Countries

IF you are thinking about your next trip but can’t decide where, you don’t have to pick one location…

Instead, you could get an Interrail Pass and travel to multiple destinations across up to 33 countries including Spain, Italy and Greece.

And the good news is that there is currently up to 50 per cent off Interrail Passes.

The sale ends September 30 though, so you’ll need to be quick – though even if you buy today or tomorrow, you’ll have 11 months to use your pass.

Different passes allow you to travel on trains as many times as you like across a set amount of time.

Instead of £454, you can spend £227 and get a month youth (for 12 to 27-year-olds) rail pass – meaning you can travel on as many trains as you like across the 33 countries for a month.

Read more on travel inspo

ALL IN

I found the best value all inclusive London hotel… just £55pp with free food & booze

SO FLY

Our fave beach hols under 5 hours from UK with Caribbean dupes & £2 bottles of wine

If you are 28-years-old or above, then it will cost you a little more – £303 instead of £606.

You’ll also have to pay extra if you want to reserve seats on trains or if you want a paper Pass instead of a digital Pass.

There are a number of other Passes available as well, depending on how long you want to travel for.

You can choose between a Flexible Pass or Continuous Pass depending on your travel plans.

For example, you could get a four days in a month Pass that allows you to travel on as many trains as you like on each of your four travel days, costing £209 per adult.

You can use your four travel days any time within a month of your Pass’ start date.

Other options include five and seven days within a month and 10 days or 15 days within two months.

These passes cost between £235 and £409 per person.

If you know you are travelling continuously across a time period to a number of different destinations, the Continuous Pass might be better.

The different time options for these Passes include 15 days, 22 days, one month, two months or three months in a row.

These passes range between £303 and £433 per adult.

If you suddenly decide you don’t want the Pass, then you can refund or exchange it within seven days as well.

RYANAIR has announced that it is cutting more than half a million seats to two European countries before the end of this year.

The budget airline will scrap 550,000 seats from Estonia and Lithuania this winter, which means it will reduce its capacity to the two countries by around a quarter.

The airline has said that the decision comes after higher airport costs in the two countries.

According to Ryanair, airport charges in Lithuania have risen by 30 per cent since 2023.

In Estonia, on the other hand, there has been an increase in charges at Tallinn Airport.

It isn’t clear how many UK flights will be affected, but overall it works out to as many as 3,000 overall.

Read more on travel inspo

CHEAP BREAKS

UK’s best 100 cheap stays – our pick of the top hotels, holiday parks and pubs

DRINK UP

Best places in Europe for cheap booze from 80 wines in 100 minutes to 43p drinks

Ryanair is now looking at increasing capacity in other destinations with lower airport charges.

For example, Riga in Latvia will gain around 40,000 seats this winter.

This means that the airline will operate 16 routes to Riga during this winter.

Ryanair has also decided to increase capacity on a number of other routes including Barcelona and Milan.

A number of other destinations will also lose Ryanair seats this winter.

Greece is set to lose around 700,000 seats and 12 routes.

In Belgium, there will be a reduction of one million seats and 20 routes.

And the airline has already axed flights from a number of airports across Spain, Portugal and Germany.

The news comes just days after the airline said that it plans to have 11 million seats across Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania by 2031 and increase its aircraft in the region from seven to 16.

Countries including Germany, South Africa and Canada suggest international institution to set and enforce standards.

Twenty countries and the European Union have issued a call for international cooperation to ensure AI remains under human control, including the potential creation of a global oversight body to set and enforce standards.

The countries, including Germany, South Africa, Canada, Australia, the United Arab Emirates and Singapore, issued the joint statement on Monday as global leaders prepare to discuss the risks posed by rapidly advancing AI at the annual gathering of the United Nations General Assembly.

The declaration, released by the office of Finnish President Alexander Stubb, calls on governments and industry to act immediately to ensure that AI is developed in line with international law and remains under “human direction, oversight and control”.

“To realise AI’s potential, industry, governments and society must act now,” the statement says.

“We must address these risks and strengthen oversight – without widening the gap between countries in access to the benefits of AI.”

The declaration urges countries to develop and coordinate “common standards”, share reports of serious safety incidents, and explore the establishment of an international institution to “set standards, enable verification, and convene states when capability thresholds are crossed”.

