settlement

For all the hysterical outrage that accompanied the announcement of the UK’s measures against illegal Israeli settlements last Tuesday, the world did not end. The reality is that these steps were merely bringing Britain into line with its legal obligation to act against an unlawful occupation and narrow the gaping chasm between the reality on the ground in Palestine and the rhetoric deployed in Westminster.

The reaction of those who support the Israeli settlements — war crimes under the Rome Statute — was frenzied. Anti-Palestinian bodies bellowed outrage. The chief rabbi declared this would be a “dark day for British Jews,” as if somehow they were the target of the measures or the victims of what has been happening. His comments were dangerous as he, along with “establishment” UK Jewish groups like the Board of Deputies of British Jews, blurred the distinction between the actions of the state of Israel and British Jews. This deliberately conflates antisemitism with anti-Israel sentiment.

Others also claimed, with no evidence, that the measures would make British Jews unsafe. The deplorable increase in antisemitic attacks in the UK and elsewhere has never been motivated by British actions against Israel, not least as there has hardly ever been any such action.

In fact, a sizable segment of the British Jewish community welcomed the settlement trade ban or at least accepted it as a reasonable response to the unprecedented building of settlements and frenzy of state-backed Israeli settler violence.

The reaction of those who support the Israeli settlements — war crimes under the Rome Statute — was frenzied

Chris Doyle

The mainstream media coverage was frequently dire. Many columnists depicted British Jews as a victim of the settlement ban. Very few outlets dared suggest that the actions were designed to help Palestinians under threat of ethnic cleansing, forced dispossession and settler pogroms. Once again, the victims were erased from the story.

The other claim was that the US would retaliate against London. This was triggered in large part by the knee-jerk reactions of US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, who posted: “The Brits have lost it. The Jew hate of their government knows no boundaries and knows no facts.” He denies it but he probably did not know Ed Miliband, the foreign secretary, is a British Jew whose parents were refugees from Nazi-occupied Europe. But Huckabee is an extremist maverick, an ardent Zionist who believes in a “Greater Israel.”

Far from retaliating, the US State Department made clear Huckabee’s comments were not authorized. He had been freelancing again. One official said Washington was “staying out of it.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio was far more measured in his comments. He did not even condemn the British actions. President Donald Trump, who is rarely shy of airing any disagreement, has said nothing. In short, the US has taken zero steps. Trump looks increasingly disenchanted with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, not Andy Burnham or Miliband. The president has yet to declare support for Netanyahu ahead of next month’s Israeli elections, as the beleaguered leader hopes.

The settlement lobbies were almost certainly shocked by the 11 countries that joined the UK in confirming they were or would be adopting similar measures. This included France and Canada, meaning three of the G7 states are acting.

Those states yet to adopt the ban have at least condemned the settlements and are not opposing London’s actions

Chris Doyle

Britain was far from isolated, quashing yet another criticism. Those states that have yet to adopt the ban have at least condemned the settlements and are not opposing London’s actions.

In contrast, it is Israel and the US that find themselves once again in a crowd of two. These two states, as they were with the foolhardy war on Iran, align themselves against international law and accountability.

The retaliatory Israeli measures will also hardly dent the British interest. Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar announced the closure of the British Consulate in Jerusalem, the ejection of the British participants in the International Gaza Support Center that oversees aid flows into Gaza and the termination of the British support team that is helping to train the Palestinian Authority.

Note that all these measures hit Palestinians far more than the UK, which is of course the Israeli priority. It means fewer states overseeing aid into Gaza, less support to the PA and, by closing diplomatic premises linked to the Palestinians in Jerusalem, further severs the remaining Palestinian ties to the city.

Expect a raft of settlement announcements shortly. This will be the primary Israeli response to the actions of these dozen states.

Will these measures have an impact? Are they sufficient? Almost certainly not. And the Netanyahu coalition, in election season, will just press the accelerator on the aggression and violence. Other Israeli politicians may get the message: The patience of international actors has finally worn out, albeit decades too late.

