UAE National Guard rescues 24 after tanker collision
The incident took place 24 nautical miles off the coast of the UAE, with the crew evacuated to Khorfakkan Port using search and rescue boats.
Amid speculation, British maritime security firm Ambrey earlier reported that the cause of the incident was not security related.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Middle East Eye
2 days ago
- Middle East Eye
Sally Rooney vows to keep backing Palestine Action despite UK ban
Irish novelist Sally Rooney has pledged to continue backing Palestine Action despite the group's recent designation as a proscribed terrorist organisation in the UK. Writing in the Irish Times on Saturday, the author criticised the arrests of more than 500 demonstrators protesting the ban of the direct action group in London last weekend. Many of those detained carried signs such as: 'I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action.' The government outlawed Palestine Action on 4 July, placing it on a par with al-Qaeda and the Islamic State under British law. It is now a criminal offence to show or encourage support for the group, punishable by up to 14 years in prison under Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Critics say the ban could be used to muzzle the right to protest and criticism of Israel. "Palestine Action... is responsible for zero deaths and has never advocated the use of violence against any human being," the Intermezzo author wrote. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters "Why then are its supporters arrested for wearing T-shirts, while murals celebrating loyalist death squads are left untouched?" she asked, referring to a mural in Belfast depicting the Ulster Volunteer Force, a Loyalist Northern Irish paramilitary group proscribed under the same anti-terror laws. Since the controversial ban of Palestine Action, more than 700 people have been arrested at peaceful demonstrations in support of the group. Last week's events marked the largest mass arrest in the history of London's Metropolitan Police. According to police figures, nearly 100 of those arrested at the Palestine Action sit-in were in their 70s, while 15 of them were over 80 years of age. BBC royalties for Palestine Action Rooney, whose novels Normal People and Conversations with Friends have been adapted for television by the BBC, said she would use residual fees from those broadcasts to continue aiding the group. 'I too support Palestine Action. If this makes me a 'supporter of terror' under UK law, so be it,' she wrote. 'My books, at least for now, are still published in Britain, and are widely available in bookshops... In recent years the UK's state broadcaster has also televised two fine adaptations of my novels... I want to be clear that I intend to use these proceeds of my work, as well as my public platform generally, to go on supporting Palestine Action and direct action against genocide in whatever way I can.' She added that she would 'happily publish the same statement in a UK paper' but said that would now be prohibited by law. Online, Rooney's statement sparked widespread discussion, with much of the reaction supportive of her stance. One social media user said: 'Sally getting on the right side of history by getting on the wrong side of UK law and the Labour Party.' Not all heroes wear capes — Zeitgeist (@AshVbl) August 17, 2025 Another stated: 'Comrade Rooney has not put a foot wrong. Brave, solid, consistent. Others could learn from her.' Meanwhile, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, writing in the Observer over the weekend, defended the proscription, saying Palestine Action was not "lawful protest". The Metropolitan Police confirmed on Friday that a further 60 people will face prosecution for showing support for the group. Middle East Eye reached out to Rooney for comment but did not receive a response in time for publication.
