One Palestinian student found herself facing permanent expulsion and the revocation of all her academic credits at Zefat Academic College in Israel, after posting a video of a religious preacher praying for the people of Gaza.
Another Palestinian student, at the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa, was suspended for posting a Quranic verse.
Adalah received more than 130 inquiries from Palestinian students facing disciplinary proceedings across approximately 40 institutions. More than three in four of the targeted students were women.
The report concluded that Israeli academia has established a two-track disciplinary system amounting to apartheid within higher education.
Palestinians go through an “administrative track”, characterised by the suspension of standard procedural protections and the presumption of innocence.
Meanwhile, Jewish Israelis have “constitutional track” protections, grounded in the rule of law.
Institutional incompetence
The report revealed a host of systemic procedural flaws in the monitoring of Palestinian students, notably the reliance on automated software like Google Translate to interpret Arabic texts, prayers, and cultural expressions.
Adi Mansour, an Adalah affiliate attorney, European University Institute PhD researcher and co-author of the report, said this shouldn’t be viewed as a calculated tactic.
“We view it as institutional incompetence, compounded by an unwillingness to both understand the complexity of language and discourse, and to engage with anything that departs from a majority Zionist Israeli Jewish point of view,” he told Al Jazeera.
But the proceedings against students were structured to prevent Palestinians from sharing their perspective or defence.
“Even where defence linguists were brought forward, their opinions were routinely dismissed or disregarded,” Mansour said. “Students’ identity was put on trial so explicitly that one committee even noted a student’s identification with children in Gaza could be ‘interpreted as offensive’, and questioned that student on why they didn’t identify with Israeli children.”
Subjective enforcement
Historically, Article 17 of Israel’s Students’ Rights Law limited disciplinary powers against students to conduct connected to academic studies. But institutions expanded their jurisdiction over students’ lives after the war on Gaza began. They employed catch-all provisions like “unfitting conduct” and “harm to public peace”, as well as replacing legal thresholds with tests evaluating “public sensibilities”.
“These ‘public sensibilities’ and this ‘reasonable person’ were effectively interpreted by committees and tribunals to mean the Jewish Israeli public and the sentiment of the majority,” Mansour told Al Jazeera.
“By effectively turning emotions into legal authority, used to determine the legality of speech and its meaning, institutions created uncertainty around what type of speech is prohibited.”
According to Mansour, this approach resulted in a state of conditional inclusion for Palestinian students in Israeli universities.
“[Palestinians] remain students only for as long as their expression stays within boundaries set by the comfort of the majority, and the alignment with the broader Jewish-Israeli discourse,” he said.
Meanwhile, the Adalah report documented that Israeli academic institutions ignored widespread calls by Jewish-Israeli students for the annihilation and genocide of the Palestinian people in Gaza.
Commenting to the Times Higher Education on Wednesday, the Technion said the report was “part of a broader attempt to discredit Israeli academia and institutions”, and called the accusations “baseless”.
Militant democracy
To justify these severe measures, institutions such as the Hebrew University of Jerusalem invoked the 1965 Yardor ruling, a “militant democracy” doctrine originally used during periods of military rule to suspend the protections of the law against perceived internal enemies.
Mansour explained that this legal manoeuvring is part of a broader, deeply entrenched system weighed against Palestinians in Israeli academia.
“We see this less as a testing ground for future expansion than as one expression of an existing system, one that has long treated Palestinian citizens as the ‘other’, a fifth column, an internal enemy, particularly when they express their Palestinian identity, national narrative, or engage in discourse considered illegitimate from a majority Zionist-Jewish-Israeli point of view,” Mansour said.
“[Academia is] one visible, well-evidenced part of a system that already spans multiple sectors in parallel,” he said. “One that continuously defines aspects of language, religion, culture and political symbols such as the Palestinian flag as markers of the enemy”.
Global accountability
Mansour called upon international human rights bodies to hold Israeli universities accountable for breaches of international law.
“We do believe that academic freedom, adherence to international law, and freedom of expression should be an absolute precondition for any academic partnership or collaboration,” Mansour told Al Jazeera.
“Our report clearly finds a structural, institutionalised repression, applied at scale across roughly 40 institutions. These are not isolated incidents – it’s a policy, which we call on these institutions to immediately end”.
That “institutionalised repression” has fundamentally altered the shared academic space in Israel, Mansour said.
“From our direct work with around 100 students, we can say that the impact has been substantial, and it has produced a chilling effect,” he concluded.
“The stakes were not limited to disciplinary proceedings: students were arrested, and in some cases held in detention in harsh conditions. Universities even reported their own students to the police”.
Maldives President Mohamed Muizzu has written to UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham, asking him to reopen talks over the sovereignty of the Chagos Islands rather than handing over the islands to Mauritius.
In a statement released on Tuesday by the Maldives’ presidential office, Muizzu emphasised “the importance of meaningful dialogue between the UK and the Maldives on matters concerning the sovereignty of the Chagos archipelago”.
The Maldives government maintains that its own claim to the Chagos Islands is backed by historical ties and geographical proximity, being about 500km (310 miles) away while Mauritius is more than four times that distance.
These islands are home to the key UK-US military base on the island of Diego Garcia. It is the largest island in the archipelago, a strategic location in the middle of the Indian Ocean between Asia and Africa, and home to a military base that the UK leases to the US in a 99-year deal.
In his letter, Muizzu “expressed the Maldives’ concerns regarding the UK’s decision to proceed with the handover of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius”.
Burnham’s predecessor, Keir Starmer, had finalised a deal in May 2025 to transfer sovereignty over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. The multibillion-dollar agreement would allow the UK to maintain control of the strategically important US-UK airbase on Diego Garcia.
