Jeff Bezos reroutes wedding venue amid protest backlash
The lavish celebration was originally set to take place at Scuola Grande della Misericordia, a grand 16th-century Venetian landmark in the heart of the city.
But according to activist group No Space for Bezos, those plans were quietly scrapped after protesters threatened to blockade celebrity arrivals by floating inflatable crocodiles through the canals.
Instead, the reception has reportedly been relocated to the Arsenale di Venezia, a historic former shipyard with fortified walls, a location that's logistically harder for protesters to access and easier for security to lock down, The Guardian reported.
Local media reports have also suggested that the switch was not just about the inflatable reptiles. Rising security concerns, particularly after the US formally entered the Israel-Iran conflict, reportedly prompted further caution, especially with high-profile guests like Ivanka Trump arriving in Venice this week.
In anticipation, security has been ramped up across the city, with particular focus on the Jewish quarter.
Roughly 200 guests are expected for the multi-day affair, including possible appearances from Elon Musk, Kim Kardashian, and Leonardo DiCaprio. An estimated 95 private jets are expected to land at Venice airport between Tuesday and Wednesday.
While the exact details remain under wraps, celebrations are tipped to begin on Thursday.
The couple is expected to marry at the basilica of San Giorgio Maggiore on Friday, followed by a Saturday blowout party.
But activists are not backing down.
Instead of attempting to stop the wedding entirely, organisers say they'll now stage a No Bezos, No War protest march.
'We feel as if we scored a victory,' one unnamed activist told the media.
'The crocodile initiative would have given a bad impression of the city — this is why the venue was changed, even if the authorities might try to claim it was because of the war.'
Posters mocking Bezos, with his head pasted onto a rocket, referencing his Blue Origin space venture, have appeared across the city.
Greenpeace Italia and British protest group Everyone Hates Elon also joined in, unveiling a massive banner in St Mark's Square on Monday that read: 'If you can rent Venice for your wedding, you can pay more tax'. A large banner against Amazon founder Jeff Bezos' planned wedding. Credit: Greenpeace / AP
Greenpeace framed the protest as a message against 'social and climate injustice', arguing Bezos represents an 'economic and social model that is leading us towards collapse'.
But not everyone is siding with the demonstrators. Venice's millionaire mayor, Luigi Brugnaro, who confirmed the wedding plans back in March, said he was ashamed of those protesting about people who 'bring riches' to the city.
Sensing opportunity in the chaos, the mayor of Soàve, a walled town of 7000 people in the Veneto region, offered his own pitch.
He invited the couple to ditch Venice and marry in what he described as 'the most beautiful village in Italy'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
21 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Albanese's Palestine decision achieves nothing but division
The announcement by Hamas founder Hassan Yousef that the organisation applauds Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's recognition of a Palestinian state is, not surprisingly, sending shock waves through the Jewish community (' Anger at PM after praise from Hamas ', August 14). All it is likely to achieve is to divide Australians. The recognition of Palestine may well succeed in the UN General Assembly, which has a large Arab block, but it will be vetoed in the Security Council by the United States, as the US Ambassador to the UN has already indicated her government's opposition. So what will it achieve? A boost in political support for governments in Europe, and perhaps Australia, which have Arab minorities in key parliamentary seats – but the war in the Middle East will continue. Vivienne Parsons, Thornleigh Hassan Yousef is currently residing in an Israeli prison. He has applauded Australia's decision to recognise Palestine. Of course, any sensible, intelligent person or media could see that Hamas is manipulating our government's decision, just as we recognise that the Liberals and Nationals manipulate the facts about the economy, renewables, climate change, cost of living – the list is endless. But don't worry, Opposition Leader Sussan Ley is going to 'unrecognise' Palestinian recognition when she's in government, maybe in about 10 years' time – if they're lucky. John Nelson, Mudgee So Australia has emboldened Hamas. Anything bad Hamas now does will