Thousands protest in Afghanistan to support Gaza
Thousands of Afghans protested across the country on Friday against the Israeli bombardment in Gaza, responding to a nationwide call by the Taliban authorities.
Large crowds gathered in several cities after Friday prayers waving Palestinian flags and burning pictures of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
"We are out in support with Gaza. And to show the world that Gaza is not alone, we are standing with them. Wherever Muslims are oppressed, we strongly defend them and condemn it," said 28-year-old Jannat, who goes by one name, in the capital Kabul.
Negotiations to end nearly 20 months of war have so far failed to achieve a breakthrough, with Israel resuming operations in Gaza in March, ending a six-week truce.
Israel has in recent days partially eased a total aid blockade on the Palestinian territory that it imposed on March 2.
The blockade led to severe shortages of food and medicine with the United Nations warning that "100 percent" of Gazans are at risk of famine.
Taliban Prime Minister Hassan Akhund condemned on Friday Israel's actions in Gaza, labelling them a "genocide" and expressing growing concern over the escalating violence against Palestinian civilians.
"The situation continues to deteriorate daily, in blatant violation of fundamental humanitarian principles," he said in a statement.
The Taliban government, which is not internationally recognised, has long maintained vocal support for the Palestinian cause and regularly condemns Israeli actions in the occupied territories.
ash/ecl/tc
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
10 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Map Shows Iran's Adversaries in Key Nuclear Vote
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors has declared that Iran has not complied with its nuclear obligations in a vote following a resolution, backed by the United States and the E3 (Britain, France, and Germany). The resolution was passed with 19 votes in favor. Three countries voted against, 11 abstained and two countries did not vote, according to multiple media reports. Iran described it as a "politically motivated" resolution and said it will build a new uranium enrichment facility in a secure location, state media Press TV reported after the vote. Newsweek has contacted the IAEA for comment. Why It Matters The IAEA resolution could lead to the reimposition of sanctions on Iran under UN Security Council Resolution 2231. Iran has warned this would trigger a strong response, including limiting IAEA cooperation, boosting uranium enrichment, or quitting the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Increased tensions raise the risk of military escalation between Iran and the United States—with prospects also rising for an Israeli strike—which could trigger a wider Middle East conflict involving regional allies. What To Know On Thursday, the UN nuclear watchdog's board of governors officially determined that Iran has failed to meet its nuclear obligations for the first time in two decades, with 19 countries voting for the resolution, according to The Associated Press. The resolution said "Iran failed to provide credible explanations for nuclear material at three undeclared locations," according to a copy published by Al-Jazeera English TV channel. The IAEA held a board session Wednesday on Iran's nuclear program, during which Britain, France, and Germany warned Iran that its escalating nuclear activities—such as 60 percent enrichment of uranium and expansion of centrifuge and stockpile limits—undermine the JCPOA, a 2015 deal with Iran, but did not call for immediate punitive steps. The resolution seeks to prompt Iran to resolve the issue without immediately referring its non-compliance to the U.N. Security Council for sanctions, giving Iran a window to address six years of outstanding requests, a Western diplomat told The Associated Press earlier in June. The push followed IAEA chief Rafael Grossi's reports uncovering undisclosed nuclear activities in Iran. Grossi said Iran had undermined the agency's ability to monitor Iran's JCPOA commitments and removed all related surveillance and monitoring equipment in 2022. Timely meeting in Cairo with Egypt's @MfaEgypt Badr Abdelatty and Iran's Foreign Minister @araghchi. Grateful for Egypt's constructive role in supporting peaceful, diplomatic solutions to regional challenges. — Rafael Mariano Grossi (@rafaelmgrossi) June 2, 2025 Iran criticized the resolution and dismissed Grossi's report, warning of serious consequences if the U.N. Security Council imposes new sanctions, Iran's UN Ambassador Reza Najafi told the board, according to the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA). Russia's envoy to the IAEA, Mikhail Ulyanov, supported Tehran's position, saying that "the United States and then the E3 deliberately sabotaged the implementation of the nuclear deal," he said, referring to the JCPOA." Gulf states and other Arab and Middle East countries have supported diplomatic efforts and mediated rapprochement with Iran, but remain cautious and neutral, mindful that regional security would be at serious risk if war erupts. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a nuclear deal which lifted sanctions in exchange for nuclear limits, was disrupted by the U.S. withdrawal in 2018 and is set to fully expire in October 2025. What People Are Saying U.S. President Donald trump told "Pod Force One" podcast on the nuclear deal: "I'm getting more and more less confident about it. They seem to be delaying, I think that's a shame. I'm less confident now than I would have been a couple of months ago. Reza Najafi, Iran's Permanent Ambassador to the UN office and international organizations in Vienna, as quoted by IRNA: "Since the E3 has seriously violated Resolution 2231 and the JCPOA, they are neither in a moral nor legal position to activate the snapback mechanism. If such a scenario unfolds, Iran's options will be firm, and the United States and the E3 will bear full responsibility." France, Germany and the UK (E3) joint statement, published by the British government's website: "Iran must halt and reverse its nuclear escalation and refrain from making threats regarding a change of its nuclear doctrine, which are in themselves highly destabilising and not consistent with Iran's status as a state without nuclear weapons under the NPT." What Happens Next Washington and Tehran are scheduled to resume nuclear negotiations on Sunday in Oman amid key disagreements on enrichment and sanctions' relief.