However, in his latest letter, Muizzu said he was “deeply disappointed” that the UK did not consult the Maldives when Starmer agreed to cede sovereignty of the archipelago to Mauritius, and urged Burnham to “rectify this oversight by your predecessor”.
Muizzu went on to highlight “the shared history and cultural ties between the Maldives and Chagos, as well as the Maldives’ longstanding support for major marine conservation and scientific research expeditions in the region”.
Last April, the UK set aside Starmer’s bill that would return the Chagos Islands to Mauritius due to a lack of support from United States President Donald Trump, as Mauritius promised to “spare no effort” to reclaim the archipelago.
A spokesperson of the UK’s Foreign Office was quoted on Tuesday by the Press Association news agency as saying that “the question of sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago is a matter for the UK and Mauritius, which is why the previous government launched negotiations with Mauritius on the issue in 2022, rather than with the Maldives”.
Hungary has ordered 10 Russian diplomats to leave the country, accusing them of “unacceptable” activities that it says are incompatible with their diplomatic status.
Anita Orban, Hungary’s deputy prime minister and foreign minister, said on Tuesday that the decision to protect “Hungary’s security and sovereignty” does not mean the country is “breaking off diplomatic relations with Russia”.
Russia promised a “harsh and painful” response, the country’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova told Russia’s TASS news agency.
Hungary was one of the few European Union allies to Russia after its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Under the previous government, Budapest’s relations with Moscow were warm.
Former Prime Minister Viktor Orban (not related to current Deputy Prime Minister Anita Orban), who lost the elections last April after 16 years in power, reportedly told Russian President Vladimir Putin: “I am at your service” during last year’s phone call.
Hungary took a “legitimate decision”, EU spokesman Christian Wigand told journalists, adding that the EU “will continue to closely coordinate” the situation.
Many EU member states expelled Russian diplomats following Moscow’s all-out war on Ukraine, but Hungary was not one of them until now.
The Eiffel Tower was temporarily closed on Monday after workers went on strike to protest the sidelining of female staff during a private visit by a Hindu religious group.
The tower, which has since reopened, shut after members of Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha (BAPS), a global socio‑spiritual Hindu denomination, visited the site. Female staff were reportedly asked to give way to male staff for the group’s tour, prompting protests from the workers’ union, outrage from French politicians and an apology from the Hindu group.
Here is more about BAPS and how the controversy unfolded.
What’s the controversy about?
The Eiffel Tower closed after staff walked out over the removal of women staff during a weekend visit by BAPS.
The Societe d’Exploitation de la Tour Eiffel, or SETE, which runs the Paris landmark, acknowledged that the group had requested the Saturday visit be organised in a way that limited “interactions with women”, and said “these conditions should not have been accepted”.
The BAPS monks, or sadhus, practise strict celibacy, which requires them to avoid physical contact with women and being alone in their company, and to minimise personal interaction or attention towards the opposite sex.
Wider community members of BAPS are not bound by these celibacy rules. According to news reports, the BAPS delegation visiting the Eiffel Tower comprised both monks and community members.
Eiffel Tower staff said in a statement that they condemned “professional instructions that led to female employees being sidelined, replaced and made invisible because of their sex” during the visit by the delegation.
“Some were asked to leave their posts and withdraw to other areas. In some posts they were replaced by men. And all female employees were instructed not to go through or cross certain areas while the delegation was present,” the staff union said, adding they were shocked to have been put in such a situation.
Paris Mayor Emmanuel Gregoire said an investigation would be launched “as soon as possible”. In a post on social media, he said he was aware of the employees’ anger and agreed their dissatisfaction was legitimate.
What is BAPS and how have they responded?
BAPS was founded in India in 1907 and began expanding internationally from the 1960s. It is a spiritual organisation which works on community building, constructing temples, helping with disaster relief and running medical camps, environmental drives and educational programmes.
It now also runs an extensive network of temples and cultural centres across the world, including more than 100 in the United States and more than 1,000 worldwide, including across Europe, Africa and Asia. BAPS also runs a temple in Paris.
On Tuesday, the BAPS Paris account posted a statement on X responding to the controversy.
“To our knowledge, at no time was access to the Eiffel Tower denied to anyone,” the account wrote, originally in French.
“Nevertheless, we wish to offer our sincere apologies to anyone who may have been hurt or inconvenienced by this situation,” it added.
How has the response in France been?
Leaders within France expressed outrage over reports of women being removed from the premises.
Aurore Berge, the minister delegate for gender equality and fight against discrimination in France, wrote in an X post on Monday: “In France, we do not ask women to step aside. No dogma, no religion is superior to the laws of the Republic.”
Yael Braun-Pivet, president of the National Assembly, wrote in a post on social media: “Welcoming others never means giving up our values. In France, women are fully present in public life. No one tells them to become invisible.”
Former French President Francois Hollande, now an MP, wrote on X on Tuesday: “We do not ask women to step aside to satisfy religious demands.”
He expressed support for the Eiffel Tower staff who walked out.
“Equality between women and men is a fundamental achievement of our Republic. It applies everywhere, to all women and all men, without exception,” Hollande wrote.
Parliamentarian and former PM Michel Barnier wrote on X: “It is therefore utterly unacceptable that an order aimed at making women disappear from this space could have been issued.”
Barnier added that “women are not hidden. They are not erased. They are respected, and their freedom is defended”, demanding an explanation from the SETE.
Jordan Bardella, the president of the far-right National Rally, wrote on X on Tuesday: “This degrading demand should never have been met. In a free country like France, gender equality is respected, and no religious reason can override women’s dignity.”
Prominent far-right MP and leader of the National Rally (RN), Marine Le Pen wrote in an X post: “In France, we will never accept that the presence of women be ‘limited.'”
