Suicide bombing kills 20 at Damascus church
IS has been behind several attempted attacks on churches in Syria since Assad's fall, but this was the first to succeed, another security source told Reuters.
Syria's state news agency cited the health ministry as saying 52 people were injured in the blast.
A live stream from the site by Syria's civil defence, the White Helmets, showed destruction inside the church, including a bloodied floor and shattered pews and masonry.
Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, who led the offensive against Assad before taking over in January for a transitional phase, has repeatedly said he will protect minorities.
'We unequivocally condemn the abhorrent terrorist suicide bombing at the Mar Elias Greek Orthodox Church in Damascus,' the Greek foreign ministry said in a statement.
'We demand the Syrian transitional authorities take immediate action to hold those involved accountable and implement measures to guarantee the safety of Christian communities and all religious groups, allowing them to live without fear.'
IS had previously targeted religious minorities, including a major attack on Shiite pilgrims in Sayeda Zainab in 2016, one of the most notorious bombings during Assad's rule.
The latest assault underscores the group's continued ability to exploit security gaps despite the collapse of its territorial control and years of counterterrorism efforts.
Reuters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mail & Guardian
a day ago
- Mail & Guardian
Diplomacy is not dead, the world has just forgotten how to use it
A satellite image shows the Fordow nuclear facility in Iran in this handout image dated June 14, 2025 (MAXAR TECHNOLOGY/HANDOUT VIA REUTERS) Last week, the United States launched a large-scale aerial attack on Iran's nuclear infrastructure, dropping 30 000-pound 'bunker buster' bombs on enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. The Strait of Hormuz has been . The question now is not whether diplomacy is dead in the Middle East, but whether anyone remembers what it looks like. And if they don't, we in South Africa should remind them. Just over three decades ago, our country faced what many believed was an irreversible path to civil war. Between 1990 and 1994, nearly 15 000 South Africans were killed in And yet, the leaders of this country – President FW de Klerk and Nelson Mandela, men from utterly different histories – chose dialogue over destruction. Together, they chose peace. They didn't just sign a document, they built the architecture of peace from scratch. They negotiated an What is happening now in Iran and Israel has its own unique causes. Since the collapse of the The US Israel, seeing this as an existential threat, launched pre-emptive strikes on The UN Charter, under If this sounds familiar, it's because history has shown us again and again what happens when diplomacy is abandoned and self-defence becomes synonymous with brutal force. But force is not policy. Bombs do not build stability. We know this because we have lived it. South Africa's transition succeeded not because we had the perfect Constitution waiting in a drawer or because our society had magically healed. It succeeded because both sides accepted that dialogue was less costly than bloodshed. They knew that without talks, there would be nothing left to govern. The But again and again, our leaders returned to the table. They understood that the process – imperfect, fragile, maddening – was more powerful than any one grievance. And this is the same lesson that must be applied in the Middle East. We must believe that there is nothing inevitable about war between Israel and Iran. Just as the Yes, Oslo ultimately failed. But its failure was not a repudiation of diplomacy; it was a failure of political courage to sustain it. The same can be said of the JCPOA. It was an imperfect but effective mechanism to prevent nuclear escalation. Iran complied . The international community verified . But it was unilaterally abandoned in 2018. The current crisis is the direct result. We know that diplomacy is not a naïve ideal. It is the first principle of international law. The Under And we have, over the years, seen other nations learn this. These were not miracles. They were choices. What would it take for the Middle East to choose peace? First, open channels unconditionally. Mandela Quiet diplomacy – through back-channels, third-party intermediaries, or regional platforms – is not weakness. It is how war is prevented. Second, include all parties. In South Africa, the ANC, the National Party, the IFP and even fringe groups were eventually brought into dialogue. In the Middle East, that means involving not just the US, Iran and Israel, but also the Gulf States, Turkey and actors like Hezbollah that hold sway over real conditions on the ground. Exclusion breeds sabotage. Inclusion creates accountability. Third, restore or renegotiate the nuclear deal. The JCPOA's technical architecture can still serve as a basis for limiting enrichment, lifting sanctions and guaranteeing regional security. The cost of inaction (or even indifference) is far greater than the political difficulty of re-engagement. Fourth, create guarantees. Whether through the UN or a new regional mechanism, a peace framework must include verification, economic support and political cover for leaders taking risks . Finally, appeal to people, not just governments. Leaders must prepare their populations for compromise. In South Africa, that meant referendums, unity talks and mass civic engagement (like the United Democratic Front). It was not easy. But it worked. The FW de Klerk Foundation believes in constitutionalism, dialogue and international law. We do not pretend that every context is the same, or that South Africa's path is easily copied. But we do know that peace is possible, even when it seems impossible. That truth is not negotiable. And it is not too late. Let the world remember that the best outcomes are built not from domination, but from diplomacy. Let the Middle East remember that peace is not the absence of war, but the presence of dialogue. And let the leaders of today remember that if Mandela and de Klerk could forge a new country from the ashes of division, then surely, even in the rubble of conflict, nations can find a path back to peace. Ismail Joosub is Manager of Constitutional Advancement at the FW de Klerk Foundation.
