NEWS

On July 9, United States President Donald Trump opened a three-day mini summit at the White House with the leaders of Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mauritania, and Senegal – by subjecting his distinguished guests to a carefully staged public humiliation.

This was not the plan – or at least, not the part the public was meant to see.

A White House official claimed on July 3 that “President Trump believes that African countries offer incredible commercial opportunities which benefit both the American people and our African partners.”

Whether by coincidence or calculated design, the meeting took place on the same day the Trump administration escalated its trade war, slapping new tariffs on eight countries, including the North African nations of Libya and Algeria. It was a telling contrast: Even as Trump claimed to be “strengthening ties with Africa”, his administration was penalising African nations. The optics revealed the incoherence – or perhaps the honesty – of Trump’s Africa policy, where partnership is conditional and often indistinguishable from punishment.

Trump opened the summit with a four-minute speech in which he claimed the five invited leaders were representing the entire African continent. Never mind that their countries barely register in US-Africa trade figures; what mattered was the gold, oil, and minerals buried beneath their soil. He thanked “these great leaders… all from very vibrant places with very valuable land, great minerals, great oil deposits, and wonderful people”.

He then announced that the US was “shifting from AID to trade” because “this will be far more effective and sustainable and beneficial than anything else that we could be doing together.”

At that moment, the illusion of diplomacy collapsed, and the true nature of the meeting was revealed. Trump shifted from statesman to showman, no longer merely hosting but asserting control. The summit quickly descended into a cringe-inducing display, where Africa was presented not as a continent of sovereign nations but as a rich expanse of resources, fronted by compliant leaders performing for the cameras. This was not a dialogue but a display of domination: A stage-managed production in which Trump scripted the scene and African heads of state were cast in subordinate roles.

Trump was in his element, orchestrating the event like a puppet master, directing each African guest to play his part and respond favourably. He “invited” (in effect, instructed) them to make “a few comments to the media” in what became a choreographed show of deference.

President Mohamed Ould Ghazouani of Mauritania led the way, both physically and symbolically, by praising Trump’s “commitment” to Africa. The claim was as misleading as it was surreal, given Washington’s recent aid cuts, punitive tariffs, and tightened visa restrictions on African nations.

In one especially embarrassing moment, Ghazouani described Trump as the world’s top peacemaker – crediting him, among other things, with stopping “the war between Iran and Israel”. This praise came with no mention of the US’s continued military and diplomatic support for Israel’s war on Gaza, which the African Union has firmly condemned. The silence amounted to complicity, a calculated erasure of Palestinian suffering for the sake of American favour.

Perhaps mindful of the tariffs looming over his own country, Ghazouani, who served as AU Chair in 2024, slipped into the role of a willing supplicant. He all but invited Trump to exploit Mauritania’s rare minerals, praised him and declared him a peacemaker while ignoring the massacres of tens of thousands of innocents in Gaza made possible by the very weapons Trump provides.

This tone would define the entire sit-down. One by one, the African leaders offered Trump glowing praise and access to their countries’ natural resources – a disturbing reminder of how easily power can script compliance.

Senegal’s President Bassirou Diomaye Faye even asked Trump to build a golf course in his country. Trump declined, opting instead to compliment Faye’s youthful appearance. Gabon’s President Brice Clotaire Oligui Nguema talked of “win-win partnerships” with the US, but received only a lukewarm response.

What did capture Trump’s attention was the English fluency of Liberia’s President Joseph Boakai. Ignoring the content of Boakai’s remarks, Trump marvelled at his “beautiful” English and asked, “Where did you learn to speak so beautifully? Where were you educated? Where? In Liberia?”

That Trump seemed unaware English is Liberia’s official language, and has been since its founding in 1822 as a haven for freed American slaves, was perhaps less shocking than the colonial tone of his question. His astonishment that an African president could speak English well betrayed a deeply racist, imperial mindset.

It was not an isolated slip. At a White House peace ceremony on June 29 involving the DRC and Rwanda, Trump publicly commented on the appearance of Angolan journalist and White House correspondent Hariana Veras, telling her, “You are beautiful – and you are beautiful inside.”