Is BAPS linked to the Modi government?
BAPS is not officially part of a political party in India, and has long insisted that it is apolitical.
But researchers have long pointed to a close, cooperative relationship with Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government.
In fact, the Eiffel Tower closure came just a day after Modi virtually inaugurated the BAPS temple in Paris.
Modi also attended the physical inauguration of the BAPS temple in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in 2024.
Has BAPS faced other controversies in the past?
BAPS has faced a series of high-profile controversies in the past.
During a landmark legal battle in 1966, BAPS leaders argued in court that their sect was not part of Hinduism but a distinct religion. They did so in an attempt to avoid the Bombay Harijan Temple Entry Act, which required Hindu temples to open their doors to Dalits, a historically marginalised caste group. The Indian Supreme Court rejected the appeal made by BAPS.
In 2013, two former BAPS monks filed a complaint accusing senior BAPS leaders of sexual assault dating back to the 1970s. BAPS leaders denied the allegations. The complaint did not result in any publicly reported criminal charges.
In 2021, a US federal class‑action lawsuit accused BAPS of exploiting low‑caste labourers from India to work on its temples. The case, brought on behalf of about 200 Indian workers, alleged they were lured from India, coerced into employment agreements, and forced to work more than 12 hours a day with only five days off a year at a temple in Robbinsville Township, New Jersey.
The suit says they were paid as little as $1.20 an hour, far below the US federal minimum wage of $7.25 and New Jersey’s $12 statewide minimum.
A US federal investigation into labour trafficking at the Robbinsville temple has since been closed without criminal charges, but the civil class‑action lawsuit brought by the workers continues.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President Antonio Costa have condemned the presence of several senior Serbian officials at the funeral of war criminal Ratko Mladic.
The EU leaders said on Tuesday in identical statements published on X that images of the previous day’s commemoration in Serbia – a candidate for EU membership – were “shocking”.
“The elements of official support and the presence of some senior Serbian officials at the funeral are deeply regrettable,” they said on X. “They demonstrate a failure to confront a dark chapter in Europe’s recent history and contradict the values underpinning Serbia’s path towards the European Union.”
“Our thoughts are with all the victims of the crimes committed in the countries of former Yugoslavia,” they added.
The images from Ratko Mladić’s funeral yesterday in Belgrade were shocking.
Ratko Mladić was a convicted war criminal. He was responsible for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. He died while serving a life sentence for the Srebrenica genocide and other crimes.…
Serbia’s Justice Minister Nenad Vujic had initially announced “military and state honours” for Mladic, drawing international protest and leading President Aleksandar Vucic to downgrade the event.
In attendance were Serbia’s defence and justice ministers, the head of the Serbian Orthodox Church, and officials from the Bosnian Serb separatist entity, Republika Srpska, including President Sinisa Karan.
Russia’s ambassador to Serbia, Alexander Botsan-Kharchenko, was also there.
Vucic himself did not attend the event. However, he described it as an “emotional outpouring”, and his son was present.
Mladic died in The Hague last month, aged 84, while serving a life sentence for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity during the 1990s Bosnian War. He remains a hero to many Serbs.
His legacy is linked to the 1995 Srebrenica genocide, when forces under his command captured a Bosniak enclave and systematically killed more than 8,000 men and boys, an atrocity that has been ruled a genocide by a United Nations court.
Bosnia downgraded diplomatic relations and recalled most of its embassy staff from Belgrade in response to the funeral.
A barrier for accession
The rebuke sharpens a standoff between Brussels and Belgrade, weeks before the bloc publishes its annual assessment of EU membership applicant countries.
Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos, charged with relations with candidate countries, had already cancelled a trip to Belgrade last week, saying the glorification of Mladic’s death would be incompatible with the blocs values and that the funeral would be “a test”.
Serbia’s membership prospects were already strained for other reasons. In April, Kos warned Belgrade it could lose access to about 1.5 billion euros ($1.8bn) in EU funds over irregularities in municipal elections.
Brussels has not yet announced how the incident will impact Serbia’s accession bid. Asked about possible consequences, von der Leyen’s spokesperson said the bloc was still “looking into it”.
Von der Leyen’s condemnation also drew questions from critics who have accused her of turning a blind eye to Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
Although Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is wanted in The Hague for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity against Palestinians, the EU has refused to cut off trade and diplomatic relations with the country.
In a post on X, Bruno Macaes, former Portuguese secretary of state for European affairs, called the condemnations “embarrassing” given that “the list of crimes being condemned corresponds exactly to the list of crimes that were excused or supported by these same governments over the last three years” in Gaza.
The United Kingdom has announced a ban on the import of all goods produced by illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, in the country’s most significant policy since London’s historic recognition of Palestinian statehood last year.
In a speech to Parliament, UK Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband accused Israel of carrying out “ethnic cleansing” in Palestine and affirmed that it is official UK policy that the Israeli settlements rapidly expanding across the occupied West Bank are “unlawful”.
He said he did not believe “the British people want us supporting the occupation by accepting products from settlements in our shops”.
Miliband also announced tougher new restrictions on arms sales to Israel.
Israel announced four “counter measures”, including banning 12 British MPs from entering Israel, following his speech.
The UK’s trade ban on goods from illegal settlements comes amid an intensifying wave of Israeli settler pogroms on Palestinian communities in the occupied West Bank and controversial settlement expansions that have prompted a UK-led debate on Europe-wide trade restrictions.
After Miliband’s speech, 12 countries shared a joint statement supporting the two-state solution and announcing their own intentions to impose restrictions on trade with illegal Israeli settlements.
France, the UK, Canada, Denmark, Spain, Finland, Ireland, Iceland, Norway, Poland, Portugal and Sweden called on the Israeli government to immediately halt the expansion of settlements.