Signatories include German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, Kenyan President William Ruto, Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev and Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan.

The United States and China, the world’s two leading AI powers, did not join the statement, which remains “open for endorsement” by other countries.

US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping are expected to discuss AI when they meet at the White House on Thursday for their third face-to-face summit in less than a year.

Washington and Beijing, which are in a race to dominate cutting-edge technologies, have both rebuffed calls to slow down AI development to ensure greater safety.

Other AI players not among the signatories include India, South Korea, Japan, the UK and France.

The declaration comes as the AI sector is engaged in a heated debate about safety following calls for a slowdown in development by top industry leaders.

In an essay earlier this month, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei called on firms to “slow the pace” of development to mitigate risks, a proposal that was swiftly endorsed by rivals including OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk.

Amodei’s call followed a series of cases of AI models engaging in unsanctioned malign activity, including an incident in July in which AI agents being tested by OpenAI hacked the AI start-up Hugging Face.

In the latest intervention by industry on Monday, OpenAI said the US should lead an international effort to develop technical standards for advanced AI.

“The United States is well positioned to lead because its AI industry is at the technical frontier, and it still stands in a privileged global network position in critical areas such as finance, trade, defense, technology, and information systems,” the San Francisco-based AI giant said in a blog post.

“Leading now will determine whether the United States shapes the global AI framework or watches a fragmented, uneven, and conflict-ridden system take hold around it.”

The UN-backed Independent International Scientific Panel on AI, which examined the Hugging Face incident, on Monday also added its voice to calls for new guardrails, saying the cyberattack had exposed the “unravelling” of existing safeguards.

‘Achtung! Staatsgrenze!” OK, the signpost marking the “state border” didn’t have exclamation marks but, with its no-nonsense Prussian font, it did feel quite shouty. The only thing was, no one on the Feistritzer Alm – a peaceful sweep of Alpine pasture at the meeting of Austria and Italy – was paying any attention to it at all.

Hikers hiked straight past. Mountain bikers used it to prop up their cycles. Cows grazed willy-nilly. And the patrons of the Schutzhütte Oisternig enjoyed their cold beers regardless of which country they were in. While official boundaries may have changed in these parts over the centuries, the magnificence of the mountains has not.

US judges affirm migrants must have opportunities to voice safety concerns before deportation to unfamiliar nations.

A US federal appeals court has rejected the Trump administration’s policy of rapidly deporting migrants to countries other than their own – a ruling that could next go before the Supreme Court.

On Friday, a three-judge panel of the 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston largely upheld a February decision that found the Department of Homeland Security’s so-called third-country removal policy unlawful.

The case stems from a class-action lawsuit testing what due process migrants are owed before being sent to nations with which they have no ties.

Writing for the panel, US Circuit Judge Seth Aframe said migrants must be given a “meaningful” chance to raise safety concerns before removal, rejecting the Trump administration’s narrower reading of the law.

The court did overturn part of the ruling on procedural grounds, concerning whether officials must first try deporting migrants to countries they have ties to.

Trina Realmuto, a lawyer for the plaintiffs at the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, said the decision confirmed that “due process and the protections Congress enacted against persecution and torture cannot be circumvented by putting someone on a plane to a country that was never part of their removal proceedings”.

The DHS did not immediately comment. The Trump administration is expected to appeal the ruling.

Under Trump, the US has struck agreements allowing it to send more than 25,000 migrants to at least 29 third countries, most often Mexico, according to Third Country Deportation Watch, a tracker run by the rights groups Refugees International and Human Rights First.

The policy, adopted in March 2025, allowed removals with only minimal notice if officials had diplomatic assurances against persecution.

The controversial programme has reached the Supreme Court twice.

In 2025, the justices cleared the way for eight men, including nationals of Cuba, Myanmar and Vietnam, to be deported to South Sudan, a country the US State Department advises against visiting because of “crime, kidnapping, and armed conflict”.

The DHS called the removals “a win”, while rights groups said they flouted basic protections.

The Trump administration’s immigration agenda has faced a string of setbacks this month.

