‘I create fake IDs of your MP so you can get round Online Safety Act'
Type in a postcode, and in just seconds you can get something that looks uncomfortably real – a photo, a signature, a date of birth, a home address.
Like the prime minister's ID, all of it is fake, of course – but people are trying to use it to bypass age verification checks online.
Use-Their-ID is part prank, part protest against the controversial law, which aims to stop children from seeing harmful content relating to suicide, self-harm, eating disorders and pornography.
Since the Online Safety Act came into effect last Friday, more than 100,000 driving licences have been generated on Knight's website.
Explaining the idea behind it, the 39-year-old told Metro that it is 'inevitable' that sooner or later, there will be a major data leak and British passports and driving licences will be released online.
He added: 'My gut reaction was, well, if the government is going to require me to send my ID all over the internet to view anything that it deems to be 'adult content', that sounds like a privacy and a security nightmare.
'Websites that are implementing age verification checks are incentivised to do it as cheaply as possible – which means outsourcing it to a third party.
'Then it just goes to the cheapest bidder, right? And that means that these checks will not be being done securely and safely or thoroughly.
'[The Online Safety Act] is a disaster for privacy online, but also security… It is a big overreach from the government.'
Personal information leaks are not the only element of the process that he is worried about.
Knight said that people are 'being cut off from a good selection of online resources' because they are too concerned about their privacy to upload their IDs.
He pointed to website like Spotify, which now forces ID checks before its users can listen to music with explicit lyrics.
The Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia, has said that unless the website is made exempt, it would likely be barred under the law.
'All sorts of websites – like suicide prevention resources, so not the porn sites that the government is talking about – are building verification checks,' the creator said.
'They are suddenly having to build walls to keep out children. And we are also seeing websites around the internet blocking UK traffic altogether.
If you want to overturn the Online Safety Act you are on the side of predators. It is as simple as that. https://t.co/oVArgFvpcW
— Peter Kyle (@peterkyle) July 29, 2025
'So we are just being cut off from a good selection of resources on the internet.'
It is not just Knight who is protesting the Online Safety Act. Only a week since it was enforced, nearly 500,000 people signed a petition asking for it to be repealed.
In response, the government said it had 'no plans' to scrap it. Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, Peter Kyle, said that those who want it gone are 'on the side of predators'.
Like Knights, critics argue that the legislation is too vague and far-reaching.
He added: 'MPs seem to have come up with this legislation based on their gut feeling – and not really listening to experts.
'The entire tech industry – and I do not just mean American social media companies – are all face-palming right now at how silly the legislation is.
'It has turned the UK into a bit of a laughing stock.'
Knight created Use-Their ID as a 'joke'. He thought it would be 'funny when the inevitable data leaks do happen and MP's ID cards show up' online.
As a software engineer, he builds web applications for a living, so he does 'actually know about the security side of things'.
In the last week, people have praised his site, describing it as an 'excellent use of his skills'.
Comments from supporters read 'thank you immensely' and 'thank you for caring', with one of them saying: 'Thank you so much for the ID website, it is both bloody funny and an excellent idea.
'Best of luck if anyone comes after you.'
A spokesperson for the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology told Metro: The law is clear: platforms must not promote ways to circumvent requirements of the Act , and those who fall short will face serious enforcement action.
'Ofcom is already assessing platform compliance to ensure robust safeguards are in place to prevent circumvention, and investigations are underway into 37 sites.'