Here’s what we know.
What did Miliband say in Parliament?
Ahead of Tuesday’s announcement, Miliband said new trading bans and sanctions would represent a “comprehensive reset” of the UK’s policy on Israel, amounting to an approach that “not only calls out the injustice [in Palestine], but acts”.
However, he added: “The sanctions regime will target illegal settlements and settlement expansion, not Israel.”
“I can also announce that we’re extending the existing global human rights regime such that it will enable swifter action to deter settlement expansion, including crucially seeking to prevent the development of E1,” he added, referring to a proposed settlement in the West Bank which, he said, would divide the Palestinian territory in two and put an end to hopes for a two-state solution.
In support of Israel, Miliband also announced new sanctions against the financing arm of the Lebanese group Hezbollah – Al-Qard al-Hasan – and said the UK will reimpose sanctions on Iran, in line with those imposed by the European Union and United States.
However, he said the UK government “agrees” that settler violence in areas of the West Bank amounts to ethnic cleansing and labelled those carrying it out as “settler terrorists”. He accused the Israeli government of turning a blind eye to the violence and intimidation of Palestinians.
Miliband reaffirmed the UK’s commitment to a two-state solution for Palestine and sharply criticised the rhetoric of Israeli politicians, such as Minister of Finance Bezalel Smotrich, who have called for an end to any notion of a Palestinian state.
Miliband, who is himself Jewish, said the UK government will take a tougher approach towards rising anti-Semitism in the UK. He emphasised that measures by the UK government are being taken against the government of Israel, not the Israeli people, and that targeting Jewish people in the UK for the acts of the Israeli government is “anti-Semitism, pure and simple”.
Britain is a country “that upholds its values at home and around the world, a Britain that fights against oppression and suffering wherever it occurs, a Britain that stands up for what is right”, he said.
(Al Jazeera)
What is being banned?
The UK ban on trading with illegal Israeli settlements covers the following:
A ban on the import of all goods from illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
Sanctions on all organisations, businesses and individuals providing construction, infrastructure, financing or real estate for settlement expansion.
A total ban on advertising in the UK for the sale of properties in illegal settlements in the West Bank.
Sanctions against extremist settlers who have supported or incited violence against Palestinians.
All new export licences for weapons and other exports which “materially contribute to the occupation” will be refused. The UK has already suspended more than 30 arms licences used by the Israeli army in Gaza, he added. The ban on such exports will remain in place as long as the occupation persists, he says.
Exempted goods are:
Products and services from Israel itself.
How much does the UK trade with settlements?
The UK is an important trading partner for Israel as a whole.
Trade between the UK and Israel totalled 6 billion pounds ($8.1bn) in 2025, according to the House of Commons. However, it is difficult to estimate exactly how much of this is from goods produced by settlements, but an estimated 38 million pounds ($51.4m) worth of goods was imported from the occupied territory in 2025, parliament records show.
Precious stones and metals, technical and medical equipment, plastics, machinery and fresh produce including fruit are the major goods imported from Israel. In return, the UK exports, among other things, defence equipment including drones, helicopters and aircraft components.
Between 2024 and 2025, the UK suspended about 30 arms export licences due to Israel’s actions in Gaza. However, exemptions were made for F-35 combat aircraft components, which Israel can access via other partners like the US.
The UK has long tried to distinguish between goods imported from Israel and those from settlements and does not allow such products to access preferential tariffs under a free trade agreement.
To claim preferential tariffs, importers are required to provide UK customs with documentation showing where their goods are manufactured in Israel, and to demonstrate they were not produced in a “location within the territories brought under Israeli administration since June 1967”.
Guidelines were also introduced outlining how products originating from Israeli settlements should be labelled before entering the UK, although concerns have been raised about goods produced in occupied Palestinian territory being mislabelled as “produced in Israel”.
Last May, the UK suspended any negotiations to modernise the trade agreement to cover digital trade and other areas.
Does this mean the UK is removing support for Israel?
No. In his speech to Parliament, Miliband took pains to emphasise that these measures are not being taken against the Israeli people, with whom the British people have “unshakable bonds”.
“Our argument” is not with the people of Israel, but with the “conduct of its government”, he said. “I wholeheartedly oppose the boycott divestment sanctions, or BDS, campaign,” he added.
He said the Hamas-led attacks on southern Israel on October 7, 2023 demonstrated the grave threats that Israel faces, and announced that the UK is also implementing new sanctions against the Iran-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon, as well as reimposing sanctions on Iran in line with those of the EU and the US.
To “those who question Israel’s right to exist”, he said: “You are wrong, and we will call you out.”
He added that Hamas must decommission its weapons and dismantle its “terrorist infrastructure” in Gaza. “Hamas can play no role in the future governance of Gaza.”
The foreign secretary said Israel has the right to live without fear.
Miliband said he is “proud” of his own Jewishness and added that his support for the state of Israel is not a “contradiction” of his support for Palestine.
How has Israel responded?
Israel’s Foreign Minister Gideon Saar has announced counter measures against the UK.
It is closing the British Consulate in Jerusalem.
British representatives will be removed from the International Gaza Support Center in Kiryat Gat in southern Israel.
British training of Palestinian Authority forces in the West Bank will be terminated.
Twelve British MPs are banned from entering Israel.
Saar accused the UK government of trying to interfere in Israel’s October election by making this announcement so close to it.
He added that the Israeli public is overwhelmingly opposed to the establishment of a Palestinian state “in the heart of our land”.
On Tuesday, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir called on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to recognise Argentina’s sovereignty over the Falklands, an overseas UK territory that Argentina claims, in retaliation.
Smotrich, Israel’s finance minister, called for the expulsion of the British ambassador.
How has the US responded?