A federal judge blocked planned caps on student and journalist visas, calling the government’s justification “exceptionally weak”, while a coalition of 22 states and Washington, DC, sued to stop a separate rule that would let officials deny green cards to immigrants who lawfully use public benefits.

Uefa and Concacaf have written to Gianni Infantino calling on Fifa to pay at least $10m (£7.5m) from its cash reserves to each of the 211 member associations.

It is the latest chapter in the war of words between the governing bodies, in response to Fifa president Gianni Infantino’s aborted private equity proposal.

Fifa Forward Enterprise (FFE) would have meant a new company being created to manage commercial and ticketing rights of all competitions, including World Cups, with 21% sold off to an investment company.

The idea was scrapped after four days following widespread opposition from national associations.

The letter, seen by BBC Sport, was signed by Uefa president Aleksander Ceferin and his Concacaf counterpart Victor Montagliani.

It outlines that “Fifa is on course to close 2023-26 with reserves of approximately $6bn (£4.5bn)” which is “considerably more than is required” through to the 2030 men’s World Cup.

It said that Fifa should “make at least $10m available to each of its 211 member associations over the 2027-30 cycle” which should be used “for investment in infrastructure and football development”.

This “one-off release of reserves” would come at a cost of $2.11bn (£1.57bn), and would be in addition to the regular funding in the cycle.

When the controversial plan was revealed in the days following the World Cup final, Infantino told members they would receive $40m (£30m) if they backed it.

Infantino set a deadline of 19 September for federations to accept his plans if they want to access an initial $20m (£15m).

In the letter, Ceferin and Montagliani said analysis carried out on Fifa’s published financial statements and budgets raised doubts that the FFE proposal was “necessary to deliver greater resources”.

It added that the analysis was “deliberately conservative” and a larger distribution from the reserves should be considered by the Fifa Council once the financial position at year-end is known.

An “independent review” of Fifa’s finances should be commissioned, it added, with “full access to the underlying figures and assumptions”.

“Fifa currently holds billions of dollars in accumulated reserves,” it read. “These resources belong to football and exist to serve the game and its 211 member associations.

“Prudence should not prevent a careful examination of whether a portion could responsibly be released to the extent those reserves exceed Fifa’s foreseeable needs.

“Releasing part of these reserves would demonstrate that member associations should not have to choose between development and good governance; between investment and integrity; or between financial support and the ability to consider proposals on their merits.

“Development is an institutional responsibility of Fifa – not a matter of individual discretion.”

Another letter, also seen by BBC Sport, has been sent to the presidents of the other confederations – Asia, Africa, South America and Oceania – asking them to support the motion.

The news comes a day after Football Association chair Debbie Hewitt sent a letter to Infantino and Fifa secretary general Mattias Grafstrom demanding that all documents relating to the controversial FFE plan were released.

Hewitt, a Fifa vice-president, said that the Fifa Council should also receive a written explanation for the cancelled suspension of United States forward Folarin Balogun at the World Cup.

Infantino was told he should make all documents available before the next Fifa Council meeting, which is on 15 October.

Infantino, 56, will stand for election for a fourth time in March, with his opponents having until 18 November to find an alternative candidate.

In a historic move last week, the United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to encourage the use of new world maps which more accurately depict continents with their true sizes.

The move followed months of lobbying by the African Union, which itself adopted a new map earlier in February. A total of 164 countries voted in favour while six abstained.

The United States was the only member to oppose it. US representative Yaryna Ferencevych said before the vote that the resolution was “the reason this institution is losing its credibility”.

“Instead of focusing on genuine problems … this body is debating map projects from the 16th century,” she said.

But since the resolution was approved, at least three other countries have voiced concerns about the changes: India, Ukraine and Japan.

None are explicitly opposed to adopting a new projection. However, they are raising concerns about how certain disputed territories should be depicted.

Here’s what we know:

Why is there a new world map?

The UN endorsed a resolution promoting the Equal Earth projection of the world map, rather than the Mercator projection, which is currently widely used.

The resolution does not ban Mercator or impose a particular replacement – it merely encourages nations to adopt the Equal Earth version, which was created by three researchers in 2018.

The Mercator projection, which was produced by Flemish cartographer Gerardus Mercator in 1569 when the West was busy “conquering” new territories, attempts to show a three-dimensional globe on a two-dimensional surface. That is why countries closer to the poles appear much larger than countries at the equator.