be the Australian government's fault. Do the people who say these things hear themselves? Will the Liberal Party ever stand for anything other than dividing Australia over every contentious issue? The Labor government wants a free and secure Israel and a free and secure Palestine. That's not what Hamas wants. We are not on their side. I am waiting to hear Sussan Ley support the actions of the IDF in Gaza. Let's hear it Sussan, loud and clear. Garry Feeney, Kingsgrove I don't care what terrorist group Hamas has to say unless it is to tell us when they are releasing hostages, recognising the state of Israel, laying down their arms, denouncing terrorism and supporting a democratic state of Palestine – in which they will have and take no part. As for Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu, an alleged war criminal, I am willing to pay his airfare to The Hague. No doubt, both of these developments would establish peace. Neil Kenzler, Haberfield Sussan Ley's statement that Anthony Albanese is 'out of his depth' cannot be left unchallenged. It displays an appalling ignorance of diplomacy. Recognising a Palestine state is vital for peace in the Middle East. The move should have been endorsed by her on a non-partisan basis. In this era of instant communications, world leaders would instantly have been aware of her remarks. They will now think that she is saying that Presidents Myriam Debono of Malta, Marcelo de Sousa of Portugal, Emmanuel Macron of France, and Prime Ministers Keir Starmer of the UK, Mark Carney of Canada, and Christopher Luxon of New Zealand, are also, like Albanese, 'out of their depth'. Being new to the job of leader, she may not be aware that you don't insult world leaders in public, especially those who are friends of Australia. This was an appalling gaffe and one hopes that a senior DFAT official immediately brought it to her attention. Perhaps another stint on the backbench would suit her better. Stephen Healion, Wang Wauk I can't take the federal opposition's outrage at Australia's plan to recognise Palestine seriously. Its biases are so blatant and outrageous. Their unquestioning support for Netanyahu and Israel's actions is an outrage. I can't recall any member of the federal opposition expressing outrage at the incursions by Israelis into the West Bank, or Netanyahu's threat to take over Gaza. Nor can I recall hearing any member of the opposition express outrage over the loss of so many innocent Palestinian lives at the hands of Israel. Jill Napier, Phegans Bay The flood of reports, commentary and letters prompted by the Albanese government's decision to recognise Palestine has sadly swept attention away from Israel's brazen assassination of Al Jazeera correspondent Anas al-Sharif, killing four other staffers in the process (' Israel kills Al Jazeera journalist and four colleagues ', August 12). Israel's claim that he was a Hamas operative has as much credibility as its claim there's no starvation in Gaza. The combination of Israel's refusal to allow foreign journalists into Gaza and its elimination of an estimated 186 local media personnel there should have been regular headline news. It's extraordinary that international and national media outlets have not been persistently highlighting this unconscionable attack on the freedom of the press. Failing this outcry, the only sensible approach one can take to Israel's version of events in Gaza is with a large pinch of salt. Tom Knowles, Parkville (Vic) Climate denial costs Perhaps the climate deniers and obstructors within the Liberal and National parties might sit up and take note, as AGL, Australia's largest power generator, announces its plan to invest billions of dollars in grid-scale batteries and hydropower to mitigate the impact of coal plant outages (' Top polluter looks to buy big batteries as fossil fuel costs rise ', August 14). Belief in climate change or not, AGL has seen its profits decrease due to the increasing costs of sourcing fossil fuels, and outages at unreliable coal-fired power plants. As experts have been telling us for decades, renewable energy sources are both cleaner and cheaper, and their cost keeps falling as the technology improves, while fossil fuel prices spiral upwards. Coupled with the unreliability of aged fossil fuel-fired power stations that are approaching decommissioning, the Coalition must accept that their climate war is lost and that decarbonisation and transition to renewables is the only sensible pathway, both economically and environmentally. The longer they obstruct and delay, the more it will cost us all. Alan Marel, North Curl Curl Time to dump AUKUS I wouldn't take any advice from