backing

NEW YORK — A few weeks before his stunning loss to Zohran Mamdani in the Democratic mayoral primary, former Gov. Andrew Cuomo put forth a political calculus long accepted as fact in New York: “Being a Democrat,” he said, “it’s synonymous that you support Israel.”

Mamdani, who would be the city’s first Muslim mayor, could be on the cusp of shattering that convention.

An unstinting supporter of Palestinian rights, the 34-year-old democratic socialist has accused Israel of genocide in Gaza, backed the movement to boycott the country’s goods and pledged to have Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrested if he sets foot in New York.

In a city with the largest Jewish population outside of Israel, where mayors have long been expected to make the long pilgrimage to the Jewish state, Mamdani identifies proudly as an “anti-Zionist.”

While he says he supports Israel’s right to exist, he describes any state or social hierarchy that favors Jews over others as incompatible with his belief in universal human rights.

City officials, Mamdani often points out, have no say in American foreign policy. And he has consistently and emphatically rejected claims that his criticism of Israel amounts to antisemitism, promising to work closely with those whom he doesn’t agree with if elected.

But as Cuomo and others have framed the race as a referendum on Israel, political observers say a Mamdani victory could reverberate far beyond New York, offering permission for Democrats to speak out on an issue long seen as a third rail of politics.

“This race is a proxy for where the party goes from here in terms of support for Israel — and that’s causing a lot of consternation,” said Basil Smikle, a former chief executive of the state’s Democratic Party. “We’re treading in territory that we’ve not really dealt with before.”

The ‘most important’ issue in the race

From the beginning, Cuomo has staked much of his political comeback on painting himself as a defender of Jewish security, both in New York and the Middle East.

Shortly before launching his campaign, he announced that he had joined Netanyahu’s legal defense team to defend the prime minister against war crimes charges brought by the International Criminal Court. He cast antisemitism as the “most important” issue facing the city and himself as a “hyper aggressive supporter of Israel.”

Mamdani’s own views, he said, presented an “existential” threat to New Yorkers.

Other candidates quickly rushed to burnish their own pro-Israel credentials, including Mayor Eric Adams, who announced he would run on an “EndAntisemitism” ballot line.

As they competed for support among Brooklyn’s prominent rabbis and other Jewish voters, each equated protests for Palestinian rights with support for terrorism and backed a contentious definition of antisemitism that includes certain criticism of Israel.

Days before dropping out last month, Adams shared a smiling photo with Netanyahu.

The strategy appeared willfully ignorant of polls showing growing public disapproval in the U.S. of Israel’s prosecution of the war in Gaza, according to Alyssa Cass, a longtime Democratic strategist.

She said a handful of deep-pocketed campaign donors and some city news outlets “created an impression that you could not ever question Israel, and that impression was completely divorced from reality.”

“The unique dynamics in New York were masking a broader, larger migration in public opinion that had been brewing for some time,” Cass added. “They didn’t realize that the ground beneath them had shifted.”

Shifting political winds

Still, with less than two weeks to go before the election, Cuomo has only leaned into the issue, claiming at Wednesday’s debate that Mamdani had “stoked the flames of hatred against the Jewish people.”

The broadsides have won support from the Anti-Defamation League and pro-Israel donors, like the hedge fund billionaire Bill Ackman. But there is little indication that the strategy is working among ordinary New Yorkers.

In a Quinnipiac University poll conducted in early October, 41% of likely voters in New York City said Mamdani’s views on Israel aligned closest with their own, compared to 26% for Cuomo.

A Fox News poll conducted in mid-October found that 50% of registered voters in New York said they identified more with the Palestinians in the Middle East conflict, compared to 44% who identified more with the Israelis.

Those numbers have alarmed some Jewish leaders, who have laid at least some of the blame at Mamdani’s feet. In an open letter circulated this week, 650 rabbis warned that his candidacy has contributed to “rising anti-Zionism and its political normalization.”

Amy Spitalnick, the chief executive of the Jewish Council on Public Affairs, cautioned against drawing a direct link between Mamdani’s popularity and his pro-Palestinian stance.

She noted that most Jewish voters remain strong supporters of Israel, lamenting the fact that neither Mamdani nor Cuomo had articulated “the liberal nuanced perspective that most New York Jews hold.”

“Mamdani’s views on Israel matter, but it’s not the issue on which the majority of New Yorkers are voting,” she added. “If he wins, it’s because he ran a compelling campaign on making this city more affordable.”

Weaponization and authenticity

In debates and interviews, where Mamdani often faces a barrage of questions about his views on the Israel-Hamas war, he is quick to shift the focus to his platform, which includes freezing the rent for regulated apartments, making buses free and lowering the cost of child care.

“I have denounced Hamas again and again,” an exasperated Mamdani said during a debate last week. “It will never be enough for Andrew Cuomo.”

At Wednesday’s debate, Mamdani again spoke of his proposal to increase funding for hate crime prevention and his recent outreach to Jewish voters about their fears of antisemitism.

“They deserve a leader who takes it seriously, who roots it out of these five boroughs, not one who weaponizes it as a means by which to score political points on a debate stage,” he added.

But despite months of vitriolic backlash, Mamdani has stood firm on his core criticism of Israel. In his statement marking the anniversary of the Oct. 7 attacks on Israel, he condemned both Hamas’ “horrific war crimes” and Israel’s occupation, apartheid and “genocidal war” in Gaza.

Whether or not those views are shared by the broader electorate, the consistency of the message has served as “proxy for authenticity” in the minds of voters, according to Peter Feld, a progressive political consultant.

And it has offered a sharp contrast with not only Cuomo, but other pro-Israel Democrats in New York, including Sen. Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. Both have spent weeks rebuffing questions about whether they will endorse Mamdani, indicating they were still meeting and speaking with the Democratic nominee.

“The allies divided up Europe in fewer meetings,” scoffed Cass. “At this point, they’re ignoring the majoritarian view of their voters, and there’s no way around that.”

In recent weeks, Feld said he had spoken to several potential candidates weighing primary challenges to other pro-Israel Democratic incumbents.

“Mamdani changed how candidates and donors think about what is politically possible,” Feld said. “We’ve seen that siding with Palestine over Israel doesn’t make you radioactive. It shows voters that you’ll stick to your principles.”

Offenhartz writes for the Associated Press.

Quantum computing is becoming a popular investment theme in the market, but there’s just one problem: It’s still a few years away from commercial relevance. This makes it nearly impossible to predict which company will be a major winner in this field. Adding to the difficulty of quantum computing investing is that the technology is incredibly complicated and can be difficult to understand. However, not investing in quantum computing could be a massive mistake for your portfolio’s future returns.

So, what should investors do? One advantage investors can get in this investment sector is looking at which competitors have strong backers. Amazon (AMZN -0.61%) is one tech giant that is investing in this space and is backing one of the leading pure plays: IonQ (IONQ -3.92%). This gives IonQ a vote of confidence from one of the biggest companies in the world, making IonQ an intriguing stock to invest in.

Amazon owns a small amount of IonQ

We know that Amazon is investing in IonQ from its Form 13F, which informs investors what other stock holdings Amazon has because its investment portfolio is greater than $100 million. As of its last report filed for Q2 holdings, Amazon holds nine stocks, with IonQ being one of them.

Amazon holds just over 850,000 shares of IonQ. While that may sound like a lot, that’s only about 0.3% of IonQ’s total shares outstanding. So, Amazon isn’t a controlling party in IonQ; it’s just an investor like you and me (although it has a lot more capital than you and me).

Just because Amazon doesn’t own 10% or so of the company doesn’t mean this isn’t an insignificant investment. Amazon clearly likes what it saw, and with Amazon having more technical prowess than the average investor, I think this makes IonQ an intriguing quantum computing investment.