For decades, map experts have pointed out that Mercator’s projection disproportionately shrinks the true size of the African continent and that of other developing regions, while making Europe and the US seem much larger by comparison.

For example, Greenland is shown as roughly the same size as Africa, but, in reality, it could fit into the continent 14 times over. Europe, which is portrayed as bigger than South America, is actually half its size.

Advocates from African countries pointed out that the map is problematic because of the size issues. Importantly, they argued, it reinforces negative perceptions of Africa.

Several cartographers have attempted to develop equal area maps. However, African activists specifically pushed for the Equal Earth projection map, which significantly expands Africa and shrinks Europe and the US.

Experts say while maps are inherently inaccurate because of the constraints of depicting a spherical world on a flat plane, the Equal Earth projection is as close as it gets.

Why is Ukraine worried about the new map?

Ukraine was one of six countries which abstained from the vote at the UNGA, along with Estonia, Georgia, Moldova, Serbia and Lithuania, who voted in solidarity with Ukraine.

Kyiv has complained that the Equal Earth projection depicts the Russian-occupied Crimean peninsula in a distinctly lighter shade than mainland Ukraine.

Russia illegally occupied and annexed Crimea in February 2014, a move the UN has denounced.

Although the peninsula is also shaded differently from mainland Russia on the new map, its yellowish tint appears closer to the Russian shade than Ukraine’s.

“Ukraine does not in principle oppose the core issue addressed in this draft resolution,” Andrii Melnyk, the country’s permanent representative to the UN, said in an address to the assembly.

Melnyk said Kyiv had asked for corrections before the vote but had not received positive responses. The new map, he said, could be tantamount to opening a Pandora’s box, enabling the “abuse and distortion” of the world map.

“It would be a truly fatal mistake for all of us, and for this General Assembly, to seek to correct a historical injustice in the geographical depiction of countries and continents by simultaneously allowing a deeply troubling interpretation of the text of this draft resolution,” he added.

What is Japan demanding?

Meanwhile, on Thursday, Tokyo, which voted in favour of the new map, said it had also asked for corrections to the Equal Earth projection because the map uses the same colours and shades for Russian territory as it does for the disputed Kuril Islands.

Russia and Japan have long fought over control of the four islands, known in Russia as the Southern Kurils and in Japan as the Northern Territories. In 1945, during World War II, the Soviet Union invaded and annexed the islands as part of a pact with Western Allies that stipulated the Soviets would take the disputed territory. The islands’ Japanese inhabitants were removed.

Subsequently, Japan and the US have claimed that the islands were not part of the original pact. The islands, however, remain under Russian administration.

In August this year, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin paid his first-ever visit to the islands, drawing condemnation from Japan. Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi called the visit “absolutely unacceptable”, saying it “offends the sentiments of the Japanese people”.

This week, Chief Cabinet Secretary Minoru Kihara said the Japanese embassy in the US has asked Equal Earth’s creators to change the map.

“Displays that contradict the Japanese government’s position are seen [on the map],” Kihara said at a news conference. “We need to prevent incorrect perceptions regarding our country’s territories and geographical names from spreading.”

Why is India uneasy about the map?

India also voted in favour of the Equal Earth projection, but on Sunday, the Ministry of External Affairs published a caveat regarding depictions of the disputed border territory of Kashmir.

Following the Indian partition of 1947, both Pakistan and India lay claim to the former state of Jammu and Kashmir, which had been controlled by the British through indirect rule. The region has subsequently been a flashpoint for tensions between the two rivals and has led to several wars.

Parts of Kashmir are administered by Pakistan, while other parts are administered by India. China, which also disputes some Kashmir territory with India, administers its northeastern portion.

In his statement, spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal noted that the UN vote was in favour of encouraging the use of equal area projections and that it had not made the use of any one map mandatory.

“India’s sovereign territory, including the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, must be depicted in accordance with India’s official map,” he said. “Any inaccurate or misleading depiction is unacceptable.”

SAN FRANCISCO, California: Anthropic said Thursday it shut down multiple cases of state-sponsored surveillance operations that used its artificial intelligence (AI) models, and warned that governments and state-aligned actors are increasingly using AI to spy on ethnic minorities and dissidents.