Whether or not Veras is “beautiful” is entirely beside the point. Trump’s behaviour was inappropriate and unprofessional, reducing a respected journalist to her looks in the middle of a diplomatic milestone. The sexualisation of Black women – treating them as vessels of white male desire rather than intellectual equals – was central to both the transatlantic slave trade and European colonisation. Trump’s comment extended that legacy into the present.

Likewise, his surprise at Boakai’s English fits a long imperial pattern. Africans who “master” the coloniser’s language are often seen not as complex, multilingual intellectuals, but as subordinates who’ve absorbed the dominant culture. They are rewarded for proximity to whiteness, not for intellect or independence.

Trump’s remarks revealed his belief that articulate and visually appealing Africans are an anomaly, a novelty deserving momentary admiration. By reducing both Boakai and Veras to aesthetic curiosities, he erased their agency, dismissed their achievements, and gratified his colonial ego.

More than anything, Trump’s comments on Boakai reflected his deeper indifference to Africa. They stripped away any illusion that this summit was about genuine partnership.

Contrast this with the US-Africa Leaders Summit held by President Joe Biden in December 2022. That event welcomed more than 40 African heads of state, as well as the African Union, civil society, and private sector leaders. It prioritised peer-to-peer dialogue and the AU’s Agenda 2063 – a far cry from Trump’s choreographed spectacle.

How the Trump administration concluded that five men could represent the entire continent remains baffling, unless, of course, this wasn’t about representation at all, but control. Trump didn’t want engagement; he wanted performance. And sadly, his guests obliged.

In contrast to the tightly managed meeting Trump held with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on July 8, the lunch with African leaders resembled a chaotic, tone-deaf sideshow.

Faye was especially disappointing. He came to power on the back of an anti-imperialist platform, pledging to break with neocolonial politics and restore African dignity. Yet at the White House, he bent the knee to the most brazen imperialist of them all. Like the others, he failed to challenge Trump, to assert equality, or to defend the sovereignty he so publicly champions at home.

In a moment when African leaders had the chance to push back against a resurgent colonial mindset, they instead bowed – giving Trump space to revive a 16th-century fantasy of Western mastery.

For this, he offered a reward: He might not impose new tariffs on their countries, he said, “because they are friends of mine now”.

Trump, the “master”, triumphed.

All the Africans had to do was bow at his feet.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Unite says it has suspended Angela Rayner from her membership of the union, amid a deepening row over the long-running bin strikes in Birmingham.

The deputy prime minister has been urging striking bin workers to accept a deal to end the dispute, which has seen mountains of rubbish pile up in the city.

The union said it would also re-examine its relationship with Labour after an emergency motion at its conference in Brighton.

Bin collection workers walked out in January, with an all-out strike going on since March. Unite is a major donor to the Labour Party, and has previously donated to Rayner herself.

‘Positive trend’ in US-Russia ties remains despite Washington’s ‘zigzag’ policy, Moscow says.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio have met again at the ASEAN foreign ministers’ meeting in Malaysia’s Kuala Lumpur, according to Russia’s state-run TASS agency, with the war in Ukraine the key focus.

The conversation followed a longer 50-minute meeting between the two top diplomats the previous day.

While no details have yet emerged from Friday’s exchange, Rubio told reporters after Thursday’s talks that the two sides had discussed a possible “new and different approach” to reviving peace efforts over Ukraine.

“I wouldn’t characterise it as something that guarantees peace,” he said, “but it’s a concept that I’ll take back to the president.”

Lavrov said on Friday that he set out the Kremlin’s position on settling the war. “We discussed Ukraine. We confirmed the position that President [Vladimir] Putin had outlined, including in his July 3 conversation with President [Donald] Trump,” Lavrov told Russian media on the sidelines of the ASEAN gathering.

Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement that the diplomats held a “substantive and frank exchange” of views on Ukraine, as well as on Iran, Syria and broader global issues.