The Herald
4 days ago
- The Herald
Netanyahu declares historic win, says Israel removed Iran's nuclear threat in 12-day war
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Tuesday Israel in its 12 days of war with Iran had removed the threat of nuclear annihilation and was determined to thwart any attempt by Tehran to revive its programme. 'We have removed two immediate existential threats to us: the threat of nuclear annihilation and the threat of annihilation by 20,000 ballistic missiles,' he said in video remarks issued by his office. 'If anyone in Iran tries to revive the project, we will work with the same determination and strength to thwart any such attempt. I repeat, Iran will not have nuclear weapons.' He called it a historic victory that would stand for generations. He said Israel never had a better friend in the White House than President Donald Trump, whose US military had dropped massive bunker-buster bombs on Iran's underground nuclear sites in an attack over the weekend. 'Our friend President Trump has rallied to our side in an unprecedented way. Under his direction, the US military destroyed the underground enrichment site at Fordow,' Netanyahu said. He spoke hours after Trump directed stinging criticism at Israel over the scale of strikes Trump said had violated a truce with Iran negotiated by Washington, Israel's closest ally. Netanyahu said Israel's work was unfinished. He cited the war against Iran's ally Hamas in Gaza, where 50 hostages remain in captivity since the Palestinian militant group carried out a surprise attack on October 7 2023. About 20 hostages are believed to be alive. Netanyahu said: 'We must complete the campaign against the Iranian axis, defeat Hamas, and bring about the release of all the hostages, living and dead.' Reuters
Mail & Guardian
4 days ago
- Mail & Guardian
Coal and South Africa's complicity in the genocide in Gaza
Exporting coal to Israel contradicts South Africa's stance on that country's genocide in Gaza. South Africa has rightly earned praise across the world for taking a principled stance against Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza. But we cannot claim the mantle of global moral leadership while continuing to do business as usual with an apartheid regime now engaged in open genocide. Our ongoing export of coal to Israel — an arrangement that materially supports the very war effort we have condemned at The Hague — is a glaring contradiction in our otherwise principled positions. According to two new briefings — one from the Palestinian Youth Movement and another from researchers working to align our foreign policy with our public commitments — South African coal continues to fuel Israel's energy grid, including its military installations, surveillance infrastructure and illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. Worse still, our role has grown more central since Colombia, formerly Israel's largest supplier, issued a decree in August 2024 banning coal exports to the Israeli state. Colombia has honoured contracts signed before its decree, but it has committed to ending future shipments. South Africa, by contrast, has yet to take any meaningful action. A number of corporates continue to sell South African coal to Israel. Glencore, a company globally notorious for unethical conduct, is the dominant player but others, such as African Rainbow Minerals are also complicit. This raises an urgent question: How can a country that seeks to halt genocide at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) be one of the top energy suppliers to the regime perpetrating that very genocide? The ICJ case, supported by a growing number of Global South countries, has shifted the diplomatic terrain. The South African government has also co-chaired The Hague Group, a new alliance of countries seeking to defend international law against systematic violations in Gaza. These steps matter. But our ports — especially Richards Bay — have remained open to the same coal shipments that sustain Israel's military occupation. Since Israel launched its genocidal assault on Gaza on 7 October 2023, at least 11 coal shipments from South Africa have arrived in Israel, according to vessel-tracking data. These shipments total more than 1.4 million tonnes — about 25% of Israel's coal imports during this period. The majority of these shipments were loaded at Richards Bay and docked at the ports of Hadera and Ashkelon — home to the Orot Rabin and Rutenberg coal-fired