Burnham spoke with President Donald Trump in a phone call on Monday and stressed the importance of a two-state solution, UK media reported. Trump has, however, not commented on the new ban.
Mike Huckabee, the US ambassador to Israel, has not minced words, however. Over the weekend, he accused the UK government of “Jew hate”. He described any plan for sanctions or trading bans as “discrimination against the Jewish people”.
“I don’t know if [the British government is] really aware of the implications and how it’s going to affect Brits,” he told the UK’s BBC Radio 4 Today programme on Tuesday.
Huckabee claimed that 25 percent of pharmaceuticals in the UK are produced in Israel and that British businesses in the US could face “great damage” in the case of a US reprisal.
Ahead of Miliband’s announcement, Florida Republican Congressman Randy Fine warned that UK companies could be barred from Florida and accused the UK of carrying out a “vanity project in support of Muslim terror”.
On Tuesday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said: “We think it has implications on our ability to make progress with regards to Gaza, on the 20-point plan and the Board of Peace that we’re very committed to. Obviously we’re not going to do what the UK did.”
What other response has there been?
Palestine’s ambassador to the UK Husam Zomlot said the UK’s decision to impose sanctions and a trading ban was “long overdue” but represented a “turning point in UK-Palestine relations”.
“Today, Britain begins to move from condemnation to consequences, from words to action,” he wrote on X.
Human rights groups have also welcomed the move.
Human Rights Watch said the import ban and sanctions were a “long-awaited and positive change in Britain’s policy”.
Amnesty International UK said the new measures could be “the sea change that is needed”.
However, following Miliband’s address in parliament, the Jewish Leadership Council, which represents Jewish organisations in Britain, accused the government of placing an “increased target on British Jews”.
The council said the move was “deeply irresponsible” and claimed that the government was “yielding to pressure from the most extreme elements of British society”.
The UK’s Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis said it was a “truly a dark day for British Jews” and warned that they would be at greater risk of extremist attacks as a result.
“Today our government has chosen to ignore the deep concerns expressed by so many of us,” he wrote on X. “These measures will succeed only in bolstering the very extremism they seek to target.”
Does the ban go far enough?
Under former prime minister Keir Starmer, the UK’s Labour Party was strongly criticised for failing to take action over Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza and the pogroms against Palestinian communities in the occupied West Bank. This was an issue that the new prime minister, Andy Burnham, pledged to correct when he took over as leader.
But the ban on Israeli settlement products represents less than 1 percent of UK-Israel trade.
Zena Agha, interim director of the British Palestinian Committee, which advocates for Palestinian rights in the UK, told Al Jazeera the move is a “bare minimum”.
“These are measures we would expect any government to take in accordance with the international legal framework to which it subscribes. So it shouldn’t be celebrated in that regard. Nevertheless, it is something which the previous administration didn’t do, and so it should be welcomed.”
Advocates say the ban’s proper implementation is crucial.
Chris Doyle of the Council for Arab-British Understanding, which has long lobbied for a trade ban with Israel, said it is important to ensure products from settlements are not misleadingly labelled as being from Israel. He also called for a ban on all investments and financial services in the settlements.
“Trading with these settlements should never have been allowed in the first place, built as they are in occupied territory, on the land and resources of Palestinians,” Doyle said.
“I think what we are seeing here is, for the first time, Britain is taking significant action against illegal settlements. It’s long overdue. We’ve heard previous prime ministers from Thatcher to Blair to Cameron all saying settlements are illegal and an obstacle to peace, but they did nothing … It should act as encouragement for other European actors to do the same … Collectively this will make a difference as the EU is Israel’s largest trading partner.”
Given the extent of what he said were Israeli war crimes in Palestine, however, “the UK must be prepared to go further in the event that Israel does not end its settlement enterprise”, Doyle added.
A legal complaint against FIFA has been extended to cover its alleged “abusive conduct” towards the women’s game in Europe.
The complaint by the European Leagues umbrella group, which includes the Premier League and Scottish Professional Football League (SPFL) as members, was first lodged with the European Commission on behalf of men’s players in October 2024.
The complaint claims that FIFA abused a dominant position under European competition law in allegedly failing to properly consult with leagues over the men’s international match calendar announced in 2023.
European Leagues formally welcomed 14 European women’s leagues to its ranks in June, including the Women’s Super League in England and the Scottish Women’s Premier League, and has now extended the legal complaint to cover the impact on the women’s international match calendar.
A European Leagues statement on Tuesday said: “European Leagues is extending the scope of its complaint to the European Commission about the international match calendar to include FIFA’s abusive conduct regarding the women’s international match calendar and related women’s football regulatory decisions.
“FIFA’s conduct threatens the growth and financial sustainability of women’s professional leagues, and risks player health and wellbeing.
“The European Commission must now act to ensure that EU law is respected and that the future of women’s professional football is not determined unilaterally by FIFA,” the European Leagues said.
“The submission details the same pattern of conduct identified in the original complaint: FIFA holds conflicting roles as governing body and competition organizer, which gives rise to a conflict of interest,” they added.
“As in men’s football, FIFA consistently uses its regulatory power to favour its own competition and commercial interests to the detriment of women’s football and of European national leagues.”
FIFA has been approached for comment, and has previously insisted that the calendar announced at its 2023 Congress was the result of extensive consultation with all stakeholders, including leagues.
It has also said it is fully within its rights to set the parameters of its own competitions like the Club World Cup provided they fit within the agreed calendar framework.
The ratcheting up of the legal pressure on FIFA comes at a time when its President, Gianni Infantino, remains under fire from three continental confederations over his controversial plan to seek private investment in a company to run the men’s and women’s World Cups and other FIFA competitions.
The plan, since abandoned, foresaw a company called FIFA Forward Enterprise being set up, which would be 20 percent owned by private investors.