Middle East Eye
5 days ago
- Middle East Eye
Exclusive: ICC arrest warrant applications ready for Israel's Ben Gvir and Smotrich on apartheid charges
Arrest warrant applications against two prominent Israeli ministers on charges of apartheid are ready and with two deputy prosecutors at the International Criminal Court (ICC), Middle East Eye can reveal. If the warrants for National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich are issued, it will be the first time that the crime of apartheid is charged at an international court. ICC Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan had prepared cases against Ben Gvir and Smotrich before he went on leave in May, according to numerous sources in the court with knowledge of the matter. "Those applications for the arrest warrants are completely done," an ICC source told MEE. "The only thing that didn't happen was submitting them to the court," the source said on condition of anonymity. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters MEE can reveal that the deputy prosecutors have the power to submit them to pre-trial judges for examination, but some within the ICC believe the applications will be quietly shelved as the court faces unprecedented external pressure. The newly elected US administration under Donald Trump sanctioned Khan in February, and he went on leave in May amid a UN investigation into sexual misconduct allegations against him, which he has denied. 'If the Ben Gvir and Smotrich applications just disappear, the opportunity to prosecute one of the most blatant examples of apartheid in the world today will likely be lost forever' - ICC source In June, the US further sanctioned four ICC judges. This included two judges who approved Khan's application for arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant and three Hamas leaders last November. MEE revealed earlier this month that Khan has been subjected to a string of threats and warnings by prominent figures, including former British Foreign Secretary David Cameron, as well as close colleagues and family friends briefing against him, and fears for the prosecutor's safety prompted by a Mossad team in The Hague. Khan nevertheless filed applications on 20 May 2024 that culminated in arrest warrants being issued for Netanyahu and Gallant that November. 'There was no more work to do on the applications' MEE understands that despite continued pressure, the prosecutor's team of lawyers continued investigating alleged Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity in the occupied West Bank. But before he could file the applications, Khan went on leave following a failed attempt to suspend him. "Karim was ready," the ICC source told MEE. "There was no more work to do on the applications. They're not being drafted. They weren't being revised. They were done. "All that was left to do was follow court procedures for submitting an application. But Karim didn't have time to do that because everything moved so quickly. And then he stepped aside." Exclusive: How Karim Khan's Israel war crimes probe was derailed by threats, leaks and sex claims Read More » An ICC statement at the time said Khan's deputies would continue his work across all cases, including the Palestine investigation. But whether the Ben Gvir and Smotrich warrant applications were filed would not be public knowledge, since the court ordered in April that any further requests cannot be publicised. Two ICC sources told MEE that the two deputy prosecutors, Nazhat Shameem Khan and Mame Mandiaye Niang, have not filed the applications due to the threat of US sanctions. British-Israeli ICC defence lawyer Nicholas Kaufman told Israel's Kan public broadcaster in June that the US sanctions on four ICC judges were "meant to be designed to encourage the dropping of the arrest warrants for Prime Minister Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Gallant". Kaufman added: "Accordingly, most commentators believe that [sanctioning the judges] is a further warning shot over the bows, if I can put it that way, before the sanctioning of the deputy prosecutors who've now taken over from Karim Khan." When asked by MEE to comment on the status of the Ben Gvir and Smotrich applications, and whether fear of sanctions has delayed their submission, the prosecutor's office said: "The office cannot provide comments on matters related to ongoing investigations and any specific charges that may arise in relation to situations addressed by the office. This approach is essential to protect the integrity of investigations, and to ensure the safety and security of victims, witnesses and all those with whom the office interacts." Khan declined to comment in response to a request from MEE. 'Justice delayed is justice denied' Raji Sourani, a lawyer representing Palestine at the ICC and ICJ, criticised the deputy prosecutors for their delay in applying for the warrants. "For us, they are very late. What are they waiting for? They have everything," he told MEE. "Justice delayed is justice denied." One ICC source said they feared the case would never see the light of day. "There were months and months of intense work that went into them. These are really serious documents documenting really serious crimes. "If the Ben Gvir and Smotrich applications just disappear, the opportunity to prosecute one of the most blatant examples of apartheid in the world today will likely be lost forever." Le Monde publishes new details of campaign against Karim Khan and ICC Read More » On 27 May, The Wall Street Journal reported that the prosecutor had been preparing to seek warrants for Ben Gvir and Smotrich before he went on