These steps should not be belittled. The 12 states have shifted from a declaratory poise to a position of action. For once, the Israeli government is going to have to bear a cost for the occupation that has hitherto not existed.

The message is clear. If Israel behaves like a pariah state, it will start to be treated like a pariah state.

Chris Doyle is director of the London-based Council for Arab-British Understanding (CAABU). He has worked with the council since 1993 after graduating with a first class honors degree in Arabic and Islamic Studies at Exeter University. He has organized and accompanied numerous British parliamentary delegations to Arab countries. Twitter: @Doylech

More from Chris Doyle

LONDON: Prominent Israeli figures have welcomed British sanctions against illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank, The Guardian reported.

In a joint statement, they described the move as an “inevitable consequence” of their government’s actions.

Sanctions are being imposed “against Jewish terrorists, and not against the legitimacy of the state of Israel,” they said.

“There is no basis to the government’s response that the decision to impose sanctions against Jewish terrorists is an expression of antisemitism.”

Prof. David Harel, British-born president of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities and a signatory to the statement, said the measures delivered urgently needed support for liberal Israelis who are trying to stop attacks on Palestinians and end the occupation.

“I personally would fight until my last breath against antisemitism and against anti-Israelism,” he told The Guardian. “But what is justified, and I do support, is being anti things that Israel is doing, and these days in particular what it is doing in the West Bank.

“Getting out of there (occupied Palestine), or, at least for the present, stopping these things from happening and starting to really talk about a two-state solution is not only good for the Palestinians. It’s not that we’re doing these poor people a favour. We’re doing a favour to ourselves, no less, maybe even more.”

Signatories to the statement include former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert; former commander of the Israeli military Dan Halutz; former ministers Yuli Tamir and Roni Bar-On; and former Ambassador to Germany Yoram Ben Zeev.

They wrote: “This decision is precisely what the state of Israel should have received in order to remove the disgrace of Jewish terrorism from the face of the country.”

Former diplomat Nadav Tamir also said the sanctions are good for Israel. “Any move to prevent annexation and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians in the West Bank (and Gaza) is serving the long-term interests of the Zionist vision of Israel as the democratic homeland of the Jewish people,” he added. “It will help us to be more secure and moral.”

Avraham Burg, a former parliament speaker, said “like many Israelis and Palestinians, I am grateful for the courageous moral leadership” of UK Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband. “It’s a good beginning. Do not stop.”

Fourteen Israeli human rights organizations — including B’Tselem, Physicians for Human Rights Israel and Breaking the Silence — welcomed the sanctions.

“This is an important and necessary first step to meet states’ legal obligation,” they said in a statement. “We urge the international community to take further concrete measures to ensure that its relations with Israel no longer enable Israel’s settlement enterprise, forced displacement and ethnic cleansing in the occupied West Bank, or its broader assault on Palestinian human rights across all territories under its control.”

LONDON: Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has voiced support for the UK’s new ban on trade with illegal Israeli settlements.

He told The Guardian that the decision, announced by Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband, “became unavoidable as a result of a continuous effort of ethnic cleansing perpetrated by a large group of Jewish terrorists in the West Bank.”

Olmert added: “The crimes of these terrorists are actively assisted by police and military units over a long period of time.

“The highest levels of government led by Minister of Defence (Israel) Katz and Prime Minister (Benjamin) Netanyahu are actively supporting these terrorists and avoid taking the necessary measures to stop it.”

Olmert’s comments come as Israelis prepare to go to the polls late next month. “Millions of Israelis are appalled by this terror and are actively resisting the terrorists,” he said.

“Sanctions are directed against the terrorists not against Israel, and as such they are unavoidable.”

In announcing the new UK policy, Miliband referenced earlier comments by Olmert, saying: “Ehud Olmert, the former Israeli prime minister, has described what is happening as, I quote, ‘a violent and criminal effort to ethnically cleanse territories in the West Bank.’”

