordinates, location-specific narration, and a carefully coordinated wardrobe, all designed to give the appearance of a single, continuous event. Yet the BBC insists that audiences were not materially misled, and that no editorial breach occurred. It is a blatant exercise in gaslighting, and an affront to even the most basic principles of journalistic integrity. The mistranslation of the Arabic word Yahud, 'Jew', as 'Israelis' is another glaring deception. The report flatly states: 'I do not find there to have been any editorial breaches in respect of the Programme's translation.' Instead, it claims: 'The translations in this Programme did not risk misleading audiences on what the people speaking meant.' This is not merely wrong, it is a conscious sanitisation of genocidal anti-Semitic rhetoric. The fact that Palestinians might use the word 'Jew' and 'Israeli' interchangeably is rather the point. The reason for their animosity towards Israel is precisely because it is the Jewish homeland and the world's only Jewish state. Why else would they use that word? The refusal to translate the word accurately distorts the ideological nature of the conflict. The BBC had ample opportunity to catch these failures. According to the BBC's own investigation, the narrator was identified in the early development stage having previously featured on Channel 4 News. Internal emails from December and January show that multiple BBC staff raised concerns about social media vetting, Hamas affiliations, and whether narration was being scripted for propaganda purposes. Yet these warnings were ignored or brushed aside. Incredibly, a mere footnote reveals: 'There was a reference in the Programme's Commissioning Specification to the Production Company understanding their obligations under the Terrorism Act, which it was stated they would get briefed on. I understand that they were not in fact briefed on these obligations.' Another footnote discussing the Hamas affiliation of the narrator's father mentions a post-broadcast phone call in which the production team allegedly said they 'had not told [the BBC] earlier because they did not want to scare [them].' The production company denies this, but the report admits 'the balance of evidence… supports the conclusion that a comment of this nature was made', but still insists it cannot be read as intentional deception. Despite all this, the BBC concludes smugly: 'I find that the correct formal mechanisms for an independent commission were followed'. This is an insult to the intelligence of every viewer, every Briton and every Jew. If this is what editorial compliance looks like, then those mechanisms are unfit for purpose, and the BBC is a sham organisation. This travesty is not an isolated error. It follows years of documented bias, mistranslation, double standards, and selective outrage. What the BBC has now produced is not an act of accountability, it is an act of institutional self-preservation. A cover-up of a cover-up. A report written not to confront failure, but to excuse it. And in doing so, the BBC has confirmed precisely what so many critics already feared: that when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the BBC is no longer a broadcaster, it is a partisan actor.