One thing that sets IonQ apart from its competitors is the path it’s taking. While most quantum computing players are using superconducting technology, which requires cooling a particle to nearly absolute zero, IonQ uses a trapped-ion approach, which can be performed at room temperature. Furthermore, the trapped-ion technique is inherently more accurate than superconducting, which is a trade-off for slower processing speeds.

Because the biggest hurdle in quantum computing technology is accuracy, I think IonQ is one of the more compelling investment options right now, as it is the leader in this category, holding two world records.

This makes IonQ my top option in the quantum computing investment world. But is the stock worth buying right now?

An investment in IonQ will be volatile

IonQ has had an incredible run over the past few months as quantum computing investing has risen in popularity. The stock is up around 90% since the start of September, which is a massive movement considering that we’re still years away from viable quantum computing technology.

Most companies in this realm point toward 2030 as the turning point for quantum computing adoption, and IonQ is no different. Earlier this year, IonQ’s CEO Peter Chapman gave investors the projection that the company will be profitable with sales approaching $1 billion by 2030. That’s still five years away, which is a long time to wait and hold the stock to see if IonQ is an eventual winner in the quantum computing arms race.

With how much attention quantum computing has gotten in recent weeks, it’s impossible to tell where the stocks involved in this sector will head. It’s possible that there is a quantum computing investing mania ongoing, and the stocks continue to rise at an irrational pace.

It’s also possible that the stock could be ripe for a sell-off, especially after the past few weeks of strong gains. However, as long-term investors, we need to avoid that noise. If you’re buying IonQ stock now, you need to have the mindset of buying and holding through at least 2030, regardless of what the roller coaster ride of the stock market is like.

If you’re confident in IonQ, buying today makes sense, but your measure of success cannot be the stock price; it must be the company’s announcements. If IonQ wins the quantum computing arms race, the stock will be a winner over the long term, but keep in mind that it will be incredibly volatile along the way.

Serve Robotics (SERV -0.55%) develops autonomous last-mile logistics solutions. It has a major deal with Uber Technologies (NYSE: UBER) that will see thousands of its latest robots deployed into the Uber Eats food delivery network. But this is more than just a commercial partnership, because Uber is also one of Serve’s largest shareholders.

Uber acquired a company called Postmates in 2020, and in 2021, it spun Postmates’ robotics division out into a new company that became Serve Robotics. Serve is still relatively small with a market capitalization of just $890 million, but at the time of this writing, its stock has soared by 67% over the past year alone.

Serve has identified an enormous addressable market for its delivery robots, so should investors join Uber and buy the stock?

Image source: Getty Images.

A potential $450 billion opportunity

Existing last-mile logistics networks are quite inefficient, because they rely on cars with human drivers to deliver relatively small commercial loads from restaurants and retail stores. Serve is betting those workloads will increasingly shift to autonomous robots and drones, creating a potential $450 billion opportunity by 2030.

Serve’s latest Gen 3 robots have achieved Level 4 autonomy, meaning they can safely operate on sidewalks in designated areas without any human intervention. This makes them ideal for transporting small food orders, which is why 2,500 restaurants in five U.S. cities have used them to make 100,000 deliveries since 2022.

The Gen 3 robots use Nvidia‘s Jetson Orin platform, which includes all of the computing hardware and artificial intelligence (AI) software they need to operate autonomously. Having such a powerful technology partner will help Serve scale as quickly as possible, which is key to bringing costs down to management’s target of just $1 per delivery. At that point, using robots will be substantially cheaper than using human drivers.

Serve has a contract with Uber Eats to deploy 2,000 robots across Los Angeles, Miami, Dallas, Atlanta, and Chicago before the end of 2025. The company rolled out its 1,000th robot on Oct. 6, meaning its capacity will double in just the next few months.

But it won’t stop there, because last week Serve announced a new multiyear deal with DoorDash, which operates the largest food delivery network in the U.S. The two companies are yet to provide firm numbers, so it’s unclear how many more robots Serve will have to deploy.

Scaling a robotics business is not cheap

Despite its status as a publicly traded company, Serve is still very much a start-up. Its revenue tends to be quite lumpy, which is typical when a product is in the early stages of commercialization. The company brought in just $642,000 in revenue during the second quarter of 2025 (ended June 30), which is a tiny amount relative to its $890 million market cap.

But Serve’s business could scale extremely quickly. Management thinks the company will generate up to $80 million in annual revenue once all 2,000 Gen 3 robots are up and running, which bodes well for 2026. Wall Street predicts Serve will generate $3.6 million in total revenue this year (according to Yahoo! Finance), so $80 million would be a monumental jump.

But so far, the road to commercialization has been paved with substantial losses. Serve lost $33.7 million on a generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) basis during the first half of 2025, so it’s on track to exceed its 2024 loss of $39.2 million by a very wide margin. The company spent $16 million on research and development alone during the first half of this year, so based on its minuscule revenues, its losses are no surprise.

Serve had $183 million in cash on hand as of June 30, and it raised a further $100 million from investors in October, so it has enough cushion to sustain its losses for the next few years (assuming they don’t materially increase). However, if the company doesn’t chart a pathway to profitability by then, it might have to raise even more money, which will dilute existing shareholders.

As a result, there is a lot riding on the successful commercialization of Serve’s 2,000 Gen 3 robots.

Serve stock trades at a sky-high valuation, but is it a buy?

Serve stock is extremely expensive right now. Its price-to-sales (P/S) ratio is a mind-boggling 486, making it substantially more expensive than any other major AI stock. Palantir Technologies, which also trades at a sky-high valuation, looks cheap by comparison because its P/S ratio is 128. For some further perspective, Nvidia stock has a P/S ratio of just 27.

SERV PS Ratio data by YCharts

With that said, if we assume Serve will generate around $80 million in revenue next year, its forward P/S ratio is just 11. In other words, it almost looks like a bargain.

But investors can’t always rely on management’s guidance, especially in this case because it assumes a perfectly smooth transition to commercialization for the Gen 3 robot. As with any new product, there will probably be bumps in the road, and we simply don’t know if it will scale successfully.

As a result, investors might be better off waiting a few more quarters to see if the rollout of the robots actually translates into as much tangible revenue as management expects. If it doesn’t, Serve stock could suffer a sharp correction because of its current valuation.

“He builds a special relationship with players and they understand where he’s coming from.

“He has a modern mindset and all of those things mean it does take some time to put a team together, to get the team playing the way that you want.

“West Ham is not a club that panics about its managers. We tend to stick with them, tend to support people, stick with them and see it through.

“I really hope he does well. He’s a pleasure to work with, he’s incredibly professional.

“I know his relationship with the players is good. I know he’ll be sitting down with them today to have a long, hard think about what went wrong yesterday, expecting a reaction and expecting to put it right.”

Potter gave full debuts to Senegal full-back El Hadji Malick Diouf, a £19m signing from Slavia Prague, and Denmark goalkeeper Mads Hermansen, who joined for £20m from Leicester.

Striker Callum Wilson also made his debut as a substitute following his arrival from Newcastle, while another free transfer, Kyle Walker-Peters, remained on the bench.

West Ham have yet to bring in a direct replacement for Ghana midfielder Mohammed Kudus, who joined Tottenham for £55m.

They performed well in the first half and went close through Jarrod Bowen and Diouf, but faded badly after Eliezer Mayenda’s 61st-minute opener, conceding twice more in the final 17 minutes.

“I wish yesterday could start all over again,” added Brady. “It’s so tough to take. It’s never easy for the supporters, the players, or the manager to lose 3-0, particularly in the opening game of the season.

“I spent a lot of time with the manager and the squad in America on the pre-season tour. The spirit among them is fantastic. I know that they’ll be more disappointed, that they’ll be the most disappointed people this morning.

“I know we’ll see a reaction and I know they want to turn it around and they’ll want to turn it around quickly.”

South African Army Chief General Rudzani Maphwanya is facing backlash in his home country following the release of alleged comments he made during an official visit to Iran, which analysts say could further complicate the already turbulent relations between South Africa and the United States.