The meeting marked a rare moment of direct engagement between Washington and Moscow as bilateral relations remain fraught. However, Russian officials downplayed suggestions that ties were deteriorating.

“I do not agree that the positive trend in relations between Moscow and Washington is fading,” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov told the RIA news agency. “I think that the current US administration acts in a zigzag manner. We don’t dramatise over this.”

Ryabkov said a new round of US-Russia talks on unresolved bilateral issues could be held before the end of the summer.

Despite the strain, both Moscow and Washington appeared to leave the door open to further dialogue, though with caution. “We are talking, and that is a start,” Rubio said. “But much depends on what comes next.”

Top US, Chinese diplomats set to meet

Rubio, on his first official trip to Asia since assuming office, is also set to meet Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Kuala Lumpur on Friday. The in-person meeting is their first and comes as the US aims to reassert its presence in the Asia Pacific.

The US secretary of state is attending the East Asia Summit and ASEAN Regional Forum, which brings together key players including Japan, China, Russia, Australia, India and the European Union.

The flurry of diplomatic meetings comes amid worsening US-China trade relations. Beijing has warned Washington against reintroducing sweeping tariffs next month, after being slapped with duties exceeding 100 percent during earlier tit-for-tat exchanges.

China has also warned of retaliation against countries that support efforts to exclude Beijing from critical global supply chains.

While Rubio’s trip signals a renewed US focus on Asia, tensions stemming from Trump’s global tariff strategy continue to cast a long shadow.

From August 1, steep import tariffs targeting eight ASEAN nations, including Malaysia, as well as close allies Japan and South Korea, are due to take effect.

Washington has said the move is part of its effort to “rebalance trade,” but critics warn the policy could undermine the very partnerships the US is seeking to strengthen.

ASEAN’s foreign ministers noted their concern on Friday over rising global tensions and underscored how critical a “predictable, transparent, inclusive, free, fair, sustainable and rules-based multilateral trading system” was in a joint communique.

“We reaffirmed our commitment to work constructively with all partners to this end,” the regional bloc’s foreign ministers said.

England midfielder Jordan Henderson is set to sign for Brentford after his exit from Ajax.

The 35-year-old will join the Bees on a two-year deal after the Dutch club agreed to end his contract a year early.

Henderson had considerable interest from top clubs in England and Europe but Brentford have won the race to sign the former Liverpool skipper.

Playing in the Premier League will provide Henderson with the platform to stay in Thomas Tuchel’s England squad before next summer’s World Cup.

Issa Amro, a human rights activist, describes life in the occupied West Bank – the increased Israeli restrictions on movement and settler violence making life increasingly miserable for Palestinians there.

Ovidio Guzman Lopez plans to change his not guilty plea during a hearing after arrest in 2023.

A son of the infamous Mexican drug cartel boss Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman is expected to plead guilty in a wide-ranging United States drug trafficking case at a court hearing in Chicago.

Court records for Ovidio Guzman Lopez indicate he intends to change his not-guilty plea as part of a deal with federal prosecutors at the hearing on Friday.

If confirmed, it would be the first time one of El Chapo’s sons has struck such an agreement.

Federal prosecutors allege that Ovidio and his brother, Joaquin Guzman Lopez, who became known locally as Los Chapitos, led a powerful faction of the notorious Mexican Sinaloa cartel.

They are accused of masterminding a major fentanyl trafficking operation that funnelled what prosecutors described as a “staggering” amount of the synthetic opioid into the US. The US has suffered a major opioid crisis in the last few decades, which has resulted in large numbers of deaths, addiction, and lawsuits.

Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman is currently serving a life sentence in a US federal prison following a 2019 conviction. After his capture, Ovidio Guzman Lopez and his siblings reportedly took on key leadership roles within the cartel.

Ovidio Guzman Lopez was arrested by Mexican authorities in early 2023 and extradited to the US months later. He originally pleaded not guilty to drug trafficking, money laundering and firearms charges.

His brother, Joaquin Guzman Lopez, and longtime cartel leader Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada were arrested in Texas in 2024 after arriving on a private plane. Both men have pleaded not guilty to multiple charges.