leave, and that prosecutors had been "weighing" whether the pair committed war crimes related to their role in settlement expansion. But the report did not mention that apartheid was a central charge against both Israeli leaders, as three sources with knowledge of the matter told MEE, nor that the only step left for the prosecutor's office was to submit the applications. Under the Rome Statute, the ICC's founding treaty, apartheid is a crime against humanity. It is defined as "inhumane acts… committed in the context of an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime". Israel has been accused of apartheid by legal scholars and numerous rights groups, including the New York-based Human Rights Watch and Israel's B'Tselem. In July 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the UN's principal judicial body, issued a legal opinion that Israel's occupation of Gaza and the West Bank is illegal. It also concluded that Israel's "near-complete separation" of Palestinians in the West Bank, including by the expansion of settlements, breached its obligations under international law to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all racial segregation and apartheid. On 10 June, the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Norway sanctioned Smotrich and Ben Gvir over "their repeated incitement of violence against Palestinian communities". MEE contacted the Israeli government for comment but did not receive a response by the time of publication. 'They will destroy you' Last month, an MEE investigation revealed that on 1 May, ICC defence lawyer Kaufman told Khan he had spoken to Netanyahu's legal advisor and was "authorised" to make Khan a proposal that would allow him to "climb down the tree". He told Khan to apply to the court to reclassify the warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant as "confidential", according to a note of the meeting lodged on file at the ICC and seen by MEE. This, it was suggested, would allow Israel to access the details of the allegations, which it could not do at the time, and challenge them in private, without the outcome being made public. But Kaufman warned that if it emerged the prosecutor was applying for more arrest warrants related to the West Bank or if the warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant were not withdrawn, then "all options would be off the table". According to the note, Kaufman told Khan: "They will destroy you and they will destroy the court." Netanyahu's office did not respond to requests for comment at the time. In response to questions from MEE, Kaufman denied threatening Khan. He denied having been authorised to make any proposals on behalf of the Israeli government and said he had shared his personal views with Khan on the Palestine situation. Two weeks after the meeting, Khan stepped down on indefinite leave following the publication by The Wall Street Journal of new sexual assault allegations against him, which he denied. There is no suggestion of any connection between the Kaufman-Khan meeting and the publication of the allegations. MEE also revealed in June that on 23 April 2024, as Khan was preparing to apply for warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant, then-British Foreign Secretary David Cameron threatened in a phone call with the prosecutor that the UK would defund and withdraw from the ICC if the court issued the warrants. The phone call was also reported earlier this month by French newspaper Le Monde. The British foreign office and Khan both declined to comment in response to the report, while Cameron did not respond to multiple requests by MEE for comment. Khan faced more pressure from other sources. In a virtual meeting with ICC officials in May 2024, US Republican Senator Lindsey Graham threatened sanctions against them if Khan applied for the warrants. Now, the ICC finds itself in a precarious position. Many fear the institution itself could be the target of sanctions, a move which would paralyse the court's operations. In a further threat to the court last month, US State Department legal adviser Reed Rubinstein warned that "all options remain on the table" unless all arrest warrants and the investigation into alleged Israeli war crimes are dropped. Whether the ICC will issue warrants for Ben Gvir and Smotrich in these circumstances remains to be seen.
Middle East Eye
13-08-2025
- Middle East Eye
'Frightening and surreal': Palestine Action and a Saturday of mass arrests
On Saturday, 54-year-old Zoe Cohen sat in London's Parliament Square holding a cardboard sign that read, 'I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action', and waited patiently in the heat to be arrested under the UK's Terrorism Act. Police were working their way through some 1,000 people gathered there, displaying the same sign. When her turn came, she didn't budge. 'Something just told me that I just wanted to lie there and be non-compliant,' she said. When a young police officer crouched down and informed her she was under arrest under Section 13 of the Terrorism Act, she asked him simply, "Genocide is a crime isn't it?" By that point, Cohen felt she had tried everything available to her to pressure the British government to do more to stop Israel's onslaught on Gaza, which has killed more than 61,000 Palestinians since October 2023. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters She dutifully took part in national pro-Palestine demonstrations, marching alongside fellow Jews as part of the Jewish bloc, wrote endless social media posts and repeatedly wrote to her MP, with no results. She said Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper's move to ban direct action group Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act was the 'utter last straw'. 