John Bolton, a former national security adviser to Donald Trump (' Speak out about Chinese threat or risk AUKUS subs ', August 14). He was part of the Project for the New American Century, which promoted global leadership through military might. He actively promoted invading Iraq based on a thin tissue of lies, and although supportive of the Vietnam War, like Trump, he made sure that he didn't serve. People like him are not happy unless planning some sort of war, and China seems to be their latest target. They are happy to blatantly lie to get their preferred outcome. AUKUS will not make Australia safer, it will just paint a big target on us should the current batch of right-wing warmongers in the US get their way. Time to drop the whole thing, count our losses and develop unmanned craft suitable for defending Australia – at a fraction of the cost. Graeme Finn, Campsie Bolton and the US need to understand that any Australian support against China will be contingent on the US embodying the values of freedom and democracy. If they continue along their Trumpian path, this is unlikely to be the case. The communism thing is a furphy. China, Russia and US are fascist, regardless of how they choose to define themselves. Boris Feigin, Narwee Boomer bashers For the most part, I agree with Alexandra Smith's assessment of Gareth Ward and her acknowledgement of Kate Dezarnaulds' courage in speaking out against a renowned litigator (' Ward a rapist and bully but beloved by Boomers ', August 14). But in an age when bigotry and racism are rightfully called out and condemned, it seems that ageism, generalising and vilifying the Boomer generation gets a free pass. May I remind the Herald that the Boomer generation led the charge for social reform, fought and marched for feminist issues, fought and marched against racism and for equality, and protested against war. Our music was the music of protest and struggle for social change and equality for race and gender. We were inspired and we were active. Maybe that's the real reason for 'Boomer bashing'. It was a generation not only of hope, but of action for a better and fairer world. Alph Williams, Red Rock Climate change reality It is not difficult to picture the alleged confrontation centred around Wamberal beachfront erosion (' Police probe as beachfront erosion battle turns violent ', August 14). Homeowners, threatened by the inexorable consequences of global warming will, understandably, take measures in a most probably futile attempt to protect their properties. Beach users, seeing the seashore inevitably transitioning from sandy stretches to walls of concrete and rubble, will also be distressed. The accelerating rise in sea levels is an existential threat, not just to Pacific and Torres Strait islanders, but also to vast swathes of the Australian coastline. Unfortunately, governments at all levels can neither permit landowners the freedom to fortify their properties at the expense of their neighbours, nor can they, in view of vast anticipated future infrastructure costs, start contributing any significant funding to preserve private real estate. Climate change is a reality and is already demanding exceedingly difficult decisions. Roger Epps, Armidale Wamberal is just one of a number of beaches on the NSW coast that was identified by the NSW Water Research Laboratory as far back as the 1970s as in danger of major coastal erosion from entirely normal major east coast storm events – nothing to do with climate change – and because land development had been permitted on the foredunes, damage to private property was at some point inevitable. The only proper solution now is to remove all those dwellings and return the land to coastal open space in which the foredune can do what it has done for millennia – erode and rebuild and protect lands further inshore. Using public funds to build seawalls is a complete waste. It would be better used to buy out the owners. Peter Thornton, Killara As a long-time Central Coast resident, I have often walked on Wamberal beach and watched the sea progressively erode the stairs from those exclusive properties, and then the decks. The seas have been harsh. Nature always wins in the end. This council has the lowest per household income in the Greater Sydney region. Our roads are full of potholes from the massive rains. I know what I want my rates to be spent on. Greg Lewin, Tumbi Umbi Crowded house As a resident of the Hills District, I am also concerned at the number of new apartments, 6000 new dwellings up to 40 storeys, being built in the area (' It's a tsunami': Councils angry at plans to fast-track 70,000 homes', August 14). Most of the