'Collective action' against Israel to be decided at global conference
Other European countries involved include Portugal, Spain, Slovenia and Norway.
Jaramillo Jassir, Colombia's vice minister of multilateral affairs, said: 'The assembled states will not only reaffirm our commitment to resist the genocide, but devise a series of specific measures to move from words to collective action.'
READ MORE: 'Patients are dying inside Gaza,': MSF calls for urgent medical evacuations
It aims to build on the work of The Hague Group, launched in the Netherlands in January, which brought together eight countries to impose sanctions on Israel.
They agreed to an arms embargo on Israel and also vowed to prevent ships carrying military fuel or weaponry to the country from docking at their ports if they were believed to be involved in the assault on Gaza.
(Image: NQ)
The inclusion of China, as one of the world's leading economic powerhouses, is significant as the country has been relatively muted in its criticism of Israel to date.
During the brief war between Iran and Israel earlier this year, the Chinese ministry of foreign affairs released a statement saying that 'the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza must not continue', while calling for a two-state solution.
The Hague Group is co-chaired by Colombia and South Africa, with the latter country the instigator of the genocide case faced by Israel at the International Court of Justice.
READ MORE: Labour politicians fail to declare all-expenses-paid trip to Israel
Also in attendance will be Francesca Albanese, the United Nation's special rapporteur on human rights in the West Bank and Gaza, who was recently sanctioned by the US government.
She is expected to say: 'For too long, international law has been treated as optional – applied selectively to those perceived as weak, ignored by those acting as the powerful.
'This double standard has eroded the very foundations of the legal order. That era must end. The law must either be universal, or it will cease to mean anything at all. No one can afford this selective approach.'
Addressing the sanctions imposed on her by the Trump administration, Albanese will say: 'These attacks shall not be seen as against me personally. They are a warning to everyone, who dares defend international justice and freedom.
'But we cannot afford to be silenced – and I know I am not alone. This is not about me or any other single individuals, but about justice for the Palestinian people at the most critical juncture in their history.'
Writing in The Guardian ahead of the conference, Colombian president Gustavo Petro said: 'We can either stand firm in defence of the legal principles that seek to prevent war and conflict, or watch helplessly as the international system collapses under the weight of unchecked power politics.'
The conference will bring together:
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
26 minutes ago
- NBC News
Lawmaker pushes for GNC probe over Chinese ownership and military base access
A U.S. lawmaker is pushing for a federal investigation into GNC, the supplement retailer owned by a Chinese company, over concerns it poses a national security risk on military bases. The move comes as tensions between the U.S. and China grow, with lawmakers warning that personal data and imported ingredients could be 18, 2025
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
As Trump pursues his trade agenda, other countries' views shift on ties with China: From the Politics Desk
Welcome to the online version of From the Politics Desk, an evening newsletter that brings you the NBC News Politics team's latest reporting and analysis from the White House, Capitol Hill and the campaign trail. In today's edition, Scott Bland breaks down new poll numbers that show the world's views shifting on China and the economy. Plus, Sahil Kapur examines how Republican members of Congress are hate-voting for certain pieces of legislation. — Adam Wollner As Trump pursues his trade agenda, other countries' views shift on ties with China Analysis by Scott Bland President Donald Trump's first year back in the White House has coincided with some sharp changes in allied countries' assessments of the importance of Chinese economic ties. That's according to new data from surveys conducted in 25 countries by the Pew Research Center. Pew notes that the changing attitudes also reflect a rebound from low points in the immediate aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic, which began in China. But the data also demonstrates how Trump's presidency and his trade agenda have sharply shifted public opinion in other nations — shifts that could have far-reaching effects for years. In particular, Pew asked whether it was more important for each country surveyed to have close economic ties with the U.S. or China. Generally, the share of respondents choosing China has grown in recent years, while the United States' share has shrunk. But