The incidents were found and disrupted between January and July, and they originated in China, Iran and west Africa, Anthropic said in a report about misuse of its models.

These surveillance campaigns “targeted the same diaspora and dissident communities these regimes have historically targeted. These include pro-democracy figures in Hong Kong, Tibetan and Falun Gong communities across Asia, and Iranian minority communities and opponents of the Iranian regime abroad,” the report said.

In one case, Iranian actors developed a way to identify people through their social media accounts; in another, a contractor working for Malian national security authorities used Claude “to design the underlying software that enabled the intelligence gathering.”

“AI is now being used in place of an engineering workforce,” the report said.

Anthropic also disrupted efforts by users to design weapons, conduct questionable biological research, and create dating scams.

The San Francisco-based AI lab also accused Chinese developers of deceptively using Claude to produce responses to user queries while simultaneously “distilling” that data to improve their own models.

Distilling is an industry term that refers to a process where one AI model is used to train another one.

Chinese developers have previously been accused of using that technique without permission, essentially stealing resources from American labs such as Anthropic and OpenAI.

Now Anthropic alleges that China’s Moonshot and Deepseek have also secretly used Claude to generate answers given to its users.

“In one instance, over a ten-day period, Moonshot relayed almost 300,000 customer requests to Anthropic” through a “network of 5,380 fraudulent accounts, most of which appeared to be located in Singapore and Japan,” the report said.

Some of that data contained sensitive user information, potentially in violation of privacy agreements.

“We do not know if Moonshot notified their customers that their requests were being rerouted to Anthropic and exposed to a third party,” the report said.

Deepseek used similar techniques.

When it comes to the research Anthropic detected and blocked that was related to biological weapons, the intent of the actors was less clear-cut and the AI lab did not identify them.

“The individuals implicated in these case studies are working scientists. We do not assert that they intended harm, and identifying them or their labs could expose them to harm,” the report said.

The scientific research in those cases involved work around the mosquito-born chikungunya virus, a “highly-pathogenic” strain of the bird flu, a family of viruses that include smallpox and mpox, venoms and other toxins.

KABUL: The head of the Norwegian Refugee Council aid group, Jan Egeland, criticised on Thursday what he called the “hypocrisy” of countries demanding rights for Afghan women while cutting humanitarian assistance.

In an interview with AFP in Kabul, Egeland said that “I think it’s right of them to demand, like we do, education for Afghan girls, work rights for Afghan women… but it is hypocrisy when one does that from abroad in a seminar in some capital in Europe and cut aid for food to Afghan girls and even for primary education for Afghan girls.”

The United Kingdom has announced a ban on the import of all goods produced in illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband said in Parliament on Tuesday.

It comes in response to an intensifying wave of Israeli settler pogroms and settlement expansions in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem.

The ban, set to come into effect within six to nine months, would target settlement exports such as dates, olive oil and agricultural products, with Miliband saying he did not believe “the British people want us supporting the occupation by accepting products from settlements in our shops”.

The International Court of Justice in July 2024 called Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory “unlawful”. Months later, the United Nations passed a resolution calling for an end to the Israeli occupation within a year.

Israel’s response was furious, as it announced four “counter-measures”, including banning 12 British MPs from entering Israel and closing the British consulate in Jerusalem.

After Miliband’s speech, 11 more countries: Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Sweden, shared a joint statement supporting the so-called two-state solution and announcing their own intentions to impose restrictions on trade with illegal Israeli settlements.

Spain and Ireland had already announced their own national bans earlier this year, alongside the Netherlands and Belgium.

How much do these countries trade with Israel?

Aside from Canada and the UK, the rest of the countries considering or already banning settlement goods are European Union members.

The EU is Israel’s largest trading partner, accounting for 31.7 percent of Israel’s total trade in goods in 2025 (43.3 billion euros, or $50.4bn), according to the European Commission. The EU supplied 33.1 percent of Israel’s imports (28 billion euros, or $32.6bn) and received 29.4 percent of Israel’s exports (15.3 billion euros or $17.8bn).