The comments, which appeared to suggest that Iran and South Africa have common military goals, come at a time when Pretoria is attempting to mend strained relations with US President Donald Trump to stabilise trade.

Last week, a 30 percent trade tariff on South African goods entering the US kicked in, alarming business owners in the country. That’s despite President Cyril Ramaphosa’s attempts to appease Trump, including by leading a delegation to the White House in May.

Here’s what to know about what the army chief said and why there’s backlash for it:

What did the army chief say in Iran?

Meeting with his Iranian counterpart, Major-General Seyyed Abdolrahim Mousavi in Tehran on Tuesday, Maphwanya is reported to have stated that the two countries had close ties, according to Iran’s state news agency, Press TV and the Tehran Times.

“Commander Maphwanya, recalling Iran’s historical support for South Africa’s anti-apartheid struggle, stated that these ties have forged a lasting bond between the two nations,” the Press TV article read.

According to Tehran Times, he went on to say: “The Republic of South Africa and the Islamic Republic of Iran have common goals. We always stand alongside the oppressed and defenceless people of the world.”

Maphwanya also reportedly condemned Israel’s “bombing of civilians standing in line for food” and its “ongoing aggression in the occupied West Bank”, Tehran Times reported.

His visit, the publication quoted Maphwanya as saying, “carries a political message”, and comes “at the best possible time to express our heartfelt sentiments to the peace-loving people of Iran”.

On the other hand, General Mousavi hailed South Africa’s genocide case against the “Zionist regime” at the International Court of Justice, and said that the effort was aligned with Iran’s policies, according to Press TV.

He also condemned the US and Israel’s military and economic actions against Iran as “violations of international laws and norms”. He added that Iran’s army is prepared to deliver “a more decisive response in the event of renewed aggression”, Press TV reported.

How has the South African government reacted?

President Cyril Ramaphosa’s office on Thursday clarified that the president was not aware of General Maphwanya’s visit to Iran, although such a trip would normally be approved by the Ministry of Defence, not the president’s office.

Ramaphosa appointed Maphwanya as army chief in 2021. The general, in apartheid-era South Africa, served in the army wing of the African National Congress (ANC), which started as a liberation movement, and commanded a parliamentary majority until 2024.

Presidency spokesperson Vincent Magwenya, at a press briefing, said the general’s decision to visit Iran was itself badly timed.

“At this period of heightened geopolitical tensions and conflict in the Middle East, one can say the visit was ill-advised, and more so, the general should have been a lot more circumspect with the comments he makes.”

He added, “We are in the delicate process of resetting political relations with the US, but more importantly, balancing the trade relationship in such a manner that the trade relationship is mutually beneficial.”

Similarly, the Ministry of International Relations and the Defence Ministry dissociated the government from the army chief’s alleged comments.

“It is unfortunate that political and policy statements were reportedly made…The minister of defence and military veterans [Matsie Angelina Motshekga] will be engaging with General Maphwanya on his return,” a statement by the Defence Ministry on Wednesday read.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Alliance (DA) party, one of the four parties that form the South African coalition government, is calling for the army chief to be tried in a military court on grounds of “gross misconduct and a flagrant breach of the SANDF [South African National Defence Force] Code of Conduct.”

“According to Iranian state media, General Maphwanya went far beyond his constitutional and professional mandate, pledging ‘common goals’ with Iran, endorsing its stance on Gaza, and calling for deeper strategic alignment,” the DA said in a statement on Thursday.

“Such political statements are explicitly prohibited for serving officers, violate the SANDF’s duty of political neutrality, and undermine the constitutional principle of civilian control over the military,” the party added.

The US and South Africa’s relations are at their lowest in decades, making this a particularly sensitive time, analysts say, as it follows June’s 12-day war between Iran and the US-Israel coalition.

President Trump slapped a 30 percent tariff on South African goods entering the US as part of his wide-ranging reciprocal tariff wars in April. The US is a major destination for South African goods such as cars, precious metals and wine.

Trump’s main gripes with Pretoria include South Africa instigating a genocide case against Israel, the US’s ally, at the International Court of Justice, amid the ongoing war in Gaza. He earlier accused South Africa of strengthening ties with Iran.

Trump has also wrongly claimed that white South Africans are being persecuted in the country under the majority Black leadership of the ANC, the country’s main political party to which President Ramaphosa belongs. He also claims South Africa is confiscating land belonging to whites.

White South Africans are a wealthy minority and largely descendants of Dutch settlers. Afrikaner governments controlled the country under the racist apartheid system until 1990.

South African wealth, particularly land, continues to be controlled disproportionately by the country’s white population. In recent times, fringe, extremist Afrikaner groups claiming that whites are being targeted by Black people have emerged, pointing to cases of white farmers being attacked by criminals on their farmland.

Elon Musk, Trump’s one-time adviser before their public fallout in June, had also made claims of white persecution and claimed that the South African government’s business laws were blocking his internet company from operating in the country.

He was referring to laws requiring that foreign businesses be partly owned by Blacks or other historically disadvantaged groups, such as people living with disabilities.

The South African government denied Musk’s accusations.

In early May, Trump’s government admitted 59 white “refugees” in a resettlement programme meant to protect them.

Previously, the US, under former President Joe Biden, was at loggerheads with South Africa over its close ties with Russia and its vocal criticism of Israel.

The latest incident echoes a 2022 scandal when a sanctioned Russian cargo ship called the Lady R docked at Simon’s Town Naval Base in the Western Cape, said analyst Chris Vandome of think tank Chatham House. The US alleged at the time that South African military supplies were loaded onto the ship and used in the Ukraine war, claims South Africa denied.

“It lies with South African foreign policy formation and the lack of clarity and consistency around it that has created this confusion whereby people think they are saying things in line with what the nation thinks,” he said.

How has South Africa tried to appease the US?

On May 21, President Ramaphosa led a delegation to the White House in a bid to “reset relations” with Trump and hopefully secure lower tariff deals.

At the heated meeting, however, Trump refused to back down from his claims of white persecution, despite Ramaphosa clarifying that South Africa was facing widespread crime in general, and that there was no evidence that whites in particular were being targeted.

South Africa, during the meeting, offered to buy US liquefied natural gas and invest $3.3bn in US industries in exchange for lower tariffs. The delegation also agreed to a review of the country’s business ownership laws.

However, Trump’s 30 percent tariffs went into effect last week. Analysts say it could put up to 30,000 South African jobs at risk, particularly in the manufacturing and agricultural sectors.

Meanwhile, Ramaphosa’s government promised to take further action to ease the burden on manufacturers and exporters. On Tuesday, Trade Minister Parks Tau told reporters that South Africa has submitted a revised proposal to Washington, without giving details.

General Maphwanya’s pronouncements this week, therefore, “couldn’t have come at a worse time” for South African diplomatic ties with the US, security analyst Jakkie Cilliers of the International Security Institute said, speaking to South African state TV, SABC.

“For the chief of the national defence force to pronounce so clearly and so unequivocally at this time is remarkably politically sensitive,” Cilliers said, adding that the general could be asked to resign upon his return.

What has General Maphwanya said?

Maphwanya, who the presidency said has returned to the country, has not put out public statements on the controversy. It is unclear how the government might sanction him. President Ramaphosa is set to meet with the army chief for briefings in the coming weeks, a presidency spokesperson said.

Since the controversial ban on July 7, more than 700 people have been detained at peaceful protests.

London’s Metropolitan Police say at least 60 people will face prosecution for “showing support” for Palestine Action, the activist group outlawed as a “terrorist organisation” last month for protesting Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Three others have already been charged.

“We have put arrangements in place that will enable us to investigate and prosecute significant numbers each week if necessary,” the force said in a statement on Friday.

Since the controversial ban on July 7, more than 700 people have been detained at peaceful protests, including 522 arrested at a protest last weekend for holding signs backing the group, believed to be the largest number of arrests at a single protest in the capital’s history.