European Leagues’ statement on Tuesday said the controversy over the company “further exposed this structural conflict (between FIFA’s position as a regulator and commercial operator) and vividly illustrates how profit-driven motives taint FIFA’s regulatory decisions and decision-making processes”.
Sanaa, Yemen – A month ago, a Houthi recruiter in his 40s, approached 16-year-old Abdulkarim in Sanaa and told him about the possibility of being sent to the front line in Marib, where fighting was raging against pro-government forces.
Abdulkarim was promised a Kalashnikov, and a one-month military training course and 50,000 Yemeni rials ($100), slightly above the local average.
In a country where more than four in five rural children are multidimensionally deprived, the offer was a tempting one. While Abdulkarim was ready to fight, his father, 39, did not approve and so Abdulkarim stayed in Sanaa.
“My father advised me that survival on active front lines nowadays is minimal, and going there is a sure step to death, injury or captivity. I told the Houthi man of my father’s objection, and he left,” Abdulkarim told Al Jazeera.
As Yemen experiences its most intense fighting in years, a new wave of child recruitment in the country is taking shape.
Ali Hazazi, head of the Human Rights and Civil Society Organizations Department at the Office of the President in Aden, told Al Jazeera that his organisation had documented 62 child recruitment cases in the second quarter of 2026 in Houthi-controlled provinces.
“This reflects a systematic policy of child recruitment. The documented cases are just a fraction, as many go unreported,” he said.
Against the backdrop of major offensives on Houthi positions, pro-government forces have captured many child soldiers, including on the al-Dhale front, he said.
“Those children panicked and collapsed when they fell into the hands of government troops, who reassured them that they would not be hurt,” said Hazazi.
A fighter fires an assault rifle as Yemeni government and Saudi-backed National Resistance Forces battle Houthi fighters on the Kadha front, west of Taiz, Yemen, September 8, 2026 [AFP]
Ahmed, 17, has been on the front lines in Hodeidah – a strategically important Yemeni Red Sea port – since May, fighting with the Houthis. He manages to call his family once a week and recently returned home for a week’s leave.
“Members of the Houthi group were mobilising fighters from our area in April. Ahmed said he was ready to join the war and insisted on going. I did not oppose him,” his father, Ismael, 48, who has 10 children, told Al Jazeera.
“Ahmed is a man, no longer a child. I want him to try his luck in this experience. And his monthly salary of 45,000 Yemeni rials, about $80, would help us cover living expenses.”
Ahmed spent his first month learning how to use an assault rifle, shoot from long range and move through areas with landmines.
“He is a young trained fighter today, but I am still worried about his fate, as fighting on the Hodeidah front intensifies,” said Ismael.
The Houthis launched a major offensive against pro-government lines in western Taiz and southern Hodeidah last week, with more than 100 fighters from both sides killed since Thursday.
For some families, the decision to allow children to join the fighting is shaped by a combination of economic hardship, social pressure and ideology.
Ahmed Nagi, a senior Yemen analyst at the International Crisis Group, said that the circumstances surrounding child recruitment in Yemen differ from those in other conflicts.
“In many cases, children are subjected to ideological indoctrination, recruited without meaningful compensation, and sent to the front lines with little or no military training,” Nagi told Al Jazeera.
“Sending a child to a military camp or the front line can sometimes provide the family with some form of material support or irregular income. This may not be a stable salary or a clearly defined package of benefits, but for families living in extreme poverty, even limited assistance can appear better than having no income at all.”
More than half of Yemen’s population does not have reliable access to enough food, with six million people facing “emergency” levels of deprivation that border on famine, the UN’s humanitarian chief, Tom Fletcher, told the UN Security Council in remarks last month.
Social pressure can create a cycle of mobilisation and revenge, with some Yemeni families seeing fighting as a social obligation.
“When a family member is killed, the conflict can become deeply personal,” Nagi told Al Jazeera. “In some cases, this includes children. One death can lead to further mobilisation, which produces more casualties and, in turn, further recruitment.”
Families who strongly align politically with a particular armed group may not see anything inherently wrong in sending their children to fight for the cause. “Instead, they may view it as an act of loyalty, sacrifice or defence of their community,” he said.
Tawfiq Al-Humaidi, head of SAM Organization for Rights and Liberties, which monitors and documents human rights violations across Yemen, said that although the majority of child recruitment cases are happening in Houthi-controlled areas, the movement is not the only actor in this phenomenon.
“The group seeks to replenish the losses of fighters and prepares for new rounds of fighting, and this makes child recruitment an ideal option,” Al-Humaidi told Al Jazeera.
Young Yemenis are often recruited at 17, an age that social and tribal norms equate with manhood, virility, and psychological and mental maturity, he said, and when children traditionally begin to carry weapons.
Young men play near a beached fishing boat at a site in Al-Ghaydah district, in Al-Mukalla, Yemen, September 6, 2026 [Abdulnasser Alseddik/AP]
SAM reported that 11,310 children were recruited or used across 19 Yemeni governorates between 2014 and 2023, including 6,269 children aged 8 to 11.
International law generally prohibits the recruitment and use of children under 18 in armed conflict. The use of children by the military in any situation under 15 is also banned under international humanitarian law.
In 2014, the Yemeni government signed an action plan with the UN to end and prevent the recruitment of children by the Yemeni Armed Forces. In 2022, the Houthis signed a similar UN action plan.
The Houthis have in the past denied enlisting children to fight. But Al-Humaidi said that children in Yemen still undertake military tasks such as guard duties, transporting ammunition, reconnaissance, laying landmines and direct combat.
“As a result, they are exposed to death, injury, and long-term psychological trauma. This is not the fault of children; the recruiters are the culprits,” he said.