check our news page.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
22 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Miriam González Durántez weighs up move to lead new Spanish liberal party
For almost 30 years, she let her husband, the former British deputy prime minister Nick Clegg, soak up the political limelight, but 10 years after he quit politics to join Facebook, Miriam González Durántez is weighing up a move to enter the political fray herself. The lawyer and former EU foreign adviser is considering heading a new liberal party in her native Spain after a perceived gap opened up after the collapse of the centre-liberal party Ciudadanos (Citizens) and amid ongoing crises in the current socialist government headed by Pedro Sánchez. It is understood she has had talks with the Renew grouping of liberal parties in Europe earlier this summer with a view to launching a party that aims to re-energise the political centre, not just in Spain but also in the EU. A lawyer by profession, with a formidable reputation, González Durántez is already laying the foundations for a potential move into the public arena. In 2023, she founded España Mejor, Better Spain, a non-profit political organisation which aims to encourage Spanish civil society to participate in the development of public policy. Among the goals of Better Spain, which some might read as the bones of a manifesto, are a new water policy, a 'realistic' housing policy', more and better jobs, tax proposals for young people, a tax policy 'for everyone to grow', and the elimination of special legal privileges for 250,000 people in Spain including public officials. At a public meeting of Better Spain in Cádiz on Friday, she said: 'If civil society proves incapable of cleaning up politics I'll consider establishing a political party,' the local La Voz de Cádiz reported. Clegg was a prominent politician in the UK, serving as leader of the Liberal Democrats between 2007 and 2015 and becoming deputy prime minister to Conservative David Cameron between 2010 and 2015, as part of the first full coalition government in Britain since 1945. During his tenure as leader, he rejected the 'tribalism of left and right' and instead positioned the party in the 'radical centre' of middle-income progressive voters. He supported reduced taxes, electoral reform, cuts and an increased focus on environmental issues. He stepped down as leader of the party after it was nearly wiped out in 2015 election, with some blaming the defeat on his decision to get into bed with the Conservatives in the first place, breaking a key election promise over university fees in the process. Clegg quit politics in the UK and took up a new role in 2018 in California as the head of global affairs and communications at Facebook. At the same time González Durántez pursued a number of interests including a mentoring project, Inspiring Girls International, and Altius Advisory, a consultancy she founded aimed at bettering business in Africa. Before that she spent years in Brussels and London advising on diversity, liberal reform, and international trade policy. They returned to the UK from California after Clegg left Meta in January and she now spends weekdays in Spain and weekends when she can in London, according to a recent interview. Her lengthy career included three stints as a member of cabinet in the EU's external relations commission, including one as a senior trade adviser to Chris Patten, the former British commissioner for external relations. She also spent two years working as a negotiator at the World Trade Organization. Her father, José Antonio González Caviedes, was mayor of Olmedo and served as a senator for the conservative People's party (PP) from 1989 until he died in 1996. González Durántez was not available for comment, but when asked if she was considering setting up her own party, a spokesperson for Better Spain said the lawyer had been working for the past two years to mobilise civil society and on effort to 'clean up Spanish politics' and 'end the pendulum of corruption and counteract polarisation'. The spokesperson added: 'She has publicly stated on numerous occasions that if Spanish political parties continue to ignore civil society, she would consider other options including political ones. For the time being she continues working on those objectives within España Mejor. 'As part of her work as the founder of España Mejor, she has held meetings with all sorts of organisations, public institutions, businesses and citizens across Spain, as well as multiple political parties, within Spain and Europe.' Founding a new party and bringing it to a position of political heft is laden with risk in Spain, as it is in any country. Spanish politics remains doggedly bipartisan, with the socialist and conservative parties rarely achieving an overall majority. While the two-party system has been loosened from both left (Podemos) and right (Vox) the attempt by Ciudadanos, led by Albert Rivera, a young lawyer, to break the deadlock fizzled out to the point that the party didn't even contest the 2023 general election. Pablo Simón, a political scientist at the Carlos III university in Madrid, predicted an uphill struggle for González if she throws her hat into the ring. 'This proposal for a new centrist party seems to come from above, not from the grassroots,' he said. 'I think it's a bad moment to launch such a party. For one thing, voters who are fed up with the government are moving the right and the far right and prefer pre-existing parties to new ones. It would make more sense to wait for the European elections when there is a better chance of gaining representation. 'Miriam González is largely unknown in Spain. When you launch a party it's best to have a someone well-known to front it. Perhaps González would make a better deputy than leader.' He added that liberal parties had had little success in newer democracies such as Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal. 'This is because, being new democracies, the politics are polarised between left and right.' It may be some time before Miriam González Durántez decides whether to follow her husband's footsteps into formal politics, but if she does she will join an illustrious list of power couples who have graced the world stage. 1. Bill Clinton and Hillary ClintonAlthough she was unsuccessful in her attempt to follow Bill into the White House, Hillary Clinton and her husband were at one time the most powerful couple in modern American politics. A lawyer, politician and diplomat, Hillary achieved high office in her own right as two-time senator for New York and US secretary of state. The pair continue to wield influence with the Clinton Foundation. 2. Nelson Mandela and Winnie MandelaBefore their divorce and her marginalisation after his release from prison in 1990, the couple were considered the mother and father of the nation of South Africa. Winnie Mandela became an MP and a minister and during the fight against apartheid she was a potent symbol of the struggle, but her reputation was seriously damaged several times by allegations of murder and corruption. She was convicted of kidnapping, assault, theft and fraud. As one of the most visible faces of the resistance, she was regularly detained and harassed by the police and considered so powerful she was even prohibited from speaking to the media. 3. Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and Néstor KirchnerCristina Fernández de Kirchner became the first woman to be elected president of Argentina in 2007, a role she held until 2015. Succeeding her husband Néstor, the charismatic but divisive figure was permanently banned from public office in June over a corruption conviction.