Critics, including the United Nations, Amnesty International and Greenpeace, have called the ban an overreach that risks stifling free speech.

Director of Public Prosecutions Stephen Parkinson said the latest decisions were the “first significant numbers” from recent demonstrations, adding: “Many more can be expected in the next few weeks. People should be clear about the real-life consequences for anyone choosing to support Palestine Action.”

The UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission has also warned against a “heavy-handed” approach, urging the government and police to ensure protest policing is proportionate and guided by clear legal tests.

The initial three prosecutions earlier this month stemmed from arrests during a July demonstration, with defendants charged under the Terrorism Act. Police said convictions for such offences could carry sentences of up to six months in prison, along with other penalties.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Mark Rowley praised the rapid coordination between officers and prosecutors, saying he was “proud of how our police and CPS teams have worked so speedily together to overcome misguided attempts to overwhelm the justice system”.

Home Office Minister Yvette Cooper defended the Labour government’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action, stating: “UK national security and public safety must always be our top priority. The assessments are very clear, this is not a non-violent organisation.”

The group was banned days after claiming responsibility for a break-in at an air force base in southern England, which the government claims caused an estimated 7 million pounds ($9.3 million) in damage to two aircraft. The home office has accused it of other “serious attacks” involving “violence, significant injuries and extensive criminal damage”.

Palestine Action has said its actions target the United Kingdom’s indirect military support for Israel amid the war in Gaza.

The UK’s Liberal Democrats voiced “deep concern” over using “anti-terrorism powers” against peaceful protesters.

Hundreds of thousands of people have demonstrated in several UK cities for nearly two years, calling for an end to Israel’s war on Gaza and for the British government to stop all weapons sales to the country.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer said last month that the UK will recognise the state of Palestine by September unless Israel takes “substantive steps” to end its war on Gaza and commits to a lasting peace process. Many who have been protesting to end Palestinian suffering have said the move is too little, too late.

The occupied West Bank town’s mayor says Thamin Khalil Reda Dawabsheh killed as Israeli settlers attacked Palestinians.

A Palestinian man in the occupied West Bank has been shot dead in an attack instigated by Israeli settlers, according to the Palestinian Health Ministry as cited by the Wafa news agency.

Thamin Khalil Reda Dawabsheh, 35, was shot Wednesday morning in the town of Duma, south of Nablus, by an Israeli off-duty soldier who was accompanying “an Israeli civilian” near Duma “during engineering works”, the Israeli army said.

Earlier Palestinian reports of the attack had stated that Dawabsheh was killed by an Israeli settler.

35-year-old Thameen Khalil Reda Dawabsheh succumbed to his wounds after being shot by colonists during an attack on the village. pic.twitter.com/cHfdUg4Unl

— WAFA News Agency – English (@WAFANewsEnglish) August 13, 2025

According to the mayor of Duma, Palestinians in the town were “startled” by an Israeli settler attack, said Al Jazeera’s Nida Ibrahim.

“The settlers started assaulting a 14-year-old, leading many Palestinian men to go and try to defend him,” Ibrahim said.

Later, more armed settlers arrived, and they started shooting at the Palestinians, resulting in the death of Dawabsheh, “whose only crime was being on his land”, she added.

Suleiman Dawabsheh, the head of the Duma village council, said that settlers attacked Palestinians and opened fire on them in the southern part of the village, amid land-levelling operations that have been taking place in the area for days, Palestinian news agency Wafa reported.

Ibrahim said that Thamin Dawabsheh’s killing is part of a pattern of increased Israeli settler violence against Palestinians that is often filmed on camera.

“Every day, we stumble upon more videos showing how Israeli settlers are attacking Palestinians – intimidating them, shooting them, killing them. And they are not being held accountable by the Israeli authorities,” said Ibrahim.

The statement published by the Israeli army claimed dozens of Palestinians were hurling rocks towards the Israeli civilian and soldier, and “in response, the soldier fired to remove the threat, and a hit was identified”.

A deadly pattern of Israeli military, settler attacks

Recently, 31-year-old Palestinian activist and English teacher Awdah Hathaleen was shot dead by an Israeli settler on July 28 in the village of Umm al-Kheir, south of Hebron.

Hathaleen was well known for his activism, including helping the creators of the Oscar-winning film No Other Land, which documents Israeli settler and soldier attacks on the Palestinian community of Masafer Yatta.

Israeli settlers, protected by the Israeli military, are often armed and fire at will against Palestinians who try to stop them. They attack residents and burn property with impunity, rarely if ever facing legal consequences.

The Israeli military has also been intensifying its deadly raids, home demolitions and displacement campaigns in the West Bank.

Violent attacks by Israeli settlers and soldiers in the occupied West Bank have surged since October 2023, in tandem with Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza, with the United Nations reporting that almost 650 Palestinians – including 121 children – have been killed in the territory by Israeli forces and settlers between January 1, 2024 and the start of July 2025.

A further 5,269 Palestinians were injured during that period, including 1,029 children.

Reporting from Oceanside — Republican Rep. Darrell Issa is supporting his colleague Rep. Loretta Sanchez in this fall’s Senate race, a contest that pits two Democrats against each other and gives GOP voters no obvious choice.

The two appeared together in Issa’s congressional district this week, giving Sanchez an opportunity to publicize her expertise on national defense in a part of the state where she needs to do well with Democrats, Republicans and independents alike if she hopes to overtake her rival, Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris.

For Issa, the bipartisan event may help soften his image as congressional Republican leadership’s attack dog on the Obama administration.

He said that despite their differences on most issues facing the nation, he respects Sanchez’s knowledge of military and world affairs and they both support efforts to keep the country safe.

Reps. Mike Turner, left, Darrell Issa, Loretta Sanchez and Scott Peters hold a news conference in Oceanside.

(Mark Boster/Los Angeles Times )

The Vista Republican said that background makes the choice clear for Republicans and other voters about whom to support Nov. 8.

Hurting for support in her own party, Rep. Loretta Sanchez tilts her Senate campaign to the right >>

“I’ve already long ago figured out that Loretta Sanchez, her work on national security, probably tips the scale for a lot of us,” Issa told The Times. “She’s also very well aware of our problems with water. So those are, in my particular case, making a difference that is pretty measurable.”

The comments were made after he and Sanchez toured San Diego military installations, saying they found common ground when it comes to national defense and protecting the troops.

The visit also provided both with ample, mostly positive news coverage in a region loaded with Navy and Marine bases and defense contractors, an added benefit for two politicians facing tough elections.

“There’s nothing wrong with coming back and paying attention to your district. I think all congressmen should do that,” said San Diego Republican political consultant Jennifer Jacobs. “Yes, it will be good for his constituents, and, yes, I’m sure it will help him with the voters.”

Election 2016 | California politics news feed | Sign up for the newsletter

They were in the region as part of a bipartisan congressional delegation assessing the needs of the military. Joining them were Reps. Mike Turner (R-Ohio) and Scott Peters (D-San Diego). Sanchez, Turner and Peters are members of the House Armed Services Committee. Issa’s district includes the Camp Pendleton Marine base, and he is a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

The four joined together for a news conference in Oceanside to voice concerns about the aging Marine Corps F-18 Hornet aircraft. So many planes are out of service for maintenance that pilot flying time has been seriously curtailed, they said.

Although they all insisted that the event was not political, it provided a dose of positive publicity. Their concerns were aired on two local television stations and picked up by the San Diego Union-Tribune.

“What most people don’t understand, because they see politics and Republicans and Democrats fighting all the time, the reality is that we need to do our work in the Congress,” Sanchez said after the tours, which were not open to the media. “And to do that you have to work with both sides of the aisle, and that’s what we do especially on the military committee.’’