WASHINGTON — A former White House teleprompter operator accused of using inside knowledge to make bets on the prediction market Kalshi has been ordered to turn over more than $100,000 in profits and pay a $65,000 fine as part of a settlement with federal authorities.

The settlement with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, announced Friday, also dealt Gabriel Perez a three-year trading ban. Perez was placed on unpaid leave from his job at the White House after reports emerged that he used his position to make bets on what President Trump would say in speeches.

The White House did not immediately comment on the settlement. A White House official said in July that Perez was no longer in his position but did not say if he had been fired or resigned.

The commission found that Perez made $107,500 on prediction markets by betting on words and phrases that would appear in Trump’s speeches between December 2025 and February 2026.

“In his position, Perez had access to presidential speeches prior to those speeches being delivered and Perez misappropriated that information — in breach of his duty of trust and confidence,” according to a release from the commission.

Perez was ordered to repay his profits in full, along with the $65,000 civil penalty, which the commission said was a reduction because of his “exemplary cooperation.”

As details emerged July 16, then White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said it was “unfortunate” and “a disgrace.”

Binkley writes for the Associated Press.

Aug. 27 (UPI) — A Manhattan federal judge on Thursday signed off on a $72.5 million settlement between Bank of America and victims of Jeffrey Epstein over the banking giant’s involvement in the convicted sex offenders crimes.

Judge Jed Rakoff said the agreement was a move toward accountability for the victims, he added that the pain caused by Epstein could be undone. “No amount of money can ever fully compensate Epstein victims for the harm they’ve suffered,” he said.

Around 60 women who were trafficked or abused by Epstein or any of his associates between June 2008 and July 2019 will be covered by the settlement, attorneys for the women have said.

The Charlotte, N.C.-based bank was accused in a class-action lawsuit of ignoring red flags in Epstein’s transactions in the years after he was first charged with sexually abusing girls and young women.

The lawsuit, which was filed last October, accused Bank of America of “absolute loyalty” to Epstein.

According to Senate Finance Committee data, Bank of America filed suspicious activity reports about more than $170 million in suspicious transactions between billionaire Leon Black and Epstein.

Similar settlements have been reached with JPMorgan Chase for $290 million and Deutsche Bank for $75 million.

None of the banks have admitted wrongdoing.

Meta has agreed to a landmark $18bn settlement in a major US federal case accusing it of endangering children, the terms of which will force the social media giant to introduce new safety features to platforms including Instagram and Facebook.

The social media giant has faced an avalanche of legal cases against it this year, mostly arguing that it deliberately designed its platforms to be addictive and that they have harmed children. It has already lost two of these and been forced to pay damages.

Under the agreement, child users under the age of 18 will see a slew of changes to their Facebook and Instagram accounts, ranging from night curfews to two-hour usage limits, which Meta must implement as part of the settlement reached on Wednesday with 48 US states.

The agreement could have a global ripple effect as several countries around the world are already taking regulatory action against Meta and other social media companies over their platforms.

So, what is in the settlement Meta has reached in the United States, and how will Instagram and Facebook change for users?

What was the lawsuit about?

Twenty-nine US states sued Meta, accusing it of designing its platforms in ways that “encourage addictive behaviour, fail to verify users’ ages, encourage adolescents to bypass parental controls, and inadequately safeguard against harmful content and/or intentionally amplify harmful and exploitative content”, according to filings at the Court of Appeal in California.

The first four of the states that originally filed their federal lawsuit against Meta in 2023 – California, Kentucky, Colorado and New Jersey – began their cases in a California federal trial last week.

The attorneys general bringing the case also asked the court to order that changes be made to Meta’s platforms to protect young social media users. In particular, they demanded that Meta introduce a process of parental verification for teenage users; change its “dopamine-manipulating” algorithms; remove image filters for users’ personal images; forbid the creation of multiple accounts; and end “disappearing” messages and posts.