“This creates a compounded set of violations: the recruitment of children, their ideological mobilisation, their deployment without adequate preparation, and the lack of any meaningful support or compensation for their families if they are killed.”
Al-Humaidi said that while action plans, such as those signed by the Houthis and Yemeni government, are important, they will not succeed if they remain mere political pledges that lack implementation mechanisms.
Effective measures are needed to prevent children from registering as fighters and to verify recruits’ ages, he said.
He added that child soldiers need effective demobilisation and rehabilitation, including access to education, and that military commanders need to be held accountable.
“The continuation of the war increases the risk, but this does not absolve any party of its responsibility to keep children away from the front lines,” said Al-Humaidi.
One year ago, thousands of young people took to the streets in multiple Nepali cities to protest against corruption. Following the resulting curfews, arrests and the killing of protesters in a crackdown on the demonstrations, the Gen Z‑led movement forced the government from power, ushering in an interim administration and opening the way for new elections.
Now, as Nepal grapples with the aftermath of devastating floods along its border with Tibet, we examine what has changed over the past year – and whether the demands of the Gen Z protesters have been met.
What happened in Nepal last year?
On September 8, 2025, youth-led “Gen Z” protests began in Kathmandu and other cities of Nepal.
Demonstrators who took to the streets were protesting a series of corruption scandals in the country and were also angered by the rising trend of the children of Nepali government officials – dubbed “Nepo kids” – documenting their lavish lifestyles online.
The protests broke out just days after the country blocked 26 social media sites including Facebook, Instagram, X (formerly Twitter), and TikTok for not complying with government rules about “harmful” content. This ban was lifted when the protests began.
Some young demonstrators defied curfews imposed by the authorities after demonstrations began, leading to arrests and the police firing live rounds at protesters, killing about 76 people. Hundreds of protesters were injured and hundreds more arrested. Protesters also set fire to several government buildings, including parliament, and the army was deployed.
Then, on September 9, Prime Minister KP Oli, 74, resigned from his position. Within a week, Nepal’s former Chief Justice Sushila Karki had been appointed as the country’s new interim prime minister.
Ultimately, the protests culminated in the current government being formed in March this year when 35-year-old rapper-turned-politician Balendra Shah was sworn in as the country’s youngest-ever prime minister.
Shah leads the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), also known as the National Independent Party, a new anti‑establishment party which emerged after the youth-led protests and won more than two‑thirds of the 165 directly elected seats in parliament in March. Traditional parties such as the Nepali Congress and the CPN‑UML have a much smaller representation than ever before.
Although he was not a street organiser of the protests, Shah became one of the most prominent political figures, channelling Gen Z’s anger into his electoral campaign.
What were the key demands of the Gen Z protesters?
They included:
An end to corruption: Protesters demanded greater transparency and accountability from political elites they view as corrupt, as well as an end to nepotism, whereby the children of those elites live in luxury while many young Nepalis struggle financially.
Mass resignations and suspensions: Protesters called for the resignation of Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and the mass resignation of parliamentarians. They also called for an immediate suspension of officials who issued the order to fire on protesters.
Political overhaul: The protesters called for the dissolution of parliament, establishment of an interim government and holding new general elections.
Have these demands been met?
The demands have been met to some extent.
For instance, Oli resigned in the wake of the Gen Z‑led protests, and several senior members of his government also stepped down. Parliament was dissolved, an interim government was established, and new general elections were held in March this year.
“Despite the loss of life and property during the movement, the interim government successfully conducted peaceful elections, leading to the emergence of a new political force in government,” Yog Raj Lamichhane, an assistant professor at Nepal’s Pokhara University, told Al Jazeera.
“The result reflected public disenchantment with the old political establishment.”
In March this year, Nepal police arrested Oli and former Home Affairs Minister Ramesh Lekhak for their alleged involvement in the deadly crackdown on the protesters last year.
However, both men were released in April after a Supreme Court order asked the police not to indefinitely extend the detention. They remain under investigation in connection with last year’s deadly Gen Z protests, but have not been formally charged.
Furthermore, the issue of corruption among political elites has barely been addressed, observers say.
Dinesh Paudel, professor at the Appalachain State University in the US, told Al Jazeera: “The fundamental concerns and issues raised by the young protestor last year are still the same, and there are no governance style changes even after the new elected government, other than some populist rhetorics on small and cosmetic topics.”
Has the leadership change made any difference?
Some of the young leaders have entered parliament and government, while others remain in activist groups. The divisions between these two groups of people are becoming more apparent as they often clash over how much to compromise with the old political establishment.
Those who were elected to parliament in March mostly belong to the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), or National Independent Party.
“One of the most exciting and progressive parts is the emergence of youth in politics as most of the parliamentarians are young, educated and have much aspiration to change,” Bishnu Raj Upreti, a public policy analyst and research director at Nepal Centre for Contemporary Research (NCCR), told Al Jazeera.
“The leadership change appears to have brought some positive differences, particularly in the working style of the current prime minister,” Lamichhane said.
However, experts say the younger generation of MPs – those elected under the NIP/RSP banner as well as those in older parties – remains constrained by party hierarchies and Nepal’s entrenched political system.
“They are inexperienced and are still heavily controlled by party structures,” Upreti said. He added that wider generational distrust between young politicians and the older establishment also complicated reform efforts.
“Leadership change has started. It is good, but not enough.”
This has resulted in an apparent divide between those in government positions and those in activist groups.
In May this year, the new government invited Gen Z activists – mostly civil society leaders and youth activists – to give their input for constitutional amendments. However, 25 of the 29 invited boycotted the meeting, saying deeper systemic problems and earlier agreements with the previous administration were being ignored, according to Gen Z activist Aayush Basyal.