Issa’s Democratic challenger in his 49th congressional district, retired Marine Col. Doug Applegate, has criticized the congressman as a Washington insider not mindful of the people he represents in a race that has drawn attention as a potential surprise this fall.

[email protected]

Twitter: @philwillon

ALSO:

Issa challenger came out of nowhere, raised more money

Hurting for support in her own party, Rep. Loretta Sanchez tilts her Senate campaign to the right

Obama, Biden endorse Kamala Harris for U.S. Senate

Updates on California politics

The Moroccan Sahara dispute is one of the most persistent and complex regional conflicts in North Africa, lasting over forty years. This ongoing disagreement involves the Kingdom of Morocco and the Polisario Front, which is supported by Algeria. The conflict centers on sovereignty, territorial integrity, and national identity, making it a highly sensitive and crucial issue for regional stability.

In this ongoing dispute, China’s role as an emerging global power and a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council is particularly significant. China’s involvement is strategically important due to its increasing influence in international affairs and its promotion of a multilateral approach to global stability. As a result, China’s position on the Sahara issue holds critical strategic importance, not only for Morocco but also for the broader regional and international community.

Recently, Moroccan scholars and researchers have been actively examining and questioning China’s stance on the Sahara conflict. They ask whether China recognizes the autonomy plan proposed by Morocco in 2007 as a valid political solution. There is also an ongoing debate about whether the Chinese Communist Party holds a neutral position or leans toward supporting one side. These questions are important because they influence how Morocco and its allies perceive China’s diplomatic approach.

Furthermore, experts are eager to determine China’s official stance on Morocco’s sovereignty over its southern territories. Given China’s foreign policy focus on non-interference and respect for territorial integrity, the analysis assesses whether China follows these principles in this situation or if its actions suggest a departure. Overall, China’s changing position in this dispute has significant implications for regional stability and the future diplomatic landscape of North Africa.  

First: The evolving strategic landscape of Moroccan-Chinese relations

Since the announcement of the strategic partnership between Morocco and China in May 2016, bilateral relations have experienced significant growth across various sectors. These include the economy, infrastructure development, energy projects, technological progress, and higher education initiatives. Morocco also actively participated in China’s ambitious “Belt and Road” initiative, which aims to enhance connectivity and foster economic cooperation among participating countries. Through this involvement, Morocco has established itself as a key financial partner for Beijing in North and West Africa, strengthening regional ties.

This expanding cooperation and engagement have transformed Morocco into a strategic launchpad for China’s broader strategy in Africa. The partnership has enhanced the country’s international reputation, presenting Morocco as a stable, open, and welcoming partner for foreign investment and diplomacy. Furthermore, this strengthened relationship has indirectly influenced China’s stance on the Moroccan Sahara issue, where China has adopted a more cautious, pragmatic, and balanced approach, demonstrating a deeper diplomatic understanding and respect for regional sensitivities.

Second: China’s stance on the Moroccan Sahara issue

China’s official position at the United Nations is neutral, consistent with its traditional foreign policy principles of non-interference and respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity.

During discussions on extending the MINURSO mission’s mandate, China emphasizes the need for a realistic, lasting, and mutually acceptable political solution. It advocates for the “continuation of dialogue” between the involved parties, refrains from harsh language toward Morocco, and seeks to maintain a balanced tone while not recognizing the Polisario Front as a sovereign state. Although this position seems “neutral,” it implicitly supports Morocco’s sovereignty.

Third: China’s position on the Moroccan autonomy proposal

In 2007, Morocco proposed its autonomy initiative as a practical political solution within the framework of national sovereignty for the ongoing conflict, and this initiative gained support from many major countries in Africa, as well as in the Arab and Western worlds, including France, the United States, Britain, Germany, and Spain.

Regarding China, it did not explicitly support or oppose the initiative but expressed indirect approval, noting that it “contributes positively to international efforts to find a solution to the conflict.” Since then, China has not opposed the Moroccan proposal but has shown tacit acceptance, especially when calling for “realistic and viable” solutions.

Fourth: Factors Affecting China’s Position

Many key factors and influences shape China’s stance on the Moroccan Sahara issue.

The principle of sovereignty and national territorial integrity: China rejects any efforts at secession, as it faces similar challenges within its territory, such as those in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Tibet. Therefore, it tends to support countries that uphold their territorial integrity, although it has not explicitly stated this.

Relations with Algeria: Despite the increasing closeness between China and Morocco, Algeria remains a key energy partner for China, especially in the gas sector. This leads China to carefully balance its diplomatic efforts to protect its interests with both countries. Investing in regional stability: China believes that regional stability benefits its economic interests, so it prefers peaceful and stable solutions to disputes without supporting separatist movements that could cause chaos or armed conflicts.           

Fifth: Is China’s stance shifting?

This question poses a challenge for researchers and those interested in the Moroccan Sahara conflict, as increasing signs suggest a possible gradual shift in China’s stance in the years to come.

– Growing Chinese trade and investments in Morocco, including the Mohammed VI Smart City project, the Atlantic port in Nador, and solar energy initiatives.

– Enhancing strategic visits and high-level diplomatic meetings between China and Morocco.

– China’s diplomatic language, like “realistic solution” and “viable political solution,” hints at autonomy and is a key reference for the Moroccan autonomy proposal.

– China’s ties with the West, especially the U.S., are weakening, pushing China to build and diversify its alliances in the Global South, including with Morocco.

In conclusion, it can be said that the Chinese Communist Party’s approach to the Moroccan Sahara issue is marked by a kind of “thought-out neutrality,” balancing core principles of Chinese foreign policy with increasing strategic interests in Morocco. Despite China’s public commitment to the policy of “neutrality,” its diplomatic and economic actions imply implicit support for Morocco’s sovereignty over its deserts, or at least a practical acceptance of the autonomy initiative. Therefore, in light of international geopolitical shifts, Morocco has a strategic opportunity to strengthen its ties with Beijing and convince it that supporting the autonomy proposal does not conflict with its political and diplomatic principles but aligns with its vision of global stability.  

Hours before a ceasefire took effect between Israel and Iran on June 24, the son of Iran’s last shah, Reza Pahlavi, held a televised news conference in the French capital, Paris.

Dressed in a grey suit and blue tie with his hair combed back, the 64-year-old exiled (and self-styled) crown prince of the monarchy that Iranians overthrew in 1979 urged the United States not to give Iran’s government a “lifeline” by restarting diplomatic talks on its nuclear programme.

Pahlavi insisted that Iran’s Islamic Republic was collapsing. “This is our Berlin Wall moment,” he said, calling for ordinary Iranians to seize the opportunity afforded by Israel’s war and take to the streets, and for defections from the military and security forces.

But the mass protests Pahlavi encouraged never materialised.

Instead, many Iranians – including those opposed to the government – rallied around the flag in a moment of attack by a foreign force. It appears that Pahlavi, who said in his Paris speech that he was ready to replace Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and lead Iranians down a “road of peace and democratic transition”, had misread the room.

While he was willing to align with Israel in achieving what he perceives to be the greater goal of overthrowing the Islamic Republic, the majority of his compatriots were not.

If anything, Pahlavi may have squandered the little support he once had by choosing not to condemn Israel’s heavy bombardment of Iran, which killed more than 935 people, including many civilians, said Trita Parsi, an expert on Iran and the author of Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the United States.

“He has – in my estimation – destroyed much of the brand name [of the shah] … by going on TV and making excuses for Israel when it was targeting our apartment buildings and killing civilians,” he told Al Jazeera.

Pahlavi’s office did not respond to requests for comment from Al Jazeera.

Generational appeal

The level of support for Pahlavi is disputed, but many experts doubt it is extensive.

Still, what support he does have – particularly in the Iranian diaspora – often emanates from opposition to the Islamic Republic and nostalgia for the monarchy that predated it.

Yasmine*, a British-Iranian in her late 20s, said that members of her own family support Pahlavi for the symbolism of the pre-Islamic Republic era that he represents, as opposed to what he may actually stand for, adding that she believed that he lacked a clear political vision.