The lawsuit also alleged Meta had violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act by collecting, ⁠retaining and using personal data from children under 13 without proper parental consent.

In February this year, Meta lost a multimillion-dollar case brought on similar grounds by a young woman referred to as KGM in Los Angeles, over platform features linked to addiction in younger users.

In March, a US jury ordered Meta to pay $375m for endangering children in a case brought by the state of New Mexico.

Last month, a judge in New Mexico also ordered Facebook and Instagram owner Meta to pay a further $567m in a second phase of the trial.

Meta denied wrongdoing but agreed to settle after evidence was heard that Meta knew its products harmed children’s mental health. The total payout – to be paid over 10 years – is a fraction of Meta’s 2025 revenue of $201bn.

The company, which was originally founded as Facebook in 2004 by Mark Zuckerberg, agreed to make maximum payments totalling $16.7bn to 47 US states as well as Washington, DC; Puerto Rico; American Samoa; and the Northern Mariana Islands.

Among those, California could receive a $2.2bn payout, while New York could receive $1.1bn. Texas reached a separate settlement worth more than $1bn. Some states will deposit funds they receive in general accounts, while others will earmark portions to address children’s mental health services.

The settlement does not require Meta to discontinue personalised recommendations or targeted advertising.

It also does not address some content researchers found particularly problematic, including posts that made Instagram users uncomfortable with their body image.

“Ensuring teens have a safe and productive experience on our platforms is an absolute imperative for Meta,” Meta said in a blog post. “We want to get this right for parents and teens.”

What changes will be seen on Instagram and Facebook?

Under the agreement, children under 18 using Meta platforms will be restricted to two hours’ use per day, with a night curfew in place from midnight to 6am. Meta will limit “social comparison” features by hiding likes and reactions to children’s accounts, and will ban “cosmetic procedure filters” that alter the appearance of a user’s image, as a default setting. These settings will only be able to be overruled by parental consent.

The company also agreed to disable the majority of push notifications from the platforms during school hours – 8am to 3pm – for teenage users.

It will also facilitate much closer parental supervision of social media accounts by giving designated adults the ability to more extensively monitor and change settings on a social media account.

Parents and guardians will be able to receive information about time spent on platform apps, and usernames of social connections and accounts sending messages to children.

Supervising parents will also receive daily notifications from Meta any time the teen account messages an adult account for the first time, as well as a link to the adult’s account. Parental accounts will also be notified any time the teen account searches for keywords related to suicide, self-harm or eating disorders.

Meta also agreed to improve the technology used to check children’s ages, using its own as well as third-party tools, with regular outside audits on how well this monitoring is working. This measure is particularly notable because Australia banned under-16s from using social media platforms in December last year. However, the Australian internet watchdog, eSafety, found in August this year that more than eight in 10 young Australian teens and preteens continue to use them – largely because age-check procedures are ineffective.

So far, Meta has only agreed to pay 70 percent of the settlement, or roughly $12.7bn, over the next 10 years. It will only pay the remaining amount, about $5bn, if its rivals – including Snapchat, TikTok and Alphabet-owned YouTube – adopt similar measures and agree to pay the same. It also said it would reduce time restrictions to one hour per day if other platforms do the same.

These changes would be phased over time. Once the court approves the settlement, non-personalised feeds would be introduced within four months; broader compliance measures within six months; and major age-assurance requirements within one year.

While these changes will apply to users in the US, it is unclear if Meta plans to introduce them worldwide. However, Meta is already under rising regulatory pressure in European Union countries and those elsewhere to implement similar changes.

How much difference will these changes make?

Critics and child safety advocates have acknowledged that this settlement has forced landmark changes by Meta, the world’s biggest social media company, which owns Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and Messenger, each of which has more than two to three billion monthly active users.

However, critics say the central plank of Meta’s latest settlement deal is the move to restrict teens to two hours per day on platforms, rather than fundamentally changing their addictive algorithms.