Times
22 minutes ago
- Times
Violent, lawless, broken Britain? The facts tell a different story
When Mexico warned its citizens about the risks of visiting Britain, it sounded absurd — like a parody of a Foreign Office travel alert. 'Robberies and physical assaults, mainly involving knives, have increased,' says the official advice. Britain is 'relatively safe' but, if visiting, it's still best to 'maintain regular contact with loved ones' back in Mexico and 'inform them about your situation and schedule'. This from a country where cartel violence claims tens of thousands of lives each year. But it chimes with what a great many Brits now believe. Poll after poll finds the public convinced that crime is getting far worse — and ready to believe Nigel Farage's summer campaign about 'lawless Britain'. NHS hospital data shows knife assaults last year fell to a 25-year low, with the number treated for violent assault close to half what it was in 2000. Crime surveys agree. By such measures our streets have seldom, if ever, been safer. So what's going on? The answer is not just about crime but about the way social media now acts as a distorting lens through which millions see their country. When shrill voices dominate, hyperbole wins — and Britain is portrayed not just as troubled but in ruins, terrorised by immigrant-driven crime, even close to civil war. And if the official figures show none of this? Well, then those figures must be wrong. Once this might have been dismissed as digital drivel. But in an era where more people get their news from social media than any newspaper, it matters — and it can change politics. If enough voters think that Britain is descending into chaos, it creates a new political force, one where 'the British state' is secretive, malign and run by the reviled elite. Such language is working well for Nigel Farage, whom polls put on course to be the next prime minister. Rather than challenge all this, the Tories are trying to copy him. • Precrime profiling is no longer a fantasy The gap between the public debate and reality becomes so wide that many voters may no longer see the country they actually live in, or recognise the real progress that's been made. It becomes impossible to believe what the facts do seem to suggest: that our society, for all its faults, is probably safer, richer and better than any before it. Today, progress is the truth that dare not speak its name. Major environmental and social achievements are barely known and, when mentioned, universally disbelieved. The global fall in crime — driven by advances in forensics, the ubiquity of cameras and smarter policing — has been met with a global disbelief. Such scepticism is partly human nature: as living standards rise, expectations rise faster. What was once extraordinary soon becomes the baseline; discontent becomes the norm. Which is just as well, because discontent remains the engine of human progress. But in Britain, there's more to it. Some crime is genuinely surging, such as shoplifting and snatch theft. This is all too visible, while the fall in violence and burglary is invisible. This imbalance hits perceptions: people who notice their local store starting to security-tag lamb joints will not believe crime has halved. The picture isn't helped by improvement in how police record crime, which can make it harder to disentangle reporting quirks from real trends. Most crimes have always gone unreported. That's why the Thatcher government set up the Crime Survey, asking thousands of households if they have suffered crime and, if so, what type. It shows that over the past 20 years — that is since the start of Strictly Come Dancing — robbery is down 60 per cent. Bike theft and car theft have both halved. Burglary is down by two-thirds. And all violent crime? According to the survey, it has halved since 2005. When Tony Blair won his third term, even he would never have dared to predict that a collapse in crime was under way. Even now it is, quite literally, unbelievable. The Violence Research Group at Cardiff University keeps a tab on this, checking surveyed crime against hospital trends. 'Serious violence in England and Wales has decreased substantially,' it concludes in its latest report. 'This message needs to be much better known, not least because it reflects better prevention and because fear of violence, often stoked by reports of rare tragic violent events, corrodes individual and community wellbeing.' Why isn't the message better known? When violence strikes, it can be spectacular. When progress happens slowly, invisibly or against the grain of received wisdom, it lacks a natural spokesman. The Tories won't be believed and their new opponents want to tell a very different story indeed. 'Politics is about sales,' Farage once said. 