two nations in particular stand out. There's Australia, which this week is hosting military exercises meant to signal strength against China. This year, Australian respondents said 53%-42% that having closer economic ties with China is more important. Four years ago, that was reversed — 52%-39% toward the U.S. And then there's Mexico, one of the biggest U.S. trading partners. Mexican survey respondents have long recognized the importance of the trade relationship with the U.S., but amid the back-and-forth on tariffs this year, they split on whether ties with the U.S. or China were more important. These opinions have shifted over time, and there's no telling where they'll go in the future. But as the U.S. tries to shift its trade policy and tries to counter China geopolitically, these surveys offer some early evidence of backlash in one realm that could affect the other. Republicans keep voting for bills they say they don't like By Sahil Kapur There's a new trend in Congress that has emerged in President Donald Trump's second term: Republican lawmakers across the ideological spectrum keep voting for bills they have publicly criticized. In some cases, GOP members of Congress have explicitly threatened to vote 'no' on bills they say are deeply flawed before eventually folding and voting 'yes.' In others, they warn bills they have voted for will require fixing down the road. A few notable examples: Medicaid: Two weeks after voting to pass a sweeping domestic policy bill that cuts Medicaid by about $1 trillion, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., introduced a bill to repeal some of those cuts. 'Now is the time to prevent any future cuts to Medicaid from going into effect,' Hawley said in a statement. Hawley said he feared the party's megabill would cause long-term harm if the Medicaid cuts are fully implemented, but still voted for it because it will deliver more hospital money for Missouri in the first four years. 'You can't get everything you want in one piece of legislation. I like a lot of what we did. I don't like some of it,' he told reporters after unveiling his own measure on Tuesday. National debt: Nowhere has this dynamic been more pronounced than with the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus, whose members have repeatedly threatened to oppose bills before acquiescing under pressure from Trump. With Trump's megabill, they complained about red ink: It's expected to add $3.3 trillion to the national debt over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. 'What the Senate did is unconscionable,' Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., said in a Rules Committee meeting, vowing that 'I'll vote against it here and I'll vote against it on the floor.' He ultimately voted for that bill, unamended, after conservatives were told Congress would consider future bills to lower the debt. Rescissions: And in the run-up to the votes on a package to cancel $9 billion in previously approved funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting, several Republicans expressed serious concerns with its substance, its deference to the executive branch and the damage it could do to bipartisan dealmaking on government funding in the future. 'I suspect we're going to find out there are some things that we're going to regret. Some second- and third-order effects. And I suspect that when we do, we'll have to come back and fix it,' said Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, before voting in favor of the bill. Bottom line: It isn't unusual for lawmakers to back legislation they call imperfect. But this year, that contrast has become more stark. It comes as Trump has solidified his grasp over the GOP base, resulting in lawmakers growing increasingly leery of crossing him and risking their political futures. Thanks to everyone who emailed us! This week's reader question is on the future of the megabill President Donald Trump signed into law. 'If the Democrats gain control of both chambers of Congress how much of the Republicans bill can they change?' In theory, Democrats could change much, if not all, of what's in the new tax cut and spending law if they were in power in Washington, using the same party-line 'budget reconciliation' process Republicans just utilized. But they won't be in that position for a while — and they may not want to completely do away with the sweeping package. Let's start with the first point. Given Republicans' tiny majority in the chamber and the usual headwinds the party in power faces during a midterm, Democrats have a good shot at winning the control of the House next year. But the Senate is a different story. As we've written, Democrats face an uphill climb to the majority in 2026, and the 2028 map doesn't look much more favorable, with the number of states splitting their presidential and Senate tickets dwindling. Then of course, even if Democrats manage to take control of both chambers of Congress, they won't have an opportunity at the White House until 2028. As for the second point, there are a lot of aspects of the 'big, beautiful bill' Democrats would like to reverse, most notably the cuts to Medicaid and food assistance programs. But there are others, such as ' no tax on tips,' that have garnered support from Democrats. And while Democrats support increasing the current tax rates on the top earners, they wouldn't want the 2017 tax cuts that the law extends to completely expire. That would mean tax hikes on middle- and lower-income Americans, too. 