Sacha Haworth, executive director of The Tech Oversight Project, which campaigns for youth safety online, said the deal is a “historic settlement that will have a lasting impact, but we cannot truly protect all children and teens until these protections are required on every platform and are permanent – that’s something only Congress can do”.

Ella Bradshaw, policy officer for child safety online at the NSPCC, a UK children’s charity, welcomed moves to rein in “addictive” design features like personalised algorithms and likes. “These are the things that we know keep children hooked and feeling out of control of their screen time, so action here is necessary and welcome. However, important gaps remain,” she told Al Jazeera.  

Bradshaw described the settlement as taking “piecemeal action” on tackling risky features and addictive design choices which drive harm of children.

“This means features like disappearing messages, infinite scroll, the ability to gift and livestreaming remain unaddressed. Similarly, little has been announced on how Meta’s AI chatbots will be made safer – better guardrails are needed, particularly when children raise safeguarding concerns.”

Bradshaw also called for stronger protections for younger children as well as protections that “don’t suddenly drop away the moment a teenager turns 18.”   

Furthermore, she said: “Not all children have families they can rely on to oversee their online worlds and help them to stay safe. We know that the issue of patchy online protections extends across the online world.

“This settlement must spur governments and regulators to go further faster; taking stronger action across the online ecosystem including private messaging, AI tools and online gaming. Without that wider shift, children will continue to face avoidable harm.”

What action are other countries taking against Meta?

While action against social media giants in the US is mostly taking the form of lawsuits, elsewhere it is regulators who are leading the charge.

In the European Union, regulators are pursuing several legal and regulatory cases against Meta, covering antitrust rules for artificial intelligence (AI) on WhatsApp, as well as child safety protections and addictive platform features under the Digital Services Act (DSA).

The EU specifically accused the group of designing Facebook and Instagram to be “addictive”, adding that Meta has failed to adequately assess the danger its products pose to users’ physical and mental health.

On Thursday, a European Commission spokesperson said it is waiting on Meta to present changes to limit the addictive designs of its social networks.

“We have been very clear … Meta knows what we are expecting from them. … the ball is in Meta’s court,” Thomas Regnier said. “Now it is for the company to offer these commitments in the European Union to protect our kids here, too.”

In June, the UK government also announced a sweeping ban on social media for those below 16 to come into force next year, following a global trend after Australia pioneered it. The UK is also considering overnight curfews and ways to prevent infinite scrolling for those under 18.

In Brazil, a prominent consumer rights organisation, the Collective Defence Institute, filed twin lawsuits for three billion reais ($525m) in damages against the Brazilian subsidiaries of Meta, TikTok and Kwai in October 2024.

Those lawsuits also accuse the groups of failing to implement safeguards against addiction and use by children and adolescents. Since March this year, platforms have been required to link the accounts of children below 16 to legal guardians under Brazil’s Digital Statute for Children and Adolescents.

South Korea’s media regulator also reacted on Thursday to Meta’s settlement, calling for better protections for young users to be ideally applied worldwide, rather than just in specific markets.

Meta settles $16.68bn lawsuit over child addiction claims, agreeing to major changes in Facebook and Instagram features.

Meta Platforms has agreed to settle a lawsuit that accused the company of designing Facebook and Instagram in a way that addicted children, misled consumers about safety, and collected personal data of children on the platform.

On Wednesday, the social media giant agreed to pay a maximum of $16.68bn as part of a settlement to resolve claims brought in the United States case, championed by a coalition of 29 US states. The case, which started on August 18, was expected to last six weeks.

Meta, based in Silicon Valley in California, has also agreed to make changes to Facebook and Instagram nationwide as part of the settlement. Among these are daily usage limits of two hours for those under the age of 18, which can only be removed by a parent, and nighttime blocks.

The California State Attorney General’s Office said that the Mark Zuckerberg-led company would also identify and remove children under the age of 13 from the platform.

