Thousands of Islamists rally in Pakistan against Israel's bombing in Gaza
LAHORE, Pakistan — Thousands of supporters of Pakistan's main religious political party rallied in Lahore on Friday against the United States and Israel over the war in Gaza.
An estimated 15,000 people attended the rally called by Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan, whose head, Naeem Ur Rehman, called on all Muslim nations to announce a holy war to defend Gaza.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
4 hours ago
Trump banned travel from 12 countries, but included some exceptions to avoid legal battles
MIAMI -- The new travel ban on citizens of 12 countries that restricted access to people from seven others includes some exceptions, part of the administration's efforts to withstand the legal challenges that a similar policy known as the 'Muslim ban' faced during Donald Trump's first administration. The ban announced Wednesday applies to people from Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. The restrictions are for people from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela, who are outside the United States and don't hold a visa. Some exceptions apply only to specific countries, like Afghanistan. Others are for most of the countries on the list, or are more general and unclear, like the policies for foreign visitors planning to come to the U.S. for the 2026 World Cup and 2028 Los Angeles Olympics, two of the events President Donald Trump has said he is more excited to host. Some experts agree that the current ban includes exceptions and has fixed some issues that were subject to litigation in the first travel ban. 'Absolutely, the administration is trying to avoid the problems that they had with the first proclamation,' said Jeff Joseph, president-elect at the American Immigration Lawyers Association. He anticipated, nonetheless, that lawsuits are 'going to come anyway.' In one of the most confusing moments of his first administration, Trump issued an executive order in 2017 banning travel to the U.S. by citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries, including Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. People from those countries were barred from getting on flights to the U.S. or detained at U.S. airports after landing. Among them were students, faculty, businesspeople, tourists and people visiting family. The order, dubbed as 'Muslim ban' by critics, faced legal challenges in the courts for about a year and was amended twice after opponents argued in the courts that it was unconstitutional and illegal. A version of the first travel ban was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018. The new ban takes effect Monday at 12 a.m. It does not have an end date. __Green card holders __Dual citizens, including U.S. citizens who have citizenship of the banned countries __Some athletes and their coaches traveling to the U.S. for the World Cup, Olympics or other major sporting events __Afghans who worked for the U.S. government or its allies in Afghanistan or are holders of special visas __Iranians from an ethnic or religious minority who are fleeing prosecution __Certain foreign national employees of the U.S. government that have served abroad for at least 15 years, and their spouses and children __People who were granted asylum or admitted to the U.S. as refugees before the travel ban took effect __People with U.S. family members who apply for visas in connection with their spouses, children or parents __Diplomats and foreign government officials on official visits __People traveling to the U.N. headquarters in New York on official U.N. business __Representatives of international organizations and NATO on official visits in the United States __Children adopted by U.S. citizens Trump said nationals of the countries included in the ban pose 'terrorism-related' and 'public safety' risks, as well as risks of overstaying their visas. Some of these countries, he said, had 'deficient' screening or have refused to take back their citizens. The Proclamation includes exceptions for lawful permanent residents, existing visa holders, certain visa categories and individuals whose entry serves U.S. national interests. Critics of the 2017 ban said that it was racial and targeted Muslim countries. Now the policy is broader and includes countries like Cuba, Haiti and Venezuela — nations that don't have many Muslims. This will make the argument about racial animus, said Joseph, the immigration attorney. The government has also included potential end dates, and the State Department will evaluate the proclamation every 90 days and determine if it should be extended. The list can be changed, the administration said in a document, if authorities in the designated countries make 'material improvements' to their own rules and procedures. New countries can be added 'as threats emerge around the world.' The travel ban has barred most Afghans hoping to resettle in the U.S. permanently and those hoping to come temporarily, but there are several exemptions. One of them is for special immigrant visa holders who supported the United States' two-decades-long war in Afghanistan. Another exception applies to all countries on the travel ban and allows spouses, children and parents of U.S. citizens to enter the U.S. The U.S. government can decide to admit or decline their entrance on a case-by-case basis, considering if they serve a 'United States national interest.' Iran, a soccer power in Asia, is the only targeted country to qualify so far for the World Cup that will be co-hosted by the United States, Canada and Mexico next year. Cuba, Haiti and Sudan are in contention. Sierra Leone might stay involved through multiple playoff games. Burundi, Equatorial Guinea and Libya have very outside shots. But all should be able to send teams if they qualify because the new policy makes exceptions for 'any athlete or member of an athletic team, including coaches, persons performing a necessary support role, and immediate relatives, traveling for the World Cup, the Olympics, or other major sporting event as determined by the secretary of state.' About 200 countries could send athletes to the Summer Games, including those targeted in the travel restrictions, and the exceptions should apply to them if the ban is still in place in its current form. Fans from the target countries willing to travel to the World Cup and the Olympics are not mentioned in the exceptions. Traveling from abroad for the World Cup and the Summer Games is expensive. In many cases, those who can afford the travel are wealthy individuals or people living in the diaspora, who may have different visa options.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Israel warns of more attacks on Lebanon if Hezbollah not disarmed