🗞️ Today's other top stories ✉️ Epstein fallout: Trump took legal action less than 24 hours after The Wall Street Journal published an article saying Trump sent a letter to Jeffrey Epstein in 2003 that included a drawing of a naked woman. The Justice Department also filed a motion to unseal grand jury transcripts related to Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's criminal case in Manhattan federal court. 📻 Stations in limbo: After Congress approved a package to cut funding for PBS and NPR, media advocates fear that local public broadcasters will be forced to downsize or shutter, which could have an outsize impact on rural areas. Read more → 🩺 Health care hikes: People who get health insurance through the Affordable Care Act could soon see their monthly premiums sharply increase as subsidies expire and insurers propose a major premium hike for 2026. Read more → 🪙 Crypto crunch: Trump signed the GENIUS Act, the first piece of federal legislation regulating stablecoins, a form of cryptocurrency, into law after it passed through Congress with bipartisan support. Read more → 🤠 Texas two-step: Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin was set to travel to Houston today to meet with Texas Democrats to discuss how to fight back against Republican efforts to redraw the state's congressional maps. Read more → 🌴 Palmetto State dispatch: In conversations with more than a dozen Democrats across the South Carolina, a key presidential primary state, two themes emerged: They want someone ready to 'fight,' but they also want someone who can appeal across party lines. Read more →
NBC News
2 hours ago
- NBC News
Paramount bidder Skydance plays patriotism card in push for deal OK
The head of entertainment group Skydance — poised to take over media conglomerate Paramount Global — told federal officials he is pursuing a focus on 'American storytelling' while touting a new, 'unbiased' editorial direction for CBS News. David Ellison, Skydance's CEO, met with Federal Communications Chairman Brendan Carr to seek approval for his firm's long-in-the-making merger with Paramount, according to a letter from a Skydance lawyer included in a federal filing. The transaction has roiled Paramount subsidiary CBS News and its longtime crown jewel, '60 Minutes,' amid fights over its editorial independence. Ellison is the son of tech billionaire Larry Ellison, a major supporter of President Donald Trump. David Ellison and Skydance's general counsel said they expressed their commitment to embracing 'diverse viewpoints' that will reflect 'the varied ideological perspectives of American viewers,' according to the filing. They also also addressed concerns about potential Chinese influence, saying that China-based tech giant Tencent, which holds a stake in Skydance, will own only a non-voting, passive interest in any new version of Paramount of less than 5%. Paramount, which also owns Comedy Central and its namesake movie studio, among other major media entities, declined to comment. Since Skydance announced its intention to merge with Paramount in an $8 billion transaction a year ago, the deal has faced multiple delays — first under the outgoing Biden administration, then under Trump. The president accused CBS News' marquee program, '60 Minutes,' of distorting an interview with Democratic opponent Kamala Harris during the 2024 election and subsequently filed a lawsuit. While many legal experts viewed the suit as frivolous, media reports said Paramount boss Shari Redstone favored exploring a settlement with Trump as a way to overcome further regulatory hurdles. The settlement, for $16 million, was announced earlier this month. The settlement, and the negotiations leading up to it, rankled several high-profile members of CBS. '60 Minutes' correspondent Scott Pelley said in June that such an agreement would be 'very damaging' to CBS and Paramount. In April, longtime '60 Minutes' editor Bill Owens stepped down, citing the program's loss of editorial independence. CBS News boss Wendy McMahon quit a month later. On Monday's episode of 'The Late Show,' host Stephen Colbert, a frequent Trump critic, blasted the agreement as a 'big fat bribe.' On Thursday, CBS said it would cancel the 32-year-old late night franchise, effective in May, for financial reasons. Trump cheered the announcement Friday on Truth Social, his social media site, saying that he 'absolutely loves' the decision.