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
UN nuclear watchdog finds Iran isn't complying with its obligations
VIENNA (AP) — The U.N. nuclear watchdog's board of governors on Thursday formally found that Iran isn't complying with its nuclear obligations for the first time in 20 years, a move that could lead to further tensions and set in motion an effort to restore United Nations sanctions on Tehran later this year. Iran reacted immediately, saying it will establish a new enrichment facility 'in a secure location' and that 'other measures are also being planned.' 'The Islamic Republic of Iran has no choice but to respond to this political resolution,' the Iranian Foreign Ministry and the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran said in a joint statement. Nineteen countries on the International Atomic Energy Agency's board, which represents the agency's member nations, voted for the resolution, according to diplomats who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe the outcome of the closed-doors vote. Russia, China and Burkina Faso opposed it, 11 abstained and two did not vote. In the draft resolution seen by The Associated Press, the board of governors renews a call on Iran to provide answers 'without delay' in a long-running investigation into uranium traces found at several locations that Tehran has failed to declare as nuclear sites. Western officials suspect that the uranium traces could provide evidence that Iran had a secret nuclear weapons program until 2003. The resolution was put forward by France, the U.K., Germany and the United States. Speaking to Iranian state television after the vote, the spokesman for the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran said that his agency immediately informed the IAEA of 'specific and effective' actions Tehran would take. 'One is the launch of a third secure site' for enrichment, spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi said. He did not elaborate on the location. Iran has two underground sites at Fordo and Natanz and has been building tunnels in the mountains near Natanz since suspected Israeli sabotage attacks targeted that facility. The other step would be the advanced centrifuges at Fordo. 'The implication of this is that our production of enriched materials will significantly increase,' Kamalvandi said. According to the draft resolution, 'Iran's many failures to uphold its obligations since 2019 to provide the Agency with full and timely cooperation regarding undeclared nuclear material and activities at multiple undeclared locations in Iran ... constitutes non-compliance with its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement.' Under the so-called safeguards obligations, which are part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran is legally bound to declare all nuclear material and activities and allow IAEA inspectors to verify that none of it is being diverted from peaceful uses. The draft resolution also finds that the IAEA's 'inability ... to provide assurance that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively peaceful gives rise to questions that are within the competence of the United Nations Security Council, as the organ bearing the main responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.' The vote comes at a sensitive time as tensions in the region have been rising, with the U.S. State Department announcing on Wednesday that it is drawing down the presence of people who are not deemed essential to operations in the Middle East. U.S. President Donald Trump has previously said that Israel or the U.S. could carry out airstrikes targeting Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations failed. The U.S. and Iran have been holding talks on Tehran's rapidly advancing nuclear program. Oman's foreign minister said earlier Thursday that a sixth round of negotiations will be held in his country on Sunday. The draft resolution makes a direct reference to the U.S.-Iran talks, stressing its 'support for a diplomatic solution to the problems posed by the Iranian nuclear program, including the talks between the United States and Iran, leading to an agreement that addresses all international concerns related to Iran's nuclear activities, encouraging all parties to constructively engage in diplomacy.' A senior Western diplomat last week described the resolution as a 'serious step,' but added that Western nations are 'not closing the door to diplomacy on this issue.' However, if Iran fails to cooperate, an extraordinary IAEA board meeting will likely be held in the summer, during which another resolution could get passed that will refer the issue to the Security Council, the diplomat said on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the issue with the media. The three European nations have repeatedly threatened in the past to reinstate sanctions that have been lifted under the original 2015 Iran nuclear deal if Iran does not provide 'technically credible' answers to the U.N. nuclear watchdog's questions. The authority to reestablish those sanctions by the complaint of any member of the original 2015 nuclear deal expires in October, putting the West on a clock to exert pressure on Tehran over its program before losing that power. The resolution comes on heels of the IAEA's so-called 'comprehensive report' that was circulated among member states last weekend. In the report, the U.N. nuclear watchdog said that Iran's cooperation with the agency has 'been less than satisfactory' when it comes to uranium traces discovered by agency inspectors at several locations in Iran. One of the sites became known publicly in 2018, after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu revealed it at the United Nations and called it a clandestine nuclear warehouse hidden at a rug-cleaning plant. Iran denied this, but in 2019, IAEA inspectors detected the presence of uranium traces there as well as at two other sites.