development is occurring close to Metro stations, which makes sense, until you realise it runs at capacity during peak hours. Standing room only from Norwest to Gadigal station. Current road infrastructure struggles to cope with morning and afternoon peaks, but it's not that different to rest of Sydney. My biggest concern is that none of this new development is being built as affordable housing. The current wait time for social housing in the Hills District and Blacktown is 10 years. There ought to be a requirement that each of these new developments has a percentage of units set aside for social housing, except that will never happen as local residents and developers will cry 'not in my backyard'. Tim Overland, Castle Hill Sidelining the local council and residents and handing all the power to a three-person committee to make a decision that potentially fundamentally alters the quality of life in a neighbourhood is profoundly undemocratic. There has to be a better way. Alan Morris, Eastlakes Transport tolls Your correspondent claims that 'it is far cheaper to fund the rail system than pour money into the road network' (Letters, August 14). Assuming that is true, the difference is that some roads can be funded by private enterprise as toll roads – no government billions needed. Motorists pay it back over decades. The same is not true of the rail network. The only privately funded rail link in NSW, the Airport Line, requires government subsidies for the non-airport stations, and the airport stations have the equivalent of a toll – a $17 access fee per trip. Brendan Jones, Annandale Gun safety I cannot help but question why an AFP officer was carrying a weapon with a round already in the chamber, and perhaps with the safety catch off (' Police gun fired in airport arrest ', August 14). That's just dangerous. To chamber a round required a deliberate action: both hands on the weapon to inject the bullet into the firing position. The fact that an AFP officer was carrying a ready-to-fire weapon raises serious concerns about AFP training standards and the individual's approach to basic firearm safety. Warren Bowden, Fairlight Falafel politics In the interests of neutrality and harmony it was reasonable for the Merivale establishment to ask customers to remove the keffiyeh (' Falafel eatery turned away diners wearing keffiyehs ', August 14) – provided they also asked customers to remove the kippah. Where will it end? Perhaps those wearing jewellery such as a cross pendant (crucifix) will be next. Janet Cook, Waverton Bad taste Memo to Hugh Marks, who cites Masterchef as his inspiration (' New ABC boss wants global hits from the broadcaster ', August 14). The 'premium' aspect of hopeful amateurs being browbeaten by self-centred prigs is cash. The ABC is a public broadcaster. Making money from broadcasting the anguish of brokenhearted aspirants is not your brief. Quality entertainment, without a mean streak, is. Andrew Cohen, Glebe Working week Although I have never been a union member, I can see where the unions are coming from in advocating a four-day week (' Unions to push for a four-day week', August 14). It might not be suitable for all jobs, but I have observed tradies who work well with a four-day week. They work four 10-hour shifts from Monday to Thursday, thus still working a 40-hour week. Productivity is high, with both clients and workers happy. Robyn Lewis, Raglan As a retiree, I have been considering how I can increase my productivity and reduce my working hours (' What's productivity and how could AI affect it?' August 14). Employing AI will not help, as I prefer to exercise my genuine intelligence rather than an artificial substitute. Here is my plan: more time in bed, thus reducing my working week; lunch out four times weekly instead of three; double my output of secretarial emails on strata issues; and write more letters to the Herald. John Flint, St Leonards
Sky News AU
21 minutes ago
- Sky News AU
Australia's Palestine recognition will not make ‘one iota of difference'
Shadow Minister for Regional Development Anne Webster says the decision by Anthony Albanese and Penny Wong to recognise Palestine will not make 'one iota of difference' to the Israel-Hamas conflict. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has directly quoted a statement made by listed terrorist group Hamas in a bid to dismiss critical media coverage of him which he described as 'propaganda'. 'He has been very happy to present the views of Hamas and not question photos, not question the stories," Ms Webster told Sky News host Chris Kenny. 'Now of course it's in his favour to say, please don't believe what you read from Hamas.'