'It's about selling ideas, it's about selling hope. Sometimes, it's about selling fear.' The narrative of a migrant-driven crimewave — so powerful for European populists — has always been harder to get going in Britain. Our immigrant population has certainly doubled, but crime halved over the same time. But individual stories, especially horrific crimes, can be highlighted and amplified to create the idea of a national crisis. The AfD pioneered this in Germany with press releases ten years ago. In recent months some British social media accounts have started a kind of ethnic-minority Crimewatch, scouring the local press for stories, then presenting them as a national metaphor. • Man arrested over death of Shona Stevens more than 30 years ago Matthew Goodwin, a former University of Kent politics professor, now a GB News presenter, has become adept at all this and is emerging as philosopher king of political doomscrolling. If you wish to be told that our society is about 'to blow', or see his calculations about how white Brits will be in the minority by 2063, you can join the 82,000 subscribers to his Substack. As an academic, Goodwin established himself as the most thoughtful analyst of the populist right. His switch from observer to activist has been fascinating to watch. Other actors have rushed on to the new stage. An online video from Crush Crime, a grassroots group 'campaigning to make Britain safer', drew 3.6 million views after declaring 'theft has become legal in Britain'. Some '207,000 bikes were stolen in 2023', it proclaimed. It didn't say that this has halved over the past 15 years. When a poll found that 57 per cent of women feel unsafe in the streets of London, Goodwin popped up to 'say out loud' that 'a big reason is mass uncontrolled immigration'. If so, why would far larger surveys show a three-decade rise in the proportion of British women saying they feel safe walking home at night? All this is not fake news. It's truth-adjacent: the almost surgical use of a real figure to create a false impression, while avoiding context that would shatter the illusion. A 'think tank', real or concocted, can declare, for example, that Afghans are 22 times more likely to rape: a technically defensible but fundamentally misleading mirage. We now have a new digital news architecture hungry for such figures, unlikely to scrutinise their robustness or provenance. Government failure to publish real figures creates a blank canvas. This resonates because it's based on an important truth: a great many Afghans and others arrived on small boats, paying people-smugglers. They're unvetted. Lawbreakers. More of a risk. The Tories oversaw this and Labour can't control it, making fertile ground for Reform. But to make this into a tale of a 'lawless' country is impossible to reconcile with the general collapse in crime shown by the Crime Survey for England & Wales. So: what to do? Last week Farage came up with an answer. The Crime Survey is invalid, he said, 'discredited', simply because, being a victim-based survey, it excludes shoplifting. He'd stick to police records, which are easier to cherry-pick. But most of all, he said, 'We all know that crime has risen significantly over the course of the last few years.' On one hand, four decades of crime data and nationwide NHS hospital data. On the other hand, what 'we all know'. This is the politics of perception. What of critics publishing annoying, contrary data? Farage opened a recent press conference by dealing with one: me. Nelson thinks that 'all is well with the world and there's absolutely nothing to worry about at all', he said. I think there's plenty to worry about — but I'd also argue not just that the streets are safer but that, in general, this is probably the best time to be alive. That is to say: if you could choose any era to live in Britain, but not your place in society, you'd choose right now. I'm in no doubt how aloof, how Marie Antoinette-ish this sounds: the leitmotif of the out-of-touch elite. Farage has a point. I've lived in a Highland town and on a decaying council estate. I've lived on an overseas military base and, now, in suburbia. None of these experiences give me a national view. That's why I've spent a career collecting the data: to check my own instincts and prejudices. I started doing so as a young reporter at this paper, hoping to find stories and show how bad the world was. To my shock, the world was not just getting better but at an unprecedented pace. The turn of the millennium had ushered in a wave of globalisation that was lifting millions out of poverty, making the world not just richer but more equal. Incremental improvements had been changing lives more profoundly than the dramas that dominate headlines. Newspapers tend to accentuate the negative because readers want to know what's going wrong, what threats may be brewing. But newspapers also deploy balance and perspective, mixing darkness with light. Journalism is anchored to facts: no one pays to read junk. And almost no one pays for social media. It's a device selling people's attention to advertisers, with algorithms designed to engage (or enrage), to keep you hooked. Yet most Brits now use social media as a news source. The overall picture people have is of a