“He really symbolises what Iran was [a government that was secular and pro-West] prior to the Islamic Republic, and that’s what those who are asking for Reza Pahlavi want back,” she told Al Jazeera.

Her aunt, Yasna*, 64, left Iran just months before the 1979 revolution to attend university in the United Kingdom. While she supports Pahlavi for the reasons her niece mentioned, she also believes Iran will no longer be a pariah to the West if he returned to rule Iran.

“He’s somebody from my generation, and I have a clear memory of growing up in the days under the shah … he’s also so friendly with America, Europe and Israel, and we need somebody like that [in Iran],” Yasna said.

Analysts explained to Al Jazeera that the lack of a prominent alternative to Pahlavi – due to the Iranian government’s crackdown on political opposition – was part of Pahlavi’s appeal.

They also pointed out that support for Pahlavi is tied to the distorted memory that some have of his grandfather, Reza Khan, and his father, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

Reza Khan was widely credited with creating an ethno-centralised state that curtailed the power of the religious clergy and violently cracked down on opponents and minorities. That repression continued under Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

However, Yasna speaks fondly of the Pahlavi family and hopes Reza Pahlavi can soon carve out his own legacy.

“Reza’s grandfather brought security to the country, and his father helped us move forward. I now think Reza can unite us again,” she said.

Family history

The Pahlavis were not a dynasty with a long and storied past. Reza Khan was a military officer who seized power in the 1920s, before being replaced by Mohammad Reza in 1941.

Foreign powers had a role to play in that, as they did in 1953, when the US and the UK engineered a coup against Iran’s then-elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, who had nationalised the assets of the Anglo-Persian oil company, now known as BP, in April 1951.

“The British thought it was their oil,” explained Assal Rad, a historian of Iran and the author of State of Resistance: Politics, Identity and Culture in Modern Iran.

“They had no recognition of the colonial past that allowed them to forcefully take the resource, nor recognition of Iran’s right to take the resource for itself,” she told Al Jazeera.

Prior to the coup, Rad explained that the shah was engaged in a power struggle with Mosaddegh, who openly criticised the shah for violating the constitution. The former wanted to maintain his control, especially over the military, while the latter was trying to mould Iran into a constitutional democracy with popular support.

The coup against Mosaddegh was ultimately successful, leading to another 26 years of progressively more repressive Pahlavi rule.

According to a 1976 report by Amnesty International, the shah’s feared intelligence agency (SAVAK) often beat political prisoners with electric cables, sodomised them and ripped off their finger and toenails to extract false confessions.

“At the end of the day, the shah’s regime was a brutal dictatorship and non-democracy,” Parsi told Al Jazeera.

Economic inequality between the rich urban classes and the rural poor also grew under the shah, according to a 2019 Brookings Institute report by Djavad Salehi-Isfahani, an economist at Virginia Tech University.

And yet, the shah appeared detached from the plight of his own people throughout his reign. Rad referenced a lavish party that the shah threw in 1971 to celebrate 2,500 years of the Persian Empire.

The luxurious party brought together foreign dignitaries from across the world, even as many Iranians struggled to make ends meet, highlighting the country’s economic disparities.

“He was celebrating Iran with nothing Iranian and no Iranians invited nor involved, and he even had student protesters arrested beforehand because he didn’t want incidents to occur while he was doing this,” Rad said. “The party was one of these monumental moments that led to the disconnect between him and his own people.”

Coupled with state repression and rising poverty, the Persian Empire celebration was one of the factors that eventually led to the 1979 revolution.

Reza Pahlavi was in the US when the revolution erupted, training to be a fighter pilot.

He was just 17 years old and has never returned to Iran since. Instead, a life in exile began, with the ultimate goal always remaining a return to his home country – and power.

As the eldest of the shah’s two sons, loyalists to the monarchy recognised Reza Pahlavi as heir apparent after his father passed away from cancer in 1980.

He has since spent the majority of his life in the US, mostly in the suburbs of Washington, DC.

Initially focused on restoring the monarchy, Pahlavi has shifted his rhetoric in the last two decades to focus more on the idea of a secular democracy in Iran. He has said he does not seek power, and would only assume the throne if asked to do so by the Iranian people.

Opposition outreach

Pahlavi’s attempt to broaden his appeal came as he also reached out to other opponents of the Iranian government.

Some have outright refused to work with him, citing his royal background. And others who have worked with him have quickly distanced themselves.

One of the most important examples of this was the Alliance for Democracy and Freedom in Iran, formed in 2023, in the wake of antigovernment protests that began the previous year.

As well as Pahlavi, the coalition included Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi, women’s rights activist Masih Alinejad, human rights activist and actress Nazanin Boniadi, former footballer Ali Karimi, and the author Hamed Esmaeilion.

But problems emerged from the very meeting organised to form the coalition in February 2023.

According to Parsi and Sina Toossi, an expert on Iran with the Center for International Policy (CIP), Pahlavi rejected any proposal to collaborate with the other attendees at the meeting in Washington, DC’s Georgetown University, either by agreeing to make decisions based on a shared consensus or through some kind of majority vote.

He instead wanted all attendees to defer and rally behind him as a leader of the opposition.

Another issue that followed the Georgetown meeting was the behaviour of Pahlavi’s supporters, many of whom were against anyone associated with left-wing politics, and defenders of the actions of the shah’s regime.

“The monarchists [his supporters] were upset that Reza was put on par with these other people [at the meeting],” said Toossi.

The coalition soon collapsed, with Esmaeilion referring to “undemocratic methods” in what many perceived to be criticism of Pahlavi.

Israeli connections

Two months after the Georgetown meeting, and as the newly formed alliance quickly collapsed, Pahlavi made a choreographed visit to Israel with his wife Yasmine.

As Al Jazeera previously reported, the visit was arranged by Pahlavi’s official adviser Amir Temadi, and Saeed Ghasseminejad, who works at the US right-wing think tank the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), which frequently publishes analyses that call on the US to use military force to deter Iran’s regional influence and nuclear programme.

During the visit, Pahlavi and his wife took a photo with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his wife Sara.

Yasmine and I were very pleased to meet with @IsraeliPM and Sara @netanyahu. We expressed appreciation for Israel’s continued support for the Iranian people’s democratic aspirations and emphasized that, as the children of Cyrus the Great, Iranians aspire to have a government that… pic.twitter.com/lInuy4lwdC

— Reza Pahlavi (@PahlaviReza) April 19, 2023

The trip highlighted Pahlavi’s close ties to Israel, a relationship that had been cultivated for years, even if it was less publicly acknowledged initially.

During George W Bush’s first term as US president in the early 2000s, Pahlavi approached the powerful American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) – a powerful lobby – to speak at their annual conference, according to Parsi.

The offer was rejected, with AIPAC members explaining that he would hurt his own brand as an Iranian nationalist if he were to speak at their annual conference, Parsi explained.

“AIPAC had told him that perhaps it wasn’t a good idea because it could delegitimise him, which tells you something about how disconnected [Pahlavi] was from the realities of the Iranian diaspora,” he told Al Jazeera.

But, about 10 years ago, during US President Donald Trump’s first term, Pahlavi also began to surround himself with advisers who have long called for closer ties between Iran and Israel and for the US to continue its “maximum pressure” sanctions campaign against Iran’s government, according to Toossi.

Trump’s maximum pressure campaign hurt common people more than the Iranian government. It resulted in sharp inflation and major depreciation of its currency, making it difficult for many Iranians to afford basic commodities and life-saving medications, according to Human Rights Watch.

According to Toossi, Pahlavi appeared somewhat aware of the economic hardships brought on by sanctions, which may explain why he supported US President Barack Obama’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015.

The JCPOA ensured global monitoring of Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for much-needed sanctions relief.