ABC News
5 hours ago
- ABC News
Israel's targeting of Palestinian journalists in Gaza weakens its 'trust us' approach
In a glossy document it prepared for the world's media to consume, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) laid out evidence it claimed justified the killing of a high-profile Palestinian journalist in Gaza. But if the IDF expected that material to be swallowed without question, it was sorely mistaken — particularly given the targeting of journalists is a war crime under international law. Scepticism regarding anything Israel has to say about its conduct in Gaza has spread far and wide. It's a phenomenon Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself has realised, holding rare press conferences in recent days to target what he calls a "global campaign of lies" against Israel. But the "trust us" mentality employed by Israeli authorities has long lost its power after 22 months of death and destruction in Gaza. In the hours after the IDF killed Al Jazeera correspondent Anas Al-Sharif, described by his colleagues as one of the bravest journalists in Gaza, officials once again published documents claimed to link him with Hamas. One of the records purportedly showed Al-Sharif was a Hamas "team commander" from 2013 to at least 2019. The other suggested he was paid $200 by Hamas in 2017. A third item, said to be a Hamas phone directory, was also included. The reproduced information was provided without any detail other than that it was "obtained during ground operations in Gaza at two separate locations", according to the IDF's international spokesperson on social media. "What we have presented publicly is only a small, declassified portion of our intelligence on al-Sharif leading up to the strike," he posted. Al-Sharif had always denied the allegations against him. Al Jazeera had too. The way the IDF presented the information demanded those reading it to trust that it was accurate and genuine. The Israeli military ratcheted up its allegations against Al-Sharif following the criticism of those documents, publishing photos of the journalist with senior Hamas members, including its former leader Yahya Sinwar. Sinwar was killed by the Israeli forces in October 2024. "Only a terrorist sits in the gatherings of terrorists," the IDF's Arabic spokesperson posted on X. There was no information about where or when the photos were taken, or in what context Al-Sharif was seen with the Hamas officials. The IDF wouldn't comment. The BBC reported Al-Sharif had done some work with Hamas's media unit prior to the war, but the ABC hasn't been able to confirm that. Despite this, Israeli authorities provided no information to justify why other Al Jazeera journalists were killed in the same strike, which targeted a clearly marked media tent near the Al Shifa Hospital. Their names are Mohammed Qreiqeh, Ibrahim Zaher, Moamen Aliwa and Mohammed Noufal. Therein lies the problem. Israel has faced repeated accusations it has deliberately targeted Palestinian journalists trying to tell the story of its war in Gaza — the few journalists able to report firsthand, given Israel bans all foreign media from independently accessing the strip. Israel says the ban is for the safety of the international media. In mid-2024 another Al Jazeera correspondent, Ismail Al-Ghoul, and his cameraman, Rami Al-Rifi, were killed in a strike by Israeli forces. Again, the IDF claimed Al-Ghoul was a Hamas operative, but provided no detail about why Al-Rifi was targeted as well. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) said the evidence Israel relied on to support its claim Al-Ghoul was a member of the militant group, which is a proscribed terrorist organisation under Australian law, was riddled with inconsistencies. The records suggested Al-Ghoul was a ranking member of Hamas's military wing in 2007, when he was just 10 years old. But another line item said he had only been recruited in 2014, RSF said. The organisation reported Israel's military had responded to its questions about the inconsistencies by saying it couldn't be held responsible for Hamas's shoddy record keeping. The Committee to Protect Journalists says at least 186 journalists have been killed since the start of the war in Gaza in October 2023. The UN puts that figure even higher at 242. These are the people responsible for documenting death and destruction on a scale not seen by the world for decades, and showing the horrors of war Israel does not want beamed around the globe. They have been the first on the scene when Israeli strikes have torn through schools and tent communities providing shelter to displaced Palestinians, and have seen the bodies of lifeless aid seekers shot whilst clamouring to secure food rushed past them into makeshift morgues. For every journalist like Anas Al-Sharif, killed with a flimsy public dossier of evidence and following months of blatant threats and mockery directed at him by the IDF, many