Basyal, who was present at the protests last year, said it was “really tricky” for young activists to adjust to working inside the system alongside the new Gen‑Z politicians now in office. “They are trying to cooperate with the authorities they previously challenged, while still pushing for the radical changes they demanded on the streets,” she explained.
“Now the Gen Z protesters of that time are divided into different factions, and some of the factions are vehemently opposing some work of government,” Upreti explained.
“So those who oppose the government are not in positive booking of the government,” Upreti added.
Where are the protesters now?
On Tuesday, families of protesters who were killed in last year’s crackdown organised a formal commemoration at what used to be Nepal’s parliament building.
After functioning as the parliament building for almost two decades, it shut down last year when Gen Z protesters trespassed and set fire to it.
Basyal said the authorities provided tight security amid rumours that some groups might try to incite violence, noting that Nepal’s “media economy” often amplifies sensational incidents even when only a few people are involved.
In the meantime, however, the divide within the Gen Z movement is becoming more stark, particularly what some see as a failure by the new leaders to advocate for protesters.
“The injured protesters have generally received medical treatment and certain monetary compensation,” Lamicchane said.
“However, the concept of compensation remains broader than financial support alone. In my view, the true compensation would be the fulfilment of the promises and objectives that inspired the Gen Z movement and the subsequent formation of a new government.”
Basyal said that while some of the people involved in the movement are now MPs or cabinet ministers, others, from poor, minority backgrounds, who lack money and influence, are still in jail and cannot speak up for themselves.
“There are people still in jail, officially more than 900 and unofficially, maybe like 1,600 plus, who are in jail for arson,” Basyal said.
He said it was troubling that these protesters remain in jail, suggesting this risks becoming “institutionalised” and raising questions over whether the government is effectively celebrating impunity.
Activists, he added, hope the new administration will treat these detainees better, but “that is yet to be seen.”
What still needs to change?
Analysts say structural changes are necessary.
“Although the government has promised reforms, particularly through changes in laws and policies, these commitments have not yet been substantially realised,” Lamichhane said.
Upreti noted that the new government has not begun any structural changes at all.
“Structural changes have to start with changing existing laws and bringing in new laws and policies,” he said.
“From what we’ve seen so far, the new leaders don’t appear to be prioritising that. Massive reform of the bureaucracy is a precondition to achieving the aims of the Gen Z movement, but the government has not yet done meaningful work in this line.”
He added that another important element is to develop better relations and deeper trust with Nepal’s two giant neighbours, India and China, since Nepal’s economic progress and geopolitical balance depend on them.
Experts also say Nepal’s highly centralised system of government is a major obstacle to deeper structural reform.
“Strong collaboration of the federal movement with provincial and local government is the necessary condition for advancing economic progress, but they ignore provincial and local government as they have no provincial and local government. It is not a good approach,” Upreti said.
“Structural changes are necessary and they come from internal power dynamics such as urban-rural divide, inherent conflict between educated elites and peasant farmers and economic and bureaucratically institutionalised corruption,” Paudel said. “It is hard to imagine that there will be any structural changes, aiming to making people’s lives better, at this stage and under current circumstances.
“In short, Nepal has missed yet another opportunity from a popular uprising that would fundamentally address Nepali peoples desire for change.”
What’s next?
“This new government seems to be deeply under its own weight of expectation,” Basyal said.
He explained that historically in Nepal, there’s been an “expectation gap”: people expect a lot, governments deliver little, and that gap fuels frustration.
He said that this government has “not been transparent”.
“The prime minister, he doesn’t speak a lot in the parliament. And when he did address the parliament a few times, that was pretty chaotic, as well,” Basyal added.
“If this issue remains unaddressed, it may lead to a second wave of public disenchantment.”
Lamichhane said, however, it will take time to see if the government can address the challenges it faces.
“Let’s hope and wait for changes. Now, it’s not the appropriate time to criticise the government, as Nepal has faced an apocalypse in the form of a massive flood.”
Meanwhile, flags in Nepal flew at half-mast on Monday as the country mourned the more-than-1,300 people who are known to have died in catastrophic floods which ravaged the border region with Tibet late last month. Thousands more people are still missing.
Basyal noted that Nepal’s current constitution was finalised and promulgated in September 2015, only after the devastating April and May earthquakes created urgent political pressure to end nearly a decade of deadlock.
“It feels like the nation comes together only during national disasters. So we’re really hopeful that this sense of unity that is right now will help.”
Scotland midfielder Scott McTominay has had successful surgery on a minor heart issue on Tuesday and will return to training in two weeks’ time, his club Napoli said.
The former Manchester United player recently experienced a heart rhythm disorder, something which is not considered serious but did require surgery.
“On Tuesday morning, Scott McTominay underwent an ablation procedure at Spire Manchester Hospital. The operation was a complete success,” the Serie A club said in a statement.
“McTominay will rest for two weeks and then resume training.”
McTominay, 29, has been a key player for Napoli since joining from Manchester United in 2024, scoring 27 goals in 82 matches.
But he was off-form in their opening two Serie A games.
Napoli previously said McTominay would miss Scotland’s upcoming Nations League fixtures against Slovenia (twice), Switzerland and North Macedonia.
Napoli, who have just three points from their opening three Serie A games this season, host Arsenal in the Champions League on Wednesday and then play Bologna and Fiorentina before the international break.
![A large crowd of mourners gathers for a funeral procession at a cemetery during the funeral ceremony for late Bosnian Serb military leader Ratko Mladic in Belgrade on September 7, 2026 [AFP]](https://wordpress.aljazeera.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/AFP__20260907__C7KM9ZQ__v1__HighRes__SerbiaBosniaGenocideMladicFuneral-1788872824.jpg?fit=1568%2C1045)