However, Pahlavi quickly began to align with Trump when he came to power the following year, Toossi said. Trump scorned the JCPOA and finally pulled out in 2018 before beginning his maximum pressure policy.

The disconnect between Pahlavi and regular Iranians over this issue could also be seen in his actions during the 2023 trip to Israel.

Pahlavi made a well-publicised trip to the Western Wall, in occupied East Jerusalem, which holds considerable religious significance for Jewish people across the world.

The vast majority of Iranians are still Shia Muslims – even if many are secular– and Pahlavi did not visit the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the third-holiest site in Islam. The Western Wall is part of the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound’s exterior wall.

Out of touch

In hindsight, the 2023 trip to Israel and Pahlavi’s apparent friendly relations with Israeli officials have damaged his reputation, said Toossi.

“In short … what’s been going on with the Iran monarchy movement is a very clear, evident and above-the-table alliance with Israel,” he told Al Jazeera.

“He was really the only opposition figure that was supportive of [Israel’s war],” he added.

According to Barbara Slavin, an expert on Iran and a distinguished fellow at the Stimson Centre in Washington, DC, Pahlavi’s rhetoric was “counterproductive” during the 12-day war.

Slavin said Pahlavi has largely been disconnected from the feelings and perspectives inside Iran because he simply has not been there since he was a teenager, and his failure to condemn Israel’s bombardment of civilians has turned a lot of people off.

“After all the civilians Israel killed, [his relationship with Israel] really has a bad smell,” she told Al Jazeera.

Parsi agrees and adds that he doesn’t think Israel truly believes that Pahlavi can one day rule the country due to his lack of popular support both in and outside of Iran.

Parsi believes Israel is simply exploiting his brand to legitimise its own hostility towards Iran.

“He is … useful for the Israelis to parade around because it gives them a veneer of legitimacy for their own war of aggression against Iran” during the fighting, he said.

“[Israel] can point to [Pahlavi] and say, ‘Look. Iranians want to be bombed.’” Parsi said.

But that is a turn-off for many Iranians, including those against the government.

Yasmine, the British-Iranian, is one of them.

Pahlavi, in her view, was not charismatic and had cemented his unpopularity among Iranians, both inside Iran and outside, with his call for Iranians to take to the streets as Israel attacked Iran.

“He was asking Iranians to rise up against the government so that he will come [to take over],” Yasmine said. “He was basically asking Iranians to do his dirty work.”

*Some names have been changed to protect the safety of interviewees

Efforts to win over holdout House Republicans extend into early hours as Trump’s tax and spending bill hits hurdles.

Republicans in the United States House of Representatives have been locked in a dramatic impasse over President Donald Trump’s signature tax and spending package, as a rebel group of lawmakers failed to support the bill that all Democratic representatives oppose.

Debate is currently under way at the House after the bill passed its last procedural hurdle in the early hours of Thursday, local Washington, DC, time. The final vote is expected in a few hours.

The standoff over the Trump administration’s flagship domestic policy package, dubbed the One Big Beautiful Bill, stretched into the early hours of Thursday, as the Republican leadership worked furiously to try to persuade holdouts to send the bill to Trump’s desk by a Friday, July 4 deadline, US Independence Day, while Trump railed against the rebels on social media.

“For Republicans, this should be an easy yes vote. Ridiculous!” he posted on his Truth Social platform.

“Largest Tax Cuts in History and a Booming Economy vs. Biggest Tax Increase in History, and a Failed Economy. What are the Republicans waiting for?” he added, threatening that “MAGA is not happy, and it’s costing you votes.”

Earlier, Five Republicans voted “no” in the procedural vote to advance the legislation, while eight had yet to cast a vote.

Assuming all Democratic members cast a vote against the bill, Trump can afford to lose only three Republican votes if it is to advance to a final vote.

Centrepiece legislation

The hefty 800-page bill, the centrepiece of the president’s domestic agenda, combines sweeping tax cuts, spending hikes on defence and border security, and cuts to social safety nets into one giant package.

But it faces opposition within Trump’s Republican Party, with moderate critics expressing concern about its cuts to social safety-net programmes like Medicaid, and conservatives baulking at the trillions it is likely to add to the national debt.

Five Republicans voted against the bill: representatives Victoria Spartz of Indiana, Andrew Clyde of Georgia, Keith Self of Texas, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, and Thomas Massie of Kentucky.

House Speaker Mike Johnson had summoned lawmakers to Washington for a roll call vote, in a bid to capitalise on the momentum of the bill’s passage a day earlier in the Senate and win House approval ahead of the July 4 national holiday.

Lawmakers had passed the bill by a 51 to 50 vote in the Republican-controlled chamber on Tuesday, after Vice President JD Vance broke the tie.

But the risky gambit to hold the roll call vote swiftly hit hurdles, with some Republican lawmakers resisting the request to rubber stamp the Senate version of the bill so soon after it passed.

‘Bad bill to enrich those who are already rich’

Johnson said he would keep voting open “as long as it takes”, as senior Republicans attempted to persuade holdouts to support the bill.

He said he believed that the Republican holdouts were “going to come on board”, and expected to proceed to a final vote on the legislation in the early hours of Thursday morning, The New York Times reported.

As Republicans remain deadlocked, Democrats ramped up their criticisms of the policy package. In a video message posted on social media, Representative Chuy Garcia described the legislation as a “bad bill to enrich those who are already rich”.

It’s past midnight in DC and Republicans are still trying to rip healthcare and food from working families to give tax breaks to billionaires. Call your Republican representative and tell them to vote HELL NO pic.twitter.com/IfyXFdSaqs

— Congressman Chuy García (@RepChuyGarcia) July 3, 2025

So far, 217 House Representatives have voted against advancing the legislation, including five Republicans, while 207 are in favour.

Members can change their vote until voting closes, and eight Republicans have yet to vote. The bill needs 218 votes to advance.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said the country used armed gangs in Gaza to help fight Hamas, his admission coming after a new wave of military strikes on the besieged Gaza Strip that left at least 52 Palestinians dead.

Netanyahu said the government had “activated” powerful local clans in the enclave on the advice of “security officials”, his video statement posted to X on Thursday coming hours after former Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman accused him of deploying the tactic.

The statement marked the government’s first public acknowledgement that it had backed the armed Palestinian groups based around powerful families, which stand accused by aid workers of carrying out criminal attacks and stealing aid from trucks as starvation stalks the entire territory due to a punishing Israeli blockade.

An Israeli official cited by news agency The Associated Press said that one of the groups Netanyahu was referring to was the so-called Popular Forces, led by Yasser Abu Shabab, a local clan leader in Rafah.

Last month, Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported on the group’s activities – though it was named the “Anti-Terror Service” in the report – saying that sources in Gaza claimed it consisted of roughly 100 armed men operating with the tacit approval of the Israeli military.

In recent weeks, the Abu Shabab group announced online that its fighters were helping protect supply shipments to new US- and Israel-backed distribution centres run by the shadowy Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF).

“The Israeli opposition claims that there was no consultation within the Israeli government or the Israeli cabinet,” said Al Jazeera’s Hamdah Salhut, reporting from Jordan’s capital Amman. “Netanyahu says that these armed gangs … could essentially help the Israelis defeat Hamas in Gaza.”

“But it’s not going down well within Israel, where people are saying that these are armed criminal enterprises within the Gaza Strip. That they should not be armed and that these are Israeli weapons that are being put in their hands,” she said.

‘Human abattoir’

Netanyahu made his statement on another deadly day in Gaza, the military hitting targets throughout the besieged coastal enclave where the crippling blockade has brought the population to the brink of mass starvation.

Deadly incidents, killing more than 100 and wounding many more, at aid distribution sites run by the GHF since last week have sparked widespread condemnation, with Israeli troops opening fire on Palestinians seeking aid on four separate occasions since last week.

Chris Gunness, former spokesperson for the UN agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA), told Al Jazeera that the operations of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation had turned Gaza into a “human abattoir”.