more have been targeted without any attempt at justification. Israeli authorities reject almost all news coming out of Gaza as Hamas propaganda, despite refusing to allow foreign media in to do the work themselves. It's a convenient position to take. On Sunday, Netanyahu said he had directed the IDF to facilitate access to international press — but, as has been the case throughout the war, this would only be under the strict supervision of Israeli soldiers in designated areas. These are highly controlled and choreographed missions, designed to show the world parts of Gaza Israel believes will shore up support for its offensive in the strip. Last week, ABC News was granted access to one of these "embeds" for the first time since the war began — travelling just inside the Gaza border to an aid depot. Nothing was seen of the destruction beyond its fences. For that, international organisations rely on Palestinians to help tell the story. The "trust us" approach from Israel has been shown to be deeply flawed before. In late 2023, the IDF published video of its then-chief spokesman Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari underneath the Rantisi Hospital in Gaza City. One part of the video showed Hagari pointing to a calendar plastered on the wall which he said recorded guard shifts for Hamas terrorists. Arabic speakers quickly picked up that the writing on the calendar translated to days of the week and not the names of any individuals — and the IDF said Hagari corrected the record soon after. In March 2024, the IDF laid siege to the Shifa Hospital in Gaza City — the same compound which would be the site of Al-Shira's targeted killing almost 18 months later. The IDF and domestic intelligence agency Shin Bet arrested hundreds at the site, including many doctors and health workers. In the hours after the operation, the IDF released a collage of photos of 358 people it said it had detained — but was forced to issue a correction 14 hours later that due to a "human error" some of those featured had not actually been arrested. In March 2025, the IDF faced scathing criticism for killing 15 Palestinian Red Crescent Society paramedics and emergency responders from Gaza's Civil Defense Agency in the south of the strip. Israel's military had vehemently insisted the convoy of ambulances had approached troops without their emergency lights, prompting soldiers to open fire. Days later, video recorded by one of the killed paramedics emerged refuting that. It showed red lights flashing as the group raced along a bombed-out road to help colleagues. Israel continued to insist Hamas operatives were in the convoy, but only named one of them. These are just three examples, and while very different to the circumstances surrounding the killing of Al-Sharif and his colleagues, they show why scepticism abounds. Aside from attacking journalists having a chilling effect, there is the important issue of it being a crime under international law. Additional protocols to the Geneva conventions, which outline humanitarian protections during wars, state that journalists covering wars are entitled to protection. In the same way that Israel claims hospitals in Gaza, for example, lose their protected status under international law when used as shelters for combatants like Hamas, the IDF will argue journalists on the Hamas payroll are also fair targets. But this is where the issue of the strength and plausibility of evidence once more comes to the fore. And it's where Israel is playing the role of judge, jury and executioner and demanding the international community back it in. In addition to what Israel claims shows Al-Sharif was a Hamas operative, Israeli officials are also opposed to the operations of his employer, Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera is one of the only news organisations broadcasting from Gaza around the world due to its network of correspondents there. Other outlets, such as the ABC, rely on freelancers to help gather stories and interviews. Laws prevent Al Jazeera from operating in Israel, and it's been taken off the air. Local authorities argue the Qatari-based network it is a mouthpiece for terrorists, something Al Jazeera unsurprisingly and categorically denies. There was an irony that in the early stages of the January ceasefire, while weekly hostage exchanges were taking place, Israeli television networks were relaying live broadcasts of Al Jazeera Arabic on their own channels. The work of people like Anas Al-Sharif, reporting on the handover of hostages such as Agam Berger, was beamed across Israel at the same time as it was banned across Israel. In Hostage Square in Tel Aviv, his reporting was shown on the big screen while Israelis gasped at the sight and spectacle Hamas made of the event. It was work even Israelis wanted to see, while their government wanted it blocked. And it's work under serious threat if journalists continue to be targeted in future.
