Mahmoud Khalil, a leader of US pro-Palestinian campus protests, was detained for three months
Khalil, a legal permanent resident in the United States who is married to a US citizen and has a
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Bitcoin price passes US$120,00 for the first time
Donald Trump has called himself the "crypto president". Photo: Justin Tallis/AFP/Getty Images via CNN Newsource Bitcoin crossed the $120,000 (NZ$200,000) level for the first time on Monday, marking a major milestone for the world's largest cryptocurrency as investors bet on long-sought policy wins for the industry this week. Starting on Monday, the US House of Representatives will debate a series of bills to provide the digital asset industry with the nation's regulatory framework it has long demanded. Those demands have resonated with US President Donald Trump, who has called himself the "crypto president" and urged policymakers to revamp rules in favor of the industry . Expectations of further tailwinds for the industry helped propel bitcoin to yet another record high of US$121,207.55 (NZ$201,200) in the Asian session on Monday. It last traded at US$120,856.34 (NZ$200,600). The surge in bitcoin, which is up 29 percent for the year thus far, has sparked a broader rally across other cryptocurrencies over the past few weeks even in the face of Trump's chaotic tariffs. Ether, the second-largest token, scaled an over five-month top of US$3,048.23 (NZ$5,060) on Monday and last stood at US$3,036.24 (NZ$5,040). The sector's total market value has swelled to about US$3.78 trillion (NZ$6.27 trillion), according to data from CoinMarketCap. - Reuters
Otago Daily Times
2 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Israel blames 'malfunction' after children killed collecting water
At least eight Palestinians, most of them children, were killed and more than a dozen were wounded in central Gaza when they went to collect water on Sunday, local officials said, in an Israeli strike which the military said missed its target. The Israeli military said the missile had intended to hit an Islamic Jihad militant in the area but that a malfunction had caused it to fall "dozens of metres from the target". "The IDF regrets any harm to uninvolved civilians," it said in a statement, adding that the incident was under review. The strike hit a water distribution point in Nuseirat refugee camp, killing six children and injuring 17 others, said Ahmed Abu Saifan, an emergency physician at Al-Awda Hospital. Water shortages in Gaza have worsened sharply in recent weeks, with fuel shortages causing desalination and sanitation facilities to close, making people dependent on collection centres where they can fill up their plastic containers. Hours later, 12 people were killed by an Israeli strike on a market in Gaza City, including a prominent hospital consultant, Ahmad Qandil, Palestinian media reported. The Israeli military did not immediately comment on the attack. Gaza's health ministry said on Sunday that more than 58,000 people had been killed since the start of the war between Israel and Hamas in October 2023, with 139 people added to the death toll over the past 24 hours. The ministry does not distinguish between civilians and fighters in its tally, but says over half of those killed are women and children. CEASEFIRE? US President Donald Trump's Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff said on Sunday that he was "hopeful" on Gaza ceasefire negotiations underway in Qatar. He told reporters in Teterboro, New Jersey, that he planned to meet senior Qatari officials on the sidelines of the FIFA Club World Cup final. However, negotiations aimed at securing a ceasefire have been stalling, with the two sides divided over the extent of an eventual Israeli withdrawal from the Palestinian enclave, Palestinian and Israeli sources said at the weekend. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was set to convene ministers late on Sunday to discuss the latest developments in the talks, an Israeli official said. The indirect talks over a US proposal for a 60-day ceasefire are being held in Doha, but optimism that surfaced last week of a looming deal has largely faded, with both sides accusing each other of intransigence. Netanyahu in a video he posted on Telegram on Sunday said Israel would not back down from its core demands - releasing all the hostages still in Gaza, destroying Hamas and ensuring Gaza will never again be a threat to Israel. The war began on October 7, 2023, when Hamas-led militants stormed into Israel, killing about 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages into Gaza. At least 20 of the remaining 50 hostages there are believed to still be alive. Families of hostages gathered outside Netanyahu's office in Jerusalem to call for a deal. "The overwhelming majority of the people of Israel have spoken loudly and clearly. We want to do a deal, even at the cost of ending this war, and we want to do it now," said Jon Polin, whose son Hersh Goldberg-Polin was held hostage by Hamas in a Gaza tunnel and slain by his captors in August 2024. Netanyahu and his ministers were also set to discuss a plan on Sunday to move hundreds of thousands of Gazans to the southern area of Rafah, in what Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz has described as a new "humanitarian city" but which would be likely to draw international criticism for forced displacement. An Israeli source briefed on discussions in Israel said that the plan was to establish the complex in Rafah during the ceasefire, if it is reached. On Saturday, a Palestinian source familiar with the truce talks said that Hamas rejected withdrawal maps which Israel proposed, because they would leave around 40% of the territory under Israeli control, including all of Rafah. Israel's campaign against Hamas has displaced almost the entire population of more than 2 million people, but Gazans say nowhere is safe in the coastal enclave. Early on Sunday morning, a missile hit a house in Gaza City where a family had moved after receiving an evacuation order from their home in the southern outskirts. "My aunt, her husband and the children, are gone. What is the fault of the children who died in an ugly bloody massacre at dawn?" said Anas Matar, standing in the rubble of the building.
NZ Herald
3 hours ago
- NZ Herald
The billionaire says he wants a new political party, and many agree. Can he pull it off?