'I struggle for words because I'm so exasperated and I'm so distressed about what's happening, you know, how can you not be?' she told MEE. 'It feels like there's nothing we can do, but we just have to use our body and our voice' - Zoe Cohen, protester 'It feels like there's nothing we can do, but we just have to use our body and our voice,' she said. 'We have to stand up and be counted, or, in our case, sit down'. 'Another reason I did this is because of the government and media conflation of Zionism with Judaism, and of Israel and all Jews, and my horror and disgust at the implication that this genocide is being committed in my name,' Cohen said. 'Israel's actions make Jews less safe. There are many Jews who do not support Zionism or the actions of the Israeli state, but our voices are often silenced.' Criminals over the age of 60 The UK government proscribed direct action group Palestine Action under anti-terror laws on 4 July, following an incident in which members broke into RAF Brize Norton and attacked with paint and crowbars two planes they said were 'used for military operations in Gaza and across the Middle East". The designation puts Palestine Action on a par with al-Qaeda and the Islamic State under British law, making it a criminal offence to show support for or invite support for the group, punishable by up to 14 years in prison under the Terrorism Act 2000. Cohen was arrested under Section 13 of the Terrorism Act, along with over 500 people, half of them aged 60 and above, at the largest protest yet denouncing the ban. Defend Our Juries (DOJ), the campaign group that called the protest, said it was the largest mass arrest in the history of London's Metropolitan Police, outstripping the number of arrests during the Poll Tax riots of 1990. Police detain a protester in central London on 9 August 2025 (Jaimi Joy/Reuters) According to police figures, nearly 100 of those arrested at the Palestine Action sit-in were in their 70s, while 15 of them were over 80 years of age. The majority were detained under Section 13 of the Terrorism Act, the less severe part of the legislation, which involves trial in a magistrates court rather than a crown court. To deal with the volume of arrestees, the police implemented a 'street bail system', setting up 'prisoner processing points' housed in pop-up gazebos on the streets of central London. All those arrested have been released under police bail, with the main condition being that they do not attend future protests challenging the ban. 'It felt dystopian' When she refused to comply with the police, Cohen said she was carried by several officers from the protest in Parliament Square. 'As they picked me up, all the emotion of the day, and not just the day, but the collective grief and the distress of what's happening in Gaza, it just came out of me. I was sobbing,' she said. Cohen was then put into a 'metal cage' at the back of a police van and driven round the corner to a processing site near Great Scotland Yard, where she found herself in a queue of some 150 people accompanied by their arresting officers. 'I've got a young child, and I do look at her and think if I were to be taken away from her because of this, that would rip me in two' - Hayley Walsh, protester 'My arresting officer was very young, he was very new to the job,' Cohen said. 'Quite a lot of them were quite young and junior. I don't think they knew what was going on, not sure they really understood the law.' She said they waited for a while and were then 'marched down the street on foot' back to another processing centre near Parliament Square. 'I've never seen anything like this processing centre, there were generators because they had rows of laptops for entering our details. So like a virtual custody desk on the street. It felt dystopian,' Cohen said. 'We were mainly middle-aged and older people, politely queuing.' According to Cohen, other protestors reported that some participants were mistakenly arrested under Section 12, and then re-arrested under Section 13. "There was quite a bit of chaos, but they had clearly organised this", she said. She recalled that arrestees were informed that if they did not give their details at the custody desk, they would be taken to a police station in Devon or South Wales. Rachel Stubley, a 63-year-old who was also arrested, recalled seeing a 'massive pile of pre-printed forms' at the processing centre. 'The form I was given, it was quite extraordinary, it said 'you have been arrested under Section 13 of the Terrorism Act',' she told MEE. 'So they clearly planned to arrest everyone. There's no way they could take everyone to the station. So they tried to get everyone processed on the street.' Zoe Cohen protesting in central London on 9 August 2025 (Supplied) Hayley Walsh, 43, described the experience as 'unfathomably surreal'. 'It's terrifying, and hearing the words said to you, 'I'm arresting you under the Terrorism Act', is frightening, and the consequences are frightening', Walsh told MEE. 'I've got a young child, and I do look at her and think if I were to be taken away from her because of this, that would rip me in two". "But I don't want this world for my children," she said. " I look at my five-year-old's face and I don't think I cannot take risks for myself if it means there's a potential for a better world for my children and for all children". Stubley said she was moved to take part in Saturday's protest after a conversation with a younger activist. 