Their high-profile capture set off a wave of violence across Sinaloa as rival factions scrambled for control, vying for control of routes used to produce and transport narcotics, including fentanyl, that are often destined for the US.

The groups are split between members loyal to the Sinaloa Cartel cofounders, “El Chapo” Guzman and Zambada.

Watching the president of France and the prime minister close up was to see two men under the cosh, behind in the opinion polls and fighting for what they see as the essence of their political creed.

It boils down to this – how do Sir Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron make the case for what they see as the virtues of patience, nuance, subtleties and trade-offs in an era of growing impatience at the perceived repeated failures of those in high office?

There were just two lecterns and two speakers at the news conference the leaders hosted, but two other parties hovered in the air.

Reform UK and National Rally, the party of Jordan Bardella and Marine Le Pen, were never mentioned explicitly. Nor were their leaders. But they were repeatedly mentioned implicitly.

The two parties on either side of the Channel are not the same, but they have the same capacity to frighten the life out of those in power now.

They do it with an anti-establishment zeal, a knack of communicating in plain language and at a time of disillusionment with the traditional political classes. Quite the combination.

“Whilst we have been working hard to get a returns agreement, others have been simply taking pictures of the problem,” the prime minister told us.

Whoever could he possibly have been thinking of?

“That is where the politics is. We have to show that pragmatic politics is the way to deliver the results that matter for both of our peoples,” he added, to ensure people weren’t seduced by what he called “the politics of easy answers”.

Reform leader Nigel Farage had spent the morning on a boat in the English Channel in the company of a camera from GB News and regards this new deal between Paris and London as a humiliation for the UK.

He says the UK should abandon the European Convention on Human Rights and makes a wider argument that the country can escape the funk many feel it is trapped in by embracing a party willing to be unorthodox, noisy and pick a few fights. Why not, after the last few years, goes the argument.

President Macron, confronting similar arguments back home from National Rally, made similar arguments to the prime minister.

There was a need, the president argued, to recognise “the complexity of the world” and to avoid what he saw as the “temptation” for some of those he described as “populists”.

As I wrote here the other day, this is the latest evidence we are seeing of the prime minister’s shifting argument – a sharpening public critique of Farage and what Sir Keir believes will be the choice at the next election: one of the two of them in Downing Street.

And an outsized part of the argument between the two of them, today and in the coming years, will be over small boat crossings.

New polling for Portland Communications suggests 26% of Labour’s voters in last year’s general election who have since switched to Reform would be much more likely to come back to Labour if the number of small boat crossings fell.

The same polling suggests that eight out of ten Reform-leaning voters say that after one year, Labour has had enough time to improve things across the piece.

And nearly half of all voters see Nigel Farage as the leader who most represents change.

This is an insight into the challenge and, potentially, opportunity for the prime minister.

Hoping for patience in an era of the opposite, but arguing his opponent is offering a false promise.

Hoping the levers of government can, in time, deliver. Let’s see.

One final thought.

On two separate occasions this week I have spoken privately to senior figures in both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party, who, unprompted, offered near identical reflections about how the next few years may pan out.

It won’t surprise you that both the people I spoke to don’t want to see Reform UK win a general election.

Both acknowledged that it was a real possibility, but both had a deep worry beyond that.

They both reflected that many in the electorate concluded last year that the Conservatives had failed and many in the electorate are concluding this year, or may soon conclude, that Labour are failing too.

Reform could deliver in a way its predecessors never managed.

But what happens, pondered the two people I spoke to, if Nigel Farage was to win and he too was subsequently deemed to have failed?

Where, they wonder, and in what political direction would the country turn in next?

The Hague court’s Deputy Prosecutor Nazhat Shameem Khan warns civil war ‘has reached an intolerable state’.

A senior International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor has concluded that there are “reasonable grounds to believe that war crimes and crimes against humanity” are being committed in war-ravaged Sudan’s western Darfur region.