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
IU's governance crisis reflects dangerous trend undermining democracy
Recent commentary in IndyStar defended Indiana University's leadership and questioned the focus and intensity of faculty criticism. But what's happening at IU isn't just a campus controversy — it's part of a national trend. Across the country, public institutions are quietly dismantling the democratic processes that once guided their decisions. IU has become a flashpoint not because of any one leader or protest, but because it shows how shared governance and expert input are being replaced by top-down control. For over a century, American universities have followed a model known as shared governance. That means faculty, administrators and trustees work together to shape a school's mission and values. It's not just tradition — it's a safeguard. It ensures that decisions about teaching, research and student life are made by the people who do the work. In recent years, IU's shared governance has been steadily eroded through a series of top-down decisions. The April 2024 no-confidence vote in President Pamela Whitten by IU Bloomington faculty — 827 to 29 — wasn't about politics or personalities. It was a response to a pattern: refusing to recognize graduate workers' union efforts; sending state police to arrest peaceful protestors in Dunn Meadow; and canceling a long-planned exhibition by Palestinian-American artist Samia Halaby without consulting curators or faculty committees. These decisions bypassed longstanding university processes like faculty review, shared governance consultation and curatorial oversight — processes that have historically guided how academic and cultural decisions are made. Now, that erosion has been written into law. Indiana's House Enrolled Act 1001, passed in 2024, officially reduced faculty governance to an 'advisory only' role. Some argue that faculty governance was always advisory in practice — but this law removes any doubt. It replaces collaboration with control. Opinion: I was running for IU Board of Trustees — until Mike Braun took it over What is happening at IU is a symptom of a pattern playing out more broadly. We're seeing the slow dismantling of democratic decision-making in public institutions. At the federal level, the National Institutes of Health was recently blocked from posting notices in the Federal Register, which froze the review of over 16,000 new research grant applications — worth about $1.5 billion. Around the same time, the agency abruptly canceled more than 1,400 already awarded grants, halting active research projects without the usual expert review or explanation. Both the review of new applications and the continuation of awarded grants typically rely on deliberative panels of scientists to ensure decisions are fair, transparent and based on merit. In both of these cases, those processes were bypassed. Though some meetings have resumed, the damage is clear: Critical systems can be disrupted with little warning and no input from the people who are supposed to guide them. Other federal agencies have followed suit. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration have recently bypassed their own expert advisory committees in making major public health decisions. The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee was not convened to review or vote on the 2024–2025 influenza vaccine strain selection, breaking with decades of precedent. Around the same time, both ACIP and VRBPAC were sidelined in the rollout of new COVID-19 vaccine guidance and, just this week, the entire 17-member ACIP committee was fired. A top CDC vaccine adviser resigned, citing concerns that the agency was ignoring its own deliberative processes. Whether in universities or federal agencies, the pattern is the same: Leaders are cutting out the people who should have a voice. That might seem faster or easier — but it comes at a profound and ultimately self-defeating cost. When decisions are made without input from those most affected, institutions don't just lose trust — they undermine their own legitimacy and effectiveness. And in a democracy, trust is everything. Opinion: IU deserves a serious president. Pamela Whitten must go. This isn't a partisan issue. No matter your politics, the loss of open, thoughtful decision-making should be alarming. Processes like faculty governance, peer review and public advisory boards aren't meant to slow things down or push a political agenda. They exist because they lead to better decisions. When they're ignored, we don't just lose transparency. We lose trust. Indiana's public universities — and all public institutions — can only succeed when decisions are made with the people who do the work, not imposed on them from above. When we exclude the experts, educators, scientists, and advisors who sustain these institutions, we don't just weaken the process. We weaken the outcomes. Gabriel Bosslet, is a professor of clinical medicine and Tracey Wilkinson an associate professor of pediatrics at the Indiana University School of Medicine. This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: Indiana University's shared governance is under attack | Opinion