'They said to me: you're white and middle class and older, maybe it's time for you to step up,' she told MEE. 'I went away and thought about what would be my reason for not doing this. I could pay a fine without it beggaring me. Worst-case scenario, I could go to jail because I haven't got any dependents, and my mum died last year". During the call with MEE, Stubley broke down in tears when trying to explain her reasons for risking arrest. "A line was crossed for me, when instead of trying to address our feelings of grief that many, many people in the UK feel, the government decided to proscribe Palestine Action", Stubley said. 'Having to do this is making my piss boil' A DOJ spokesperson reported that a number of police officers told arrestees that 'the pressure to conduct arrests was coming from on high,' with one officer reportedly telling demonstrators waiting to be processed that 'having to do this is making my piss boil'. In a press statement, the Metropolitan Police said that some protesters resumed the protest after arrest, adding that it was 'entirely unrealistic' to prevent them from doing so given the scale of arrests. If convicted, those arrested under Section 13 could face a maximum sentence of six months' imprisonment or a fine of up to £5000. An arrest under Section 12 could carry a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison. In an interview with the BBC on Monday, Justice minister Alex Davies-Jones said participants in the protests would 'feel the full force of the law'. But the Financial Times reported on Tuesday, citing a senior government official, that ministers anticipate that the 'vast majority' of Saturday's arrestees are likely to receive fines, community sentences or conditional discharges. This is due to an already strained prison system currently hovering at 97.5 percent capacity, according to a recent review. Meanwhile, DOJ says interest in the movement to lift the ban is burgeoning, reporting that 'hundreds' have already signed up to participate in the next action in early September, which they expect to be 'even bigger' than Saturday's. Leading global academics denounce UK's Palestine Action ban Read More » The group said the date will be announced on Wednesday. 'People are now seeing an arrest for terrorism as a badge of honour for resistance to genocide,' Tim Crosland, a former British government lawyer and the co-founder of DOJ, said in a statement. The group reported on Tuesday that a Telegram channel used by the group for sharing information on peaceful protests and legal advice was taken down without prior warning. "No communication has been received from Telegram as to the reason for the disappearance of the group chat," it said. Last Wednesday, DOJ's site was removed, and on Thursday an open Zoom call organised by DOJ for members of the public wanting to participate in Saturday's protest was shut down minutes before it was due to start, following a police order. The government's banning of Palestine Action comes under increasing public scrutiny. On Saturday, Sacha Deshmukh, chief executive of Amnesty International UK, described the mass arrests as "deeply concerning", and wrote to Mark Rowley, commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, ahead of the protest, warning that the arrests "fly in the face of international human rights law". On Wednesday, former cabinet minister Peter Hain warned that the ban would "end in tears for the government", adding that his fellow Labour peers and MPs were regretting voting for the group's proscription. On 30 July, a High Court judge ruled in favour of Palestine Action and granted the direct action group a judicial review to oppose the ban on the group. Hain said that if the legal challenge were successful, 'would be a mercy to all concerned, including the government'. Last month, UN human rights chief Volker Turk said that the ban was 'disproportionate and unnecessary' and called for the designation to be rescinded. He said: "UK domestic counter-terrorism legislation defines terrorist acts broadly to include 'serious damage to property'. "But, according to international standards, terrorist acts should be confined to criminal acts intended to cause death or serious injury or to the taking of hostages, for purpose of intimidating a population or to compel a government to take a certain action or not". In a statement on Monday, Prime Minister Keir Starmer's official spokesperson said that Palestine Action is a "violent organisation" that has committed "significant injury". "We've said that many people may not yet know the reality of this organisation, but the assessments are very clear: this is a violent organisation that has committed violence, significant injury, extensive criminal damage and, as I say, it has met the tests as set out under the Terrorism Act to be proscribed". Responding to the statement, the group's co-founder Huda Ammori hit back saying that these claims were "false and defamatory". The protestors who spoke to MEE do not regret their actions. Stubley described the swell of support from the crowd as she was led to the police van where she was sat next to two younger women. "They were very brave but seemed quite anxious," she said. "We held hands. I didn't know who they were, but it felt really good". "It was quite moving, because as the van drove off, and we were looking out the window, and everybody was waving flags and saying, 'We love you'. It was a real moment of solidarity," Stubley added. "And that gives you strength. It makes you think, 'No - we do have to do this,' and people are strong. And actually, you don't always have to follow the law. Sometimes its the right thing to do to cross a line".