ICC Deputy Prosecutor Nazhat Shameem Khan presented her assessment before the United Nations Security Council on Thursday of the devastating conflict, which has raged since 2023, killing more than 40,000 people and displacing 13 million others.

Khan said the depth of suffering and the humanitarian crisis in Darfur “has reached an intolerable state”, with famine escalating and hospitals, humanitarian convoys and other civilian infrastructure being targeted.

She said it was “difficult to find appropriate words to describe the depth of suffering in Darfur”.

“On the basis of our independent investigations, the position of our office is clear. We have reasonable grounds to believe that war crimes and crimes against humanity have been and are continuing to be committed in Darfur,” she said.

The prosecutor’s office focused its probe on crimes committed in West Darfur, Khan said, interviewing victims who fled to neighbouring Chad.

She detailed an “intolerable” humanitarian situation, with apparent targeting of hospitals and humanitarian convoys, while warning that “famine is escalating” as aid is unable to reach “those in dire need”.

“People are being deprived of water and food. Rape and sexual violence are being weaponised,” Khan said, adding that abductions for ransom had become “common practice”.

In June, the UN Independent International Fact-Finding Mission for Sudan warned that both the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) had escalated the use of heavy weaponry in populated areas and weaponised humanitarian relief, amid the devastating consequences of the civil war.

ICC chief prosecutor Karim Khan had told the Security Council in January that there were grounds to believe both parties may be committing war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide in the region, while the administration of then-US President Joe Biden determined that the RSF and its proxies were committing genocide.

The Security Council had previously referred the situation in Darfur to the ICC in 2005, with some 300,000 people killed during conflict in the region in the 2000s.

In 2023, the ICC opened a new probe into war crimes in Darfur after a new conflict erupted between the SAF and RSF.

The RSF’s predecessor, the Janjaweed militia, was accused of genocide two decades ago in the vast western region.

ICC judges are expected to deliver their first decision on crimes committed in Darfur two decades ago in the case of Ali Mohamed Ali Abd-Al-Rahman, known as Ali Kosheib, after the trial ended in 2024.

“I wish to be clear to those on the ground in Darfur now, to those who are inflicting unimaginable atrocities on its population – they may feel a sense of impunity at this moment, as Ali Kosheib may have felt in the past,” said Khan.

“But we are working intensively to ensure that the Ali Kosheib trial represents only the first of many in relation to this situation at the International Criminal Court,” added Khan.

The world number 12 reaches maiden Grand Slam final with a tough three-set win over top-seeded Aryna Sabalenka.

An inspired Amanda Anisimova has torn up the script and soared into her maiden Wimbledon final by outclassing world number one Aryna Sabalenka 6-4, 4-6, 6-4 with a display of fierce determination and fearless shot-making.

Anisimova’s victory on Thursday extended her win-loss record over her equally big-hitting rival to 6-3 and kept alive American hopes of a third women’s Grand Slam champion this year after Madison Keys won the Australian Open and Coco Gauff the French Open.

“This doesn’t feel real right now, honestly,” a beaming Anisimova said in an on-court interview.

“Aryna is such a tough competitor, and I was absolutely dying out there. Yeah, I don’t know how I pulled it off. I mean, she’s such an incredible competitor, and she’s an inspiration to me and I’m sure so many other people.

“We’ve had so many tough battles. To come out on top today and be in the final of Wimbledon is so incredibly special. The atmosphere was incredible. I know she’s the number one, but a lot of people were cheering for me. Huge thanks to everyone.”

On a Centre Court where the temperature climbed to 30 degrees Celsius (86 degrees Fahrenheit), Sabalenka twice rushed to the aid of ill fans by supplying bottles of cold water and an ice pack before she cracked under pressure from her opponent in the 10th game.

The 23-year-old Anisimova, playing in her first major semifinal since her 2019 French Open run as a gifted teenager, made her opponent sweat for every point and wrapped up the opening set when Sabalenka produced a double fault.