The Israeli military will continue to bomb Lebanon if Hezbollah is not disarmed, Israel's Defence Minister Israel Katz has warned, saying 'there will be no calm in Beirut' and 'no order or stability in Lebanon' unless Israel's security is assured. 'Agreements must be honoured, and if you do not do what is required, we will continue to act, and with great force,' the Israeli minister said in a Friday statement. Israel's military launched a series of strikes targeting Beirut's southern suburbs on Thursday night, sending huge numbers of residents fleeing their homes on the eve of the Muslim Eid al-Adha holiday after issuing a forced evacuation order an hour earlier. Israel claimed, without providing evidence, that its latest attack was launched against Hezbollah 'drone factories' in the Lebanese Israeli military said Hezbollah was 'operating to increase production of UAVs [drones] for the next war' with Israel in 'blatant violation' of the terms of November's ceasefire. Lebanon's state-run National News Agency reported that Israeli fighter jets had carried out about a dozen strikes in the attack. A Hezbollah statement said a preliminary assessment showed nine buildings had been destroyed, while dozens of others were damaged. Hezbollah also denied there were drone production facilities in the targeted locations. The Israeli attack was the fourth, and heaviest, carried out targeting Beirut's southern suburbs – a Hezbollah stronghold – since the ceasefire ended hostilities on November 27. Israel's last attack on the Lebanese capital, in which it claimed to destroy 'infrastructure where precision missiles' were being stored by Hezbollah, came in late April. Across Lebanon, Israel has violated the ceasefire on a near-daily basis in the seven months since it was signed, according to the Lebanese government of President Joseph Aoun, Arab nations and human rights groups. Aoun has appealed to the United States and France, guarantors of the November ceasefire, to rein in Israel's attacks. Speaking late on Thursday, Aoun voiced 'firm condemnation of the Israeli aggression', labelling the attacks a 'flagrant violation of an international accord … on the eve of a sacred religious festival'. On Friday, Ali Ammar, a Hezbollah lawmaker, urged 'all Lebanese political forces … to translate their statements of condemnation into concrete action', including diplomatic pressure. In the months since the ceasefire, Israeli strikes in Lebanon have killed at least 190 people and wounded nearly 500 more, the Lebanese government said in the ceasefire agreement, the Lebanese military has been tasked with disarming Hezbollah – a political party and paramilitary group once believed to be more heavily armed than the state. But following Thursday's attack, Lebanon's army warned that such attacks are weakening its role in the ceasefire. It added that Israel rejected its proposal to inspect the alleged drone production sites in southern Beirut in order to prevent an air strike. 'The Israeli enemy violations of the deal and its refusal to respond to the committee is weakening the role of the committee and the army,' the military said in a statement. It added that continued Israeli attacks could lead the army to freeze its cooperation with the monitoring committee 'when it comes to searching posts' and dismantling Hezbollah infrastructure near the Israeli border in southern Lebanon. The war between Israel and Hezbollah re-erupted in the wake of Israel's war on Gaza in October 2023, as the Lebanese group launched cross-border attacks on northern Israel in solidarity with Hamas. Subsequent Israeli attacks on Lebanon killed more than 4,000 people, including hundreds of civilians, before the ceasefire was signed. Hezbollah rocket fire in Israel killed a reported 87 Israeli military personnel and 46 civilians.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump's ban on travel shows what he's learned
When President Donald Trump abruptly unleashed his ban on people coming from Muslim-majority countries in 2017, chaos erupted at U.S. airports. Protests broke out in major cities across the country. Legal challenges stymied the administration, which ultimately had to slim down its order to pass constitutional muster. This time, as Trump leveled new restrictions against 19 nations, the reaction was mostly muted and the legal justification appears more deliberate. It's the nature of the do-over presidency, which has provided Trump with a unique opportunity to build on his first term. And no policy better captures the way in which Trump is demonstrating he's learned from past mistakes or benefitting from a Democratic party less inclined to fight over border security quite like his travel ban 2.0. 'The first version of those travel restrictions were not upheld because the court wanted to see 'what's your methodology, what's the criteria in which you're making these national security decisions?' said Chad Wolf, acting DHS secretary during the president's first term. 'And then once we went back and further validated it and showed the court, they affirmed it. So I definitely think that they built on that, and then probably expanded it as well.' Trump has used his first five months in office to propose a host of immigration-related ideas that he batted around during his first term but ultimately did not pursue, including an attempt to end birthright citizenship and a plan to revoke Chinese student visas. His team has also taken on an aggressive legal strategy, an effort designed to expand the president's power over the immigration system and implement policy changes more difficult for future presidents to unravel. And Trump released dozens of immigration executive orders in his first week in office, many that directed his agencies to begin exploring the sweeping restrictions he promised on the campaign trail — a torrent of action that wouldn't have been possible without the coordination across the president's team, MAGA allies and conservative think tanks that spent the last four years planning a robust policy agenda. To be sure, lawsuits over the new travel ban are in the works. Immigration advocates and some legal experts say the new ban, while perhaps better planned than the original version, is nonetheless unconstitutional. 