Israel is the EU’s 27th largest trade partner, with Ireland, the Netherlands and Germany being its biggest individual trade partners.

According to a 2026 report by Global Echo Litigation Center, a Palestinian rights legal advocacy group, roughly 5,900 shipments from Israel were headed to Europe, with more than 17 percent containing products originating from settlements.

While no specific figures for settlement trade alone are known, it is understood to be a tiny fraction of total EU-Israel trade, meaning the ban’s impact is much more symbolic than economic.

The table below shows each country’s total trade with Israel for the European countries that have banned, or are introducing bans on, illegal Israeli settlement goods.

The top five European trading partners with Israel either enforcing or set to introduce settlement bans are Ireland, the Netherlands, the UK, France and Spain.

Ireland

Ireland-Israel bilateral trade totalled $5.36bn in 2025. Ireland is Israel’s second-largest export market for goods after the United States, driven largely by tech, particularly semiconductors and integrated circuits.

The Netherlands

Netherlands-Israel bilateral trade totalled roughly $4.8bn in 2025. The Netherlands is also Israel’s largest single foreign investor, accounting for roughly two-thirds of all EU investment in the country.

United Kingdom

According to UN Comtrade, UK-Israel bilateral trade totalled $3.73bn in 2025. An Al Jazeera investigation found at least 17 companies linked to illegal Israeli settlements hold more than 2.1 billion pounds ($2.85bn) in UK public-sector contracts.

France

France-Israel bilateral trade totalled $3.62bn in 2025. A large part of France’s trade with Israel constitutes export licences for surveillance and military technologies.

Spain

Spain-Israel bilateral trade totalled $2.79bn in 2025. In September that year, Spain banned the import of goods from illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory, as well as the trade of arms.

What are Israeli settlements?

Israeli settlements are Jewish-only communities built illegally on Palestinian land.

Settlements are illegal under international law as they violate the Fourth Geneva Convention, which bans an occupying power from transferring its population to the area it occupies.

Illegal Israeli settlements continue to grow, decades after the 1993 Oslo Accords, which established limited Palestinian self-rule and were meant to lead to a permanent peace settlement.

At the time, about 270,000 settlers lived across the occupied territory. Today, that figure has more than doubled to between 600,000 and 750,000 people, about 10 percent of Israel’s Jewish population, living across some 250 illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem.

The announcement revives a 2023 commitment by President Tshisekedi and comes as several governments signal plans to deepen diplomatic ties with Israel.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) has reiterated its decision to move its embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, becoming the latest country to announce such plans.

Following a visit to Israel by President Felix-Antoine Tshisekedi, both countries said in a statement on Thursday that they would take steps towards “the relocation of the embassy of the Democratic Republic of the Congo from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem”, AFP news agency reported.

The plan dates back to September 2023, when Tshisekedi met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

In 2020, the DRC president announced plans to appoint an ambassador to Israel after two decades and establish an economic section of the embassy in Jerusalem while the embassy remained in Tel Aviv.

The relationship has since expanded. Israeli President Isaac Herzog visited the DRC capital, Kinshasa, in November. Tshisekedi has spoken warmly about Israel for years, saying his support is driven by his Christian faith. He has also been eager for support from the United States, which has increasingly pressured Rwanda over armed rebel advances in the DRC.

Why does the embassy move matter?

The announcement comes weeks after Colombia’s new hard-right president, Abelardo de la Espriella, also announced that he would move his country’s embassy to Jerusalem, a sharp shift from his leftist predecessor who criticised Israel over its genocidal war on Gaza.

The United States moved its embassy to Jerusalem in 2018 during President Donald Trump’s first term. Fiji, Guatemala, Honduras, Papua New Guinea and Paraguay have followed.

Kosovo and Somaliland, which are not UN member states, also maintain missions they consider embassies in the city.

Most countries that have diplomatic relations with Israel keep their embassies in the Tel Aviv area, maintaining that Jerusalem’s final status should be determined through negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians.

Israel considers the entire city its capital and has encouraged foreign governments to establish embassies there. Palestinians want occupied East Jerusalem to serve as the capital of a future Palestinian state.

The UN Security Council has rejected measures seeking to alter the status of Jerusalem and has called on countries not to establish diplomatic missions there.