With her back against the wall, Sabalenka roared back like a tiger, the animal that has become her totem, and broke for a 4-3 lead en route to levelling up the match at one set apiece after some sloppy errors from 13th-seeded Anisimova.

Having matched each other’s decibel levels in a cacophony of grunting, the duo swapped breaks at the start of the decider, but Anisimova pounced again when Sabalenka sent a shot long and went on to book the final with either Iga Swiatek or Belinda Bencic.

Anisimova, who took a mental health break in 2023, expressed disbelief in making the final of a Grand Slam for the first time at Wimbledon.

“It’s been a year turnaround since coming back and to be in this spot, … I mean, it’s not easy, and so many people dream of competing on this incredible court,” Anisimova added.

“It’s been such a privilege to compete here, and to be in the final is just indescribable.”

Watching Thursday’s second semifinal, which will determine her next opponent, was very much on Anisimova’s mind despite her nearly three-hour battle in testing conditions.

“It’s going to be an incredible match, and whoever comes out on top, it’s going to be a battle in the final,” she said.

Sabalenka, who was beaten in the title match of the Australian Open and French Open, was left to lick her wounds after missing the chance to become the first woman since Serena Williams in 2014-2015 to reach four straight major finals.

Former leader accused of using a broker married to his personal secretary to secure government insurance policies.

Argentina’s former President, Alberto Fernandez, has been ordered to stand trial for alleged corruption related to insurance policies taken out by the government for the public sector during his 2019-2023 term.

Fernandez will be prosecuted for “negotiations incompatible with the exercise of public office”, according to Judge Sebastian Casanello’s ruling published in Argentinian media on Thursday, and confirmed by the former leader’s lawyer, Mariana Barbitta.

The 66-year-old stands accused of fraudulent administration over his government’s use of brokers – one of whom allegedly had ties to his office – to contract insurance policies that could have been negotiated directly.

The judge noted in his order that in December 2021, in the middle of his presidency, Fernandez issued a decree that forced the entire public sector to contract exclusively with Nacion Seguros SA, an insurance company then led by Alberto Pagliano, a friend of Fernandez.

It resulted in a boon and tremendous growth for the company.

The main broker of the deal was allegedly the husband of Fernandez’s personal secretary.

The court ordered a freeze on about $10m of Fernandez’s assets as the case proceeds, according to Thursday’s ruling.

Some 33 other people are also named in the case. Fernandez did not immediately comment on the case.

Fernandez did not seek re-election after serving a single term, handing the keys of the presidential palace to self-described “anarcho-capitalist” President Javier Milei in December 2023.

The corruption allegations emerged when a court ordered an examination of his secretary’s phone while investigating assault claims made against Fernandez by his ex-partner Fabiola Yanez.

Yanez filed a complaint accusing Fernandez of having beaten her during their relationship, which ended after he left office.

He faces a separate trial on charges of domestic abuse.

Fernandez’s leftist Peronist movement, which dominated Argentinian politics for most of the country’s post-war history, has been dogged by allegations of corruption.

Ex-President Cristina Kirchner, another senior Peronist, is serving a six-year sentence under house arrest after being convicted of fraud involving public works contracts awarded during her two terms.

UN rapporteur Francesca Albanese tells Al Jazeera Washington’s move is retaliation for ‘pursuit of justice’ in Israel’s war on Gaza.

United Nations expert Francesca Albanese has slammed the decision by the United States to sanction her as “obscene”, saying she is being targeted for calling out Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

Speaking to Al Jazeera on Thursday, Albanese, who serves as the UN’s special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territory, said she would not be cowed into silence by the US move against her on Wednesday.

Albanese stressed that the penalties imposed by President Donald Trump’s administration would not stop her “quest for [the] respect of justice and international law”.

The special rapporteur said Washington’s tactics reminded her of “Mafia intimidation techniques” before suggesting that “sanctions will only work if people are scared and stop engaging”.

“I want to remind everyone [that] the reason why these sanctions are being imposed is the pursuit of justice,” Albanese said.

“Of course I’ve been critical of Israel. It has been committing genocide and crimes against humanity and war crimes,” she added.