power stations. These plants provide about 17.5% of Israel's electricity. Coal has a central role in sustaining both civilian infrastructure and military operations in Israel. That includes electricity powering command centres, settlement expansions in the West Bank and Israel's chilling artificial intelligence systems — algorithms that sort Palestinians by 'suspicion level' and determine targeting for drone strikes. Israel does not produce its own coal. It is entirely dependent on imports to run its coal-fired plants and is, therefore, vulnerable to coordinated boycotts. The Stichting Onderzoek Multinationale Ondernemingen — Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations — has shown that when states supply energy that directly supports illegal occupation or genocide, they are in violation of international law. It explicitly recommends that states 'end the supply of coal to Israel where there is no means of ensuring it does not end up supplying electricity to settlements'. We have no such guarantees. And even if we did, they would be impossible to verify. The only ethical and lawful option is to end coal exports entirely. If South Africa is to retain credibility in its international legal claims, its domestic trade and industrial policy must be consistent with those claims. This is not simply a question of ethics; it is a question of coherence in governance. A state that seeks provisional measures at the ICJ to halt genocide cannot continue to facilitate that same genocide through commodity flows. This contradiction not only undermines South Africa's legal arguments, it also weakens the ability of Global South countries to use international law as a terrain of struggle. There is no neutral trade in the context of genocide. Every shipment of coal exported to Israel either contributes to or withholds material support from a war machine. If we claim to stand with the victims, our policies must withdraw complicity from the perpetrators. Of course, any conversation about South Africa's trade policy must begin with the recognition of the severity of our economic crisis. With nearly half the population unemployed and millions pushed into crushing poverty, the social cost of job losses is devastating. For working-class people and their families, even small disruptions to income can be catastrophic. The crisis of mass unemployment — a structural failure rooted in both apartheid and post-apartheid economic mismanagement — hangs over every policy decision. This is why it's important to approach this issue with care and clarity. Before acting, we need to establish, with precision, whether a coal boycott would lead to any actual job losses. Academic and NGO researchers should work alongside government and trade unions to produce a shared and verified understanding of the scale and scope of South Africa's coal exports to Israel — and what risks, if any, exist for workers should those exports be halted. If there is a real risk to jobs, the next step must be to find alternative markets. This is not an impossible task. South Africa's coal sector is vast and the volume exported to Israel remains a tiny fraction — less than 1.2% of coal exports and just 0.02% of GDP. Redirecting those shipments is a logistical challenge, not an economic impossibility. If there is political will, viable alternatives can be found. This is not about asking workers to carry the cost of a moral position. It's about building the political and practical basis to ensure that our country can act on its principles without deepening the hardship of the poor. The trade union movement has already made this clear. In a powerful statement issued in August 2024, trade union federation Cosatu declared its support for the call on Glencore to stop sending coal to Israel, stating that 'fuelling apartheid and genocide is a crime'. But the federation also rightly called on the government to ensure that a boycott protects jobs. Trade policy in a democratic state is not the exclusive domain of multinational firms or economic ministries. It must be subordinate to the constitutional obligations of the state and to its commitments under international law. South Africa's Constitution affirms the importance of human rights and dignity. Its diplomatic stance affirms the urgency of halting genocide. The question now is whether its trade policy will follow suit. Dr Imraan Buccus is senior research associate at ASRI and a research fellow at the University of the Free State.