world getting worse, not better. Many big trends are almost unheard of, let alone believed. Take the climate. The Times commissioned YouGov to find out how many would think UK's greenhouse gas emissions have fallen by about half since 2000. The answer: only 12 per cent. And how many think the number of assaults resulting in hospital treatment each year in Britain has reduced by around a half? Just 22 of the 2,247 people surveyed: that is to say, 1 per cent. Sadiq Khan campaigned on London's air quality 'emergency' and he's quite right to say that dirty air costs lives. But what he doesn't say is that, even before Ulez, the city's air was far purer than at any point in its measurable history. In fact, nationwide, levels of every major pollutant — sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10) — have at least halved since 2000. Our poll shows only 11 per cent are aware of this achievement. The recent alarm over river quality is a classic example. Rivers were long used as sewers: less so, as standards rose. Now we have real-time flow meters, in-situ water quality testing and more. New disclosure rules revealed the storm-water sewage situation, to justifiable outrage. But it's not new: it's just visible. Before, it wasn't. When the Kinks released Waterloo Sunset in 1967 the 'dirty old river' was biologically dead. Now the Thames teems with dozens of varieties of fish: as does the Mersey and Humber. When a child is killed on the road, it reverberates. Less so figures showing that airbags, speed limits and other safety advances have halved road deaths over the past 20 years. If you lose a relative to breast cancer, it's of no comfort to know that better detection and treatment has almost halved its mortality rate since 1990. Or that deaths from stroke and heart disease, two of our biggest killers, also halved over the same period. We bank these improvements: and we should. Far too many still die on the roads and from cancer. That's where the attention should be focused. But it shouldn't hurt to look back, to see how far we've come — and use that to inspire hope, rational optimism, in what can be achieved next. 'I wish there was a way to know you're in the good old days before you've actually left them,' said Andy Bernard in the American version of The Office. But was life really better in the 1950s, when thousands died from smog and most lived in what's now called absolute poverty? Or the 1960s, when just one in ten children made it to sixth form, let alone to university? Even going back to 1995 would mean an average 25 per cent pay cut in today's money. And none of today's digital comforts. Economic advances slowed to a near halt after the 2008 crash: today's living standards are still lower than then. A genuine scandal. But progress in health, tech, crime and the environment continued. The arrival of AI opens the prospect of another era of scientific, health and economic advances. The biggest problem facing any country is demographic collapse, and almost every country in Europe is bracing itself for a steep decline in its working age population. But not Britain. Alone in Europe, we're projected to grow at a normal rate. If demographics is destiny, ours is pretty strong. Our problems are significant: record taxes alongside creaking public services, and welfare dysfunction that scars communities. A small-boats crisis that the government is unable to resolve. Reform UK is being powered not simply by digital black magic but genuine despair at both Labour and a Tory party still unsure if it wants to fight Farage or copy him. Politically, it makes perfect sense for Reform to stoke despair by telling a story of Britain close to 'societal collapse'. It just doesn't make sense to believe it. Perhaps the ultimate sign of national confidence is the migration figures: not so much the arrivals, but the departures. Last year, just 77,000 Brits emigrated, the lowest since records began. Among those who remain, I like to think, are some who share my deeply unpopular belief: that in spite of our problems, this is an amazing country. And that now, more than ever, there is no better place in the world to call home.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Netanyahu's plan to take over Gaza sparks anger and threat of sanctions from allies