While announcing the sanctions on Wednesday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio charged Albanese with waging a “campaign of political and economic warfare against the United States and Israel”.

The UN rapporteur hit back on Thursday, noting that the atrocities being committed in Gaza were not just down to “the unrelinquished territorial ambitions of Israel” and the backing of its supporters but also “companies who are profiting from it”.

Last week, she released a report mapping the corporations aiding Israel in the displacement of Palestinians and its genocidal war on Gaza in breach of international law.

Albanese told Al Jazeera that she was still evaluating the effects the US sanctions would have on her.

However, she said her problems are nothing compared with what Palestinians face in Gaza during Israel’s ongoing bombardments, ground operations and blockade of the territory.

Albanese also took aim at the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), calling it a “death trap”. The Israeli- and US-backed group runs the aid distribution sites where hundreds of Palestinians have been shot and killed since late May while queueing for food.

Move against Albanese ‘a dangerous precedent’

The UN expert also defended the International Criminal Court’s (ICC’s) investigation into Israeli actions in Gaza and its decision to call for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s arrest on charges of war crimes.

Rubio has described Albanese’s push for the prosecution of Israeli officials at the ICC as the legal basis for the sanctions.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’s spokesman was among those to criticise the US sanctions on Albanese.

While highlighting that Albanese reports to the UN Human Rights Council rather than the secretary-general, Stephane Dujarric called the decision “a dangerous precedent”.

“The use of unilateral sanctions against special rapporteurs or any other UN expert or official is unacceptable,” he said.

UN Human Rights Council Ambassador Jurg Lauber also lamented the move against Albanese.

“I call on all UN member states to fully cooperate with the special rapporteurs and mandate holders of the council and to refrain from any acts of intimidation or reprisal against them,” Lauber said.

Israel’s campaign in Gaza has destroyed most of the territory and killed more than 57,575 Palestinians over the past 21 months, according to local health officials.

The UN says that despite being permitted to deliver the first fuel shipment to Gaza in 130 days, it was not enough to cover even a single day’s needs, leaving hospitals and other critical facilities on the brink of shutdown.

Greece has suspended asylum applications for people arriving by sea for three months.

That has come about after a large rise in the number of people crossing the Mediterranean Sea from Libya to the Greek island of Crete.

Athens wants to stop their boats from even entering Greek waters.

Human rights groups said denying them asylum is against international law.

So can a change in policy really stop people heading to Europe? Are North African countries able to help in reducing the number of boats? And what are the likely outcomes of this suspension?

Presenter: Adrian Finighan

Guests:

Eleni Spathana – lawyer with Refugee Support Aegean and author of Legal Assistance for Asylum Seekers and Refugees in Greece

Amine Snoussi – political analyst and journalist

Marianna Karakoulaki – researcher at Birmingham University focusing on forced migration on Europe’s Eastern Mediterranean migratory route

A Palestinian man trapped under rubble in a burning building spoke to his cousin by phone, pleading for help after an Israeli airstrike flattened their home in Gaza City. Rescue teams later found Ibrahim al-Daly dead from severe burns. (Warning: Distressing Content)

The United Kingdom has outlawed Palestine Action – an organisation that disrupts the arms industry in the UK with direct action in the form of strikes and protests – grouping it with ISIL (ISIS) and al-Qaeda. Supporters of the group now risk up to 14 years in prison, and arrests of protesters opposed to the listing have already begun.

What does the decision reveal about the UK’s approach to protest and civil disobedience, and how might it reshape the wider Palestine solidarity movement?

PA Media

‘Nobody helped’

‘Taken by surprise’

The 12-day war between Israel and Iran ended with a fragile ceasefire. A review of the war’s economic toll suggests that a prolonged conflict would have been economically unsustainable for both sides. For Iran, this was anticipated given the country’s decades-long exposure to sanctions, but for Israel, the war marked a test of its economic strength and resilience and exposed deeper vulnerabilities. As recently as last year, the Israeli Finance Minister had stated with striking confidence that ‘the Israeli economy is strong by all measures, capable of sustaining all war efforts, on the front line and home front, until, with God’s help, victory is achieved.’  