Lots of history, about Musk and about politics more broadly, would say, 'Elon, save your money'. Musk's claim that he wants to start a new party is the latest iteration of his recent feud with President Donald Trump. What triggered their falling out, in part, was Musk's attack on Trump's prime legislative initiative, the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act'. He called it 'utterly insane and destructive'. Musk hated the bill because it would balloon the national debt by at least US$3 trillion. He said Congress should not pass it. Republicans ignored him and sent the measure to Trump for a July Fourth signing ceremony. So the scoreboard shows: Trump 1, Musk 0. Elon Musk, with his son X, with Trump and reporters in the Oval Office. Photo / The Washington Post Public opinion agrees with Musk about the need for a third major political party. Gallup has done an annual survey on this question since 2003. Only once – that first year – did a majority say that the Republican and Democratic parties were doing an adequate job representing the American people. Last October, 58% said the two parties 'do such a poor job' representing people that a third major party was needed. That was slightly lower than in 2023 but in line with a two-decade trend. For years, most self-identified independents have said a third major party is needed. Last year, it was 69%. Republicans and Democrats tend to be more optimistic about the two-party system when their party has the White House, but overall, they too generally say there is a need for another party. That independents solidly favour a third major party squares with another trend in politics, which is the rising percentage of Americans who label themselves as independents. Last year, 43% told Gallup they identified as independents, compared with 28% each for Democrats and Republicans. When pushed to say whether they lean towards one of the two parties, or when in the voting booth in recent elections in the country's deeply polarised environment, many of those independents quickly pick sides. Absent real options, they have no choice. Who wants to waste a vote? Would-be independent candidates have been searching for what they say is a sensible centre of the electorate for a long time. No one has found it. Howard Schultz, the former Starbucks chief executive, is a recent example. He started a campaign for president in the 2020 cycle but quit months later. 'An independent campaign for the White House is not how I can best serve our country at this time,' Howard Schultz said after quitting the presidential bid in 2020. Photo / Getty Images Former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg explored a third-party candidacy and eventually concluded there was no path to victory. In 2020, he ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic nomination after spending about a billion dollars. Trump could have gone the independent route, given his money and celebrity status. He was smart enough to hijack the Republican Party. Not that there haven't been some independent candidates for president who got a good share of the vote. Ross Perot is the most recent example. In 1992, he captured 19% of the popular vote but not a single electoral vote. In 1968, Alabama Governor George C. Wallace won five Southern states but only about 14% of the popular vote. In 1912, Theodore Roosevelt, as a former president, carried six states and captured 27% of the vote running on the Bull Moose ticket. In splitting the Republican vote, he doomed incumbent William Howard Taft and helped to elect Democrat Woodrow Wilson. The Green Party and the Libertarian Party are well-established and have regularly run candidates for president, but they have scant support. At the state and local levels, those small parties have made minimal impact. What could make Musk's effort different from past attempts? The obvious answer is money. He's the world's richest person, with a net worth variously estimated near or above US$400 billion. He spent more than US$250 million helping Trump get elected last year. But just how much is Musk willing to invest to build a party capable of running serious elections up and down the ballot? Kamala Harris, in her 107-day campaign for president, spent north of a billion dollars. How many billions would Musk need to spend to create a party with viability and durability? Kamala Harris spent a billion dollars during her US presidential campaign, raising the question of how much Musk is willing to invest in creating a third party. Photo / Getty Images This isn't a one-time investment. Party-building is a day-in, day-out, year-in, year-out proposition. Perot thought it was possible to create a party, as did many of those who voted for him. They tried after his campaign in 1992 and made serious efforts after his 1996 campaign. Their efforts came to naught as the Perot movement splintered over personality differences and lack of consensus on an agenda. Musk faces important questions as he thinks about creating a new party. One is what the party stands for. Is it all about deficits and debt? A recent Washington Post-Ipsos poll about the new legislation found that 63% of Americans said it was unacceptable to add another US$3t to a national debt that already is US$36t. So that suggests one area upon which to build. But when the Pew Research Centre asked people to rank issues in order of priority at the beginning of the 2024 election year, deficits sat squarely in the middle, after the economy, immigration, healthcare costs and – take note, Mr Musk – reducing the influence of money in politics. So would people vote for a candidate for the House or Senate whose principal, or even sole, issue is dealing with the debt, which would entail tackling the issues of Social Security and Medicare? And is that enough of a foundation for a new party to attract enough people to win elections? Musk has suggested his goal is to target some vulnerable representatives or senators in 2026 to produce a small cadre of lawmakers who would constitute the swing vote in either chamber. To do that, he could flood a few races with money – though he would have to channel it through a super PAC, given the limits on individual contributions to candidates. 'Money is important, but it's not everything.' Can he break US political dominance? Photo / Getty Images Money is important, but it's not everything. A major challenge would be finding quality candidates willing to join Musk in his undertaking. How would he build the infrastructure needed to identify, recruit and arm the people capable of running effective challenges to the existing parties? Another obstacle is gaining access to ballots. If his goal is to create a national party, that's a cumbersome process. Each state has different rules, so it would take a small army of lawyers and paid petition gatherers. That is not impossible but potentially difficult to do in time for next year's midterm elections. It would be easier, if Musk's real goal is to capture a relatively small number of House or Senate seats, to run candidates as independents. There's another problem for Musk. He's an imperfect symbol for a new party, given how unpopular he has become since he decided to get into the political arena. Not only is he unpopular, so is the tech industry, according to a new poll conducted for the Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California at Berkeley. The poll asked people how much they trusted various entities 'to act in the best interests of the California public'. Of nine listed, tech companies and their leaders came in last, with 79% saying 'a little' or 'not at all'. When there was talk that he might seek the presidency in 1996, former secretary of state Colin Powell was asked whether it would be easier to run as an independent or as the nominee of a third party. He responded, 'It depends on the nature of this third party. Does it have structure [and] funding? Does it bring something to a candidacy?' Those are questions Musk and those around him will need to answer before he moves forward. In time, it will become clear whether this is something serious or merely frivolous.