“Hundreds of civilians are herded like animals into fenced-off pens and are slaughtered like cattle in the process,” he said.

Amid growing international condemnation, GHF shuttered operations for a full day on Wednesday, saying the next day that it would reopen two aid distribution centres in the Rafah area of southern Gaza. It did not say when aid distribution would resume.

At least 52 Palestinians were killed on Thursday, according to hospital sources who spoke to Al Jazeera. The sources said 31 bodies had arrived at Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis, with 21 admitted to Gaza City’s al-Ahli Arab and al-Shifa hospitals.

Israel killed four journalists in an attack on al-Ahli Hospital itself, also known as the Baptist Hospital, in Gaza City

Gaza City local Fadi al-Hindi told Al Jazeera that he had seen one of the strikes on al-Nasser Street, near the al-Shifa Hospital, witnessing scenes of death after running outside his tent to check on his children.

“When I arrived, I saw a man in pieces; he had been riding a bicycle, and the lower half of his body was gone. Everyone in the street was injured, and we started to collect the pieces of the wounded,” he said.

At least three Palestinians were killed in the strike, reportedly including children.

The Palestinian news agency Wafa also reported five deaths in areas around Khan Younis, four west of Beit Lahiya in the north, and one south of Gaza City, as well as the injuring of a child near Bureij in central Gaza.

Wafa also reported that Israeli forces opened fire on Palestinians trying to reach an aid centre near Wadi Gaza.

In the meantime, Hamas chief Khalil al-Hayya has said in a prerecorded speech that the group did not reject a proposal for a ceasefire in Gaza put forward by US special envoy Steve Witkoff, stating that it had instead requested some changes to ensure an end to the war.

Al-Hayya added that Hamas is ready to engage in further talks and that communications with the mediators are ongoing. Israel broke off a previous truce in March to resume the war in Gaza.

A TOP doctor campaigning for pay rises and strike action has a sideline running two start-up companies, we can reveal.

Cardiologist Dr U Bhalraam is deputy co-chairman of the British Medical Association’s resident doctors committee — which is backing six more months of walkouts.

It is urging members to strike, claiming they are paid 23 per cent less in real terms than in 2008.

This is despite resident doctors — formerly known as junior doctors — getting an almost 30 per cent pay rise over the past three years.

On his website, Dr Bhalraam says he’s “focused on full pay restoration”.

But The Sun on Sunday has found that Dr Bhalraam has also set up two firms of which he is sole director and owner.

He launched Datamed Solutions Ltd, a data processing company, last June and just a few days later UBR Property Holdings Limited, which is described as a letting company.

They are both registered to his smart £330,000 house in Norwich, where he works at the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.

Resident docs have taken industrial action 11 times since 2022, causing about 1.5million appointments to be cancelled.

A YouGov poll of 4,100 adults found almost half oppose the strikes.

1

SACRAMENTO — One of the many traits that set California apart from other states is the way undocumented immigrants are woven into our communities.

Their economic impact is obvious, and the Golden State would be hard-pressed to keep our status as a world-competing financial power without their labor.

But most Californians know, and are OK with the reality, that at least some of our neighbors, our kids’ classmates, our co-workers, are without legal documents, or in blended-status families.

Gov. Gavin Newsom took a stand Wednesday for those undocumented Californians that seems to have gone largely unnoticed, but which probably will be a big fight in Congress and courts. In his bad news-filled budget presentation, Newsom committed to keeping state-funded health insurance for undocumented residents (with cuts, deep ones, which I’ll get to). Although some are disappointed by his rollbacks, many of which will hit citizens and noncitizens alike, standing by California’s expansion to cover all low income people is a statement of values.

“We’ve provided more support than any state in American history, and we’ll continue to provide more support than any state in American history,” he said.

Sticking with that promise is going to be tough, and likely costly.

This decision comes as Congress considers a Trump-led budget bill that would severely penalize states (there are 14 of them) that continue to provide health insurance to undocumented immigrants. California, of course, has the largest number of such folks on its Medi-Cal plan and would be the hardest hit if that penalty does indeed become the new law — to the tune of $27 billion over six years, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

To put that in perspective, the governor is now estimating a nearly $12-billion budget shortfall this year. That federal cut would add at least $3 billion a year to our costs once it hits.

That federal cut, Newsom said, was “not anticipated in this budget,” which means we are ignoring it for the time being.

Federal programs aren’t open to noncitizens, and no federal dollars are used to support California’s expansion of healthcare to undocumented people.

But Congress is threatening an approximately 10% cut in reimbursements to states that insure undocumented people via the Medicaid expansion that was part of the Affordable Care Act. That expansion allows millions of Americans to have access to healthcare.

Those expansion funds are working in ways that many don’t know about. For example, as Newsom pointed out, behavioral health teams doing outreach to homeless people are funded by Medicaid dollars.

In all, about one-third of Californians rely on Medi-Cal, including millions of children, so this threat to cut federal funds is not an empty one, especially in a lean year.

Katherine Hempstead, a senior policy advisor for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which advocates for universal healthcare, said that the bill being debated by Congress is so full of cuts to healthcare that arguing against the provision penalizing coverage for undocumented people may not be a priority for most Democrats — making it more likely that the cut will get through.

“I don’t know if this is going to be a do-or-die issue,” she said.

Gov. Gavin Newsom presents his revised 2025-26 state budget during a news conference Wednesday in Sacramento.

(Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press)

And indeed, the pressure by Republicans to kill off coverage entirely for undocumented folks was quick.

“Gov. Newsom has only partially repealed his disastrous policy,” Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin) said in a statement. “ It needs to be reversed entirely, or Californians will continue to spend billions on coverage for illegal immigrants and our state will lose an even larger amount in federal Medicaid funding.”

Newsom has given economic reasons for sticking with the state’s coverage for all low-income residents, regardless of status. When people don’t have access to routine care, they end up in emergency rooms and that is extremely expensive. And also, Medicaid has to cover that emergency care, so taxpayers often end up spending more in the long run by skimping on upfront care.

“It’s definitely important to the people that get the coverage because they don’t really have an alternative,” Hempstead said.

But that care has been vastly more expensive than California expected, also to the tune of billions of dollars in unexpected costs, in part because so many people have signed up.

To the dismay of many, Newsom’s budget reflects both recent economic woes — a $16-billion revenue hit caused by what he’s dubbing the “Trump slump” — as well as the state vastly understimating the cost of covering those undocumented folks.

That shortfall may force cuts in the coverage that undocumented people qualify for if the Legislature goes along with Newsom’s plan, or even parts of it.

Most notably, it would cap enrollment for undocumented adults age 19 and over in 2026, effectively closing the program to new participants. That’s a huge hurt. His plan also calls for adding a $100 per month premium, and other cuts such as ending coverage for the extremely popular and expensive GLP-1 weight loss drugs for all participants.

“I don’t want to be in this position, but we are in this position,” Newsom said.

Amanda McAllister-Wallner, executive director of Health Access California, called those cuts “reckless and unconscionable” in a statement.

“This is a betrayal of the governor’s commitment to California immigrants, and an abandonment of his legacy, which brought California so close to universal healthcare,” she said.

I strongly believe in universal single-payer healthcare (basically opening up Medicare to everyone), so I don’t disagree with McAllister-Wallner’s point. In better days, I would hope to see enrollment reopen and benefits restored.

But also, we’re broke. This is going to be a year of painful choices for all involved.

Which makes Newsom’s, and California’s, commitment to keep insurance for undocumented people notable. The state could back down under this real federal pressure, could try to find a way to claw back the benefits we have already given.

But there’s a moral component to providing healthcare to our undocumented residents, who are such a valuable and vital part of our state.

Although the fiscal realities are ugly, it’s worth remembering that in providing the coverage, California is sticking with some of its most vulnerable residents, at a time when it would be easier to cut and run.