Israel is facing a growing chorus of international condemnation and potential sanctions following Benjamin Netanyahu 's decision to occupy all of Gaza in a renewed offensive. The plans, revealed after a marathon meeting with his cabinet, include a total evacuation of Gaza City - said to completed by October 7 this year - after which the north of the strip will effectively be a free-fire zone for Israel's forces in their final attempt to wipe out Hamas. Netanyahu's new policy has tested close allies as Israel faces accusations of driving Gaza's 2.1 million people close to famine and as its prime minister is indicted for war crimes. In Israel, families of hostages held by militants in Gaza and opposition leaders condemned Netanyahu for a decision that they said would put hostages' lives at risk, adding: 'We can't leave them in the hands of these monsters any longer.' Sir Keir Starmer denounced the decision as wrong and urged Israel to reconsider the new offensive, or it will 'bring more bloodshed'. 'What we need is a ceasefire, a surge in humanitarian aid, the release of all hostages by Hamas and a negotiated solution,' he added. Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey went further, saying: 'Rather than sitting on its hands and issuing strongly worded statements, the UK government needs to take decisive action. Keir Starmer needs to stop the export of all UK arms to Israel - today - and sanction Netanyahu and his cabinet.' Germany, a key European ally of Israel, immediately banned the export of weapons to Israel that could be used in Gaza, a move Netanyahu criticised for rewarding Hamas terrorism. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said van would remain in place 'until further notice' after the 'even harsher military action' by the Israeli military made the chances of a ceasefire increasingly difficult. Elsewhere, Norway's vast sovereign wealth fund is also reviewing its investments in Israeli companies. Ursula von der Leyen, the EU Commission's president, demanded that the plan to take over Gaza 'must be reconsidered', while EU Council President Antonio Costa added that the plans "must have consequences for EU-Israel relations". In its response, Belgium summoned the Israeli ambassador for a dressing down, saying its foreign ministry wanted to "express total disapproval of this decision, but also of the continued colonisation... and the desire to annex the West Bank'. The Netherlands said the Netanyahu plan was 'the wrong move' and was expected to intensify its efforts to impose economic sanctions on Israel by demanding that the EU end its 'association agreement', which gives it some free trade access to Europe. Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey all condemned Israel's plans for what, effectively, will be the open-ended reoccupation of Gaza, which was last controlled by Israel in 2005. Netanyahu is keen to avoid the use of the term 'occupation' and refers to the planned campaign as a 'takeover'. However, there was a resounding silence from the US and Mike Huckabee, Trump 's ambassador to Israel, said that some countries appeared to be putting pressure on Israel rather than on the militant group Hamas, whose deadly attack on Israel in 2023 ignited the war. The Israeli military says it controls around 75 per cent of Gaza. Amir Avivi, a retired Israeli brigadier general, estimated that if the military did take Gaza City, it would give Israel control of about 85 per cent of the strip. Around 900,000 people now live in Gaza City, including many who have been displaced by the military. Under international law, an invading nation is responsible for the well-being of the occupied people – regardless of whether the incoming forces want the responsibility. Netanyahu said on Thursday that Israel did not want to keep the Gaza Strip, but to establish a "security perimeter" and to hand over the territory to Arab forces. Hamas has warned the Israeli government that seizing control of Gaza City would mean 'sacrificing' the hostages inside the besieged enclave. The militant group said the Israeli government "does not care about the fate of its hostages', adding in a statement: 'They understand that expanding the aggression means sacrificing them.' There are an estimated 50 hostages still held in Gaza, of whom Israeli officials believe 20 are alive. Most of those freed so far emerged as a result of diplomatic negotiations. Talks toward a ceasefire that could have seen more hostages released collapsed in July. Mahmoud Abbas, the president of Palestine, described Netanyahu's plan as 'dangerous' and one that could result in an 'unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe'. He added that it is part of a wider policy of 'genocide, systematic killing, starvation, and siege'. The president's office made a direct appeal to Mr Trump to 'intervene to halt the implementation of these resolutions and, instead, to fulfil his promise to end the war and pursue lasting peace'. The Palestinian foreign ministry also warned that the move will push civilians into a 'certain death spiral'. The ministry accused Israel of waging a war against civilians 'without justification', and condemned the UN Security Council's failure to act. Netanyahu has said there will be no end to the war until Hamas is disarmed. A full occupation of Gaza would reverse a 2005 decision in which Israel withdrew thousands of Jewish settlers and its forces, while retaining control over its borders, airspace and utilities. Hamas-led militants triggered the war when they stormed into Israel on 7 October 2023, killing around 1,200 people and abducting 251 people. Israel's retaliatory campaign has killed over 61,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza's Health Ministry.