'The new ban is being promulgated in a context in which President Trump has shown a defiance of due process and disregard for judicial decisions that exceeds anything in his first term,' said Jonathan Hafetz, a law professor at Seton Hall. 'This will also likely factor in how courts evaluate the new travel ban, and could make them more skeptical of the administration's claims but also more wary of directly confronting the administration.' And more broadly, the president's immigration agenda has faced several setbacks, adverse legal rulings and a haphazard approach that has often undermined the administration's case in court. Judges have said immigrants have been wrongly deported — without due process — and have blocked Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 law that the White House relied upon for authority to deport more than 100 accused of gang membership to an El Salvadoran prison. And his hurried deportations tactics have resulted in at least four men being improperly deported in violation of court orders. The administration was forced to bring one of them back to the U.S. in recent days. The White House has also faced steep hurdles in other aspects of its immigration agenda. Judges ruled that his executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship was flagrantly unconstitutional, and the policy faced skepticism from the Supreme Court last month. But when it comes to his new travel ban, legal experts on both sides of the aisle say the president is likely on stronger footing should he face challenges. "Under Trump 2.0 there's been an aspect of doing that legwork in advance, so that it would fall under those parameters,' said Morgan Bailey, a partner at Mayer Brown and a former senior official at DHS under the Biden and Trump administrations. 'There may be some challenges. At the same time, having the Supreme Court decision from Trump 1.0 could put this administration in a really strong position.' Trump's team has been refining his latest travel ban for months, marking a departure from his slapdash approach in 2017. The president on Wednesday said the State Department considered factors such as terrorist activity, visa security cooperation, a country's ability to verify travelers' identities, record keeping of nationals' criminal histories, as well as the rate of illegal visa overstays. The proclamation also broke down the government's reasoning for each country's selection, as well as their visa overstay rates. 'Campaigning is a lot about policy and planning, and governing is about the now and reacting, so this has been a true mix' said Matthew Bartlett, a GOP strategist and former Trump administration appointee. 'Granted, Trump take two has been arguably the largest runway any president has ever had in terms of preparing for their second term. So I think you're seeing more of the granular and nuanced implementation around some of these policies.' Trump's 2017 restrictions shocked the nation, and legal setbacks forced the administration to alter the policy twice before the Supreme Court ultimately upheld a version the following year, affirming the president's powers over matters of national security. The final policy implemented a range of travel restrictions for nationals of eight countries — Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, North Korea, Chad and Venezuela. Chad was later removed from the list. And almost immediately after that first order was announced, thousands of protesters marched in cities across the country, while attorneys from major law firms, nonprofits and immigrant rights groups ran to airports to help those detained. There was widespread Democratic outcry in Washington and beyond, and the so-called 'Muslim ban' emerged as a major issue in the 2020 Democratic Primary — with then-President Joe Biden reversing the policy on his first day in the White House. White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said Democrats have abandoned claims that Trump's first-term policy was a 'Muslim ban' and 'their performative protests,' adding that the president is 'keeping his promises to put America first.' This executive order has also been met with far less outrage, in part, because of the administration's effort to flood the zone and keep their opponents off balance. 'There's just so many attacks coming from the Trump administration on all fronts,' said Kerri Talbot, co-director of the Immigration Hub, predicting that when the new order takes effect on Monday, there will be coordinated demonstrations. But the more methodical way in which this ban on travel was issued may give it greater staying power. The 2017 ban applied to U.S. citizens traveling from the nations on Trump's original list and because it went into effect immediately, it affected people on planes flying back into the country. The ban issued late Wednesday does not apply to those with legal status in the U.S., and includes exemptions for existing visa holders, lawful permanent residents and some others. While the political pushback may be scarce, Trump wasn't the only one who had extra time to prepare for his second term. Immigration groups and legal organizations have analyzed Trump's proposals, drafted legal briefs, coordinated messaging and organized aid for immigrants and asylum seekers — preparation that has set up a series of contentious court battles. Trump allies are prepared for the possibility that travel ban 2.0 could face challenges in the courts, though they're much more confident given the 2018 SCOTUS ruling. 'I have no doubt that they believe that you can get some lower court judge to issue an injunction where they claim that somehow this order is different from the prior order,' said Hans Von Spakovsky, a senior legal and judicial studies fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. 'But they will lose.' Brakkton Booker and Kyle Cheney contributed to this report.