Meta denied any wrongdoing as part of the settlement, which still needs court approval. It had faced up to $1.4 trillion in fines in the case, but the coalition had been seeking a penalty closer to $200bn.

The settlement comes after a loss in a comparable landmark case in New Mexico, where a jury ordered Meta to pay $375m in March and another $567m in August.

Meta’s stock tumbled in early trading on Wall Street, down 0.1 percent since the market opened.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta made it clear Tuesday he holds the power to extract major concessions in the battle over the proposed Paramount-Warner Bros. merger.

A day after canceling settlement talks, Bonta said he remains open to meeting with Paramount Skydance executives to find remedies to resolve the antitrust lawsuit stalling David Ellison’s $111-billion takeover, but called on the company to end its “amateur hour” conduct.

“If you want to have an adult, legitimate, serious settlement discussion — no problem,” Bonta said during an appearance in Los Angeles. “But if you want to play games, we’ve got better things to do.”

The attorney general, who is leading the coalition of 12 states that filed an antitrust lawsuit to block the merger, repeated his stance that Paramount must make significant concessions to end the court battle — such as selling cable television channels. However, Ellison has been resistant because his company will need the steady cash-flow from Warner’s basic cable channels, including TBS, TNT and CNN, to make payments on $80-billion in debt Paramount will take on to finance the industry-reshaping deal.

Ellison’s promise to release 30 movies a year, following the merger, won’t cut it, the attorney general said.

Bonta, who was speaking at press conference to highlight public safety, expressed frustration with Paramount afterweeks of drama.

Paramount first threatened to leave California if Bonta continues to wage his court battle. Then, on Friday, Paramount accused actor Mark Ruffalo (a staunch deal critic) of making antisemitic comments, prompting prominent Jewish organizations to join the fray. One Jewish leader suggested Bonta was in cahoots with Ruffalo.

That wasn’t the issue, Bonta said, specifically pointing to leaks about the settlement talks that appeared in various news outlets.

Some reports suggested Bonta’s office sought the negotiations amid withering political pressure. Gov. Gavin Newsom, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and Xavier Becerra, the Democratic nominee for governor, have separately urged a settlement to end the antitrust fight.

Bonta set the record straight: “Paramount reached out to us to have settlement discussions,” he said. “They asked for them.”

Bonta’s beef was that the substance of the nascent negotiations appeared in newspaper articles despite both sides agreeing to hold confidential talks, Bonta said, adding that crossed the line. The Wall Street Journal reported that California’s top prosecutor planned to ask Paramount for agreements to keep Warner Bros. and the Paramount Pictures film studios separate units as well as an agreement to sell some cable channels.

“We thought they were reaching out to us in good faith … unfortunately, they violated the rules of engagement,” Bonta said. “They leaked lies to the press while we were in settlement negotiations. That’s not okay … That is amateur hour.”

Paramount declined to comment. On Monday, Paramount denied it was the source of the leaks.

Bonta’s comments appeared as a show of strength after major court wins.

The coalition of attorneys general, who also represent New York, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada and Oregon, last month won a temporary restraining order that blocked Paramount from closing the deal. Rather than lose in a hearing over a more consequential preliminary injunction, Paramount voluntarily agreed that it would not finalize the transaction until after the trial or by June 1, whichever date comes first.

U.S. District Court Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín set a March 2 trial, which was in line with the plaintiff states’ request. Paramount had lobbied for a November date.

“We are winning in this lawsuit,” Bonta said. “They have eight of the biggest law firms in the country, making every imaginable argument under the sun. And they lost, the judge said: ‘You are likely to lose this case’… the states are likely to succeed on the merits.”

For now, no new settlement talks are scheduled.

Bonta expressed an openness to finding a truce.

“If they are willing to clean things up, put a lid on their lying leaks and engage in a way that is sincere and in good faith, we will be where we always are … happy to meet,” Bonta said.

Staff writer Kevin Rector contributed to this report.