Israel’s direct military costs averaged USD 725 million per day – more than eight times its estimated daily defence expenditure, considering the annual allocation of approximately USD 33 billion (NIS 109.8 billion) for the Ministry of Defence in the 2025 state budget. Airstrikes on Iranian targets cost around USD 590 million in the first two days alone, while interceptions are estimated to have cost at least USD 200 million daily. Even at this tremendous cost, missile defence operations could not prevent Tehran’s retaliatory strikes following the attacks on military and civilian infrastructure across the country from causing direct damage to Israel exceeding USD 1.5 billion, including to key financial and economic centres of activity. 

The nerve centre of Israel’s financial market – the Tel Aviv stock exchange building – was directly hit. While stocks quickly erased early losses during the war, leading the Israeli Finance Minister to hail it as ‘proof of Israel’s economic resilience–even under fire,’ attacks on Research and Development (R&D) centres, considered the most dynamic part of Israel’s economic core, that is the high-tech sector, represented a loss of decades of research, development, trial and error, and investment. Particularly consequential was the strike on the Weizmann Institute, known for its links to military projects and targeted in retaliation for the assassination of several Iranian nuclear scientists, which led to the destruction of 45 laboratories. One of the labs struck, for instance, had material from 22 years’ worth of research. Any future war could push the boundaries further, with even more vital sites likely to be targeted. 

Israel’s economic growth this year is projected to decline by at least 0.2 per cent, with the government’s budget deficit likely to reach 6 per cent of GDP, surpassing the 4.9 per cent cap set by the Finance Ministry. Last month, an Israeli official had hinted at the possibility of Tel Aviv seeking additional financial support from the United States to offset the war’s costs and address urgent defence needs. 

READ: Germany’s Merz says he has ‘no doubt’ about legality of Israel’s attacks on Iran

A 12-day war causing such significant economic consequences reveals how brittle and vulnerable the Israeli economy is. 

For Iran, the financial cost has been equally significant. The missiles alone cost Iran around USD 800 million, more than its estimated 12-day defence budget, based on the USD 23.1 billion annual allocation for March 2025-26. Tehran has now reportedly planned to triple its budget in 2025, reflecting the need to replenish resources. 

Iran’s economic core – the oil and gas sector – was also severely impacted. The drop in oil exports during the war reportedly cost Iran USD 1.4 billion in lost revenue. Some of Iran’s vital oil and gas facilities, including the major South Pars gas field, were directly hit. Unlike Israel, Iran’s defence systems were not as advanced, making it less capable of preventing strikes on vital sectors of the economy. However, analysts opine that Iran demonstrated more resilience than initially thought by avoiding a total collapse, and reportedly, maintained some of its oil exports during the war through a ‘shadow fleet’ of tankers. 

The primary lesson that emerges from this is not one of ‘strengthening resilience’ to mitigate the economic consequences of future wars, but that there are limits to technological and economic strength in the face of war. In fact, states with advanced economies and sophisticated defence systems, such as Israel, can overestimate their capacity to absorb and manage the consequences of war, thereby lowering their threshold for initiating a conflict. Even if enough resilience is built that vital infrastructure and sectors remain immune during a war, military expenditures can reach levels so high that their opportunity costs (the loss of potential gain from other alternatives when one alternative is chosen) can last for decades. 

It now falls upon Israeli and Jewish voices to ask the hard questions boldly and without fear. At what cost does Israel pursue its military adventurism? How long will taxpayers’ money be poured into the bloodshed of innocent civilians? The same questions ought to be raised by the American voices, given the United States’ direct support to and complicity in Israel’s military campaigns. The actions of political leaders arguably become unsustainable once the domestic population (in large numbers) begins to understand and categorically question the price of wars that their governments fight in their name and take pride in. 

BLOG: The UK refused to support plans to overthrow Khomeini’s revolutionary rule, one year after the outbreak of the Iraq-Iran war

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.