Israel to deport six more activists detained on Gaza aid boat, rights group says
🚨 Messages from Rima and other members of the Freedom Flotilla crew.#FreedomFlotilla #FreeMadleen pic.twitter.com/4Wy9eii972
— Rima Hassan (@RimaHas) June 11, 2025
Israel's Foreign Ministry, which has dismissed the aid boat as a publicity stunt, posted a photo of Ms Hassan on what appeared to be an aeroplane.
'Six more passengers from the 'selfie yacht,' including Rima Hassan, are on their way out of Israel,' the ministry wrote on X. 'Bye-bye — and don't forget to take a selfie before you leave.'
They were among 12 passengers, including climate campaigner Greta Thunberg, aboard the Madleen, a boat that sought to break Israel's blockade of Gaza and deliver a symbolic amount of aid.
Israel seized the vessel early on Monday and deported Miss Thunberg and three others the following day.
The last two activists are expected to be deported on Friday, according to Adalah, a local human rights group representing them.
It said the activists were subjected to 'mistreatment, punitive measures, and aggressive treatment, and two volunteers were held for some period of time in solitary confinement'.
Israeli authorities declined to comment on their treatment.
Israel says it treats detainees in a lawful manner and investigates any allegations of abuse.
Israel portrayed the voyage as a media spectacle, dubbing it the 'selfie yacht'.
It says the blockade, which it has imposed in various forms along with Egypt since Hamas seized power in 2007, is needed to prevent the militant group from importing arms.
Critics view it as a collective punishment of Gaza's roughly 2 million Palestinians.
The Israeli Foreign Ministry said those activists who signed deportation documents would be deported immediately, while those who refused would be brought before a judicial authority to authorise their deportation in keeping with Israeli law.
The activists have protested that they had no intention of entering Israel and were brought there against their will.
The Freedom Flotilla Coalition, which organised the journey, said it was aimed at protesting Israel's blockade of Gaza and ongoing military campaign there, which experts say has pushed the territory to the brink of famine more than 20 months into the Israel-Hamas war.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Lebanese president steps up calls for Hezbollah to disarm
BEIRUT, July 31 (Reuters) - Lebanese President Joseph Aoun stepped up his calls for Hezbollah to disarm on Thursday, suggesting failure to do so would give Israel an excuse to continue attacks and saying the issue would be on the agenda of a cabinet meeting next week. The comments reflect mounting pressure over the issue of Hezbollah's arms, which has loomed over Lebanon since the Iran-aligned group was pummeled in a war with Israel last year. Washington wants Hezbollah disarmed - a demand echoed by the Beirut government as it aims to establish a monopoly on weapons. Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem said in a televised speech on Wednesday that calls for its disarmament served only Israel. In a speech to army officers, Aoun said the government would next week discuss Lebanon's amendments to a U.S. roadmap to disarm Hezbollah, deemed a terrorist group by Washington. Lebanon's counter proposal demands an immediate halt to Israel's attacks, its withdrawal from positions held in the south, the establishment of state control over all Lebanon and the disarmament of armed groups including Hezbollah, he said. Aoun urged all parties "to seize this historic opportunity ... and push for the exclusivity of weapons in the hands of the army and security forces". He said the government would set a timeframe to implement the steps. Shi'ite Muslim Hezbollah, backed by Tehran, was the only Lebanese group allowed to keep its weapons at the end of the 1975-90 civil war on the grounds it needed them to fight Israeli troops who occupied the south but withdrew in 2000. Hezbollah's arsenal has long divided Lebanese, with critics saying it has undermined the state and dragged Lebanon into conflicts. Washington has been pushing Lebanon to commit to disarming Hezbollah before talks can resume on halting Israeli military operations, Reuters reported earlier this week. Hezbollah has so far refused, though the group has been considering scaling back its arsenal. Addressing Hezbollah and its followers but without naming them, Aoun called on those who "have faced the aggression" to "rely solely on the Lebanese state". "You are too honorable to risk the state-building project, and too noble to provide pretexts for an aggression that wants to continue the war against us," he said. Israel killed many Hezbollah commanders and thousands of its fighters last year, while also destroying much of its arsenal. The U.S. proposal delivered in June would require Hezbollah to disarm within four months in exchange for the withdrawal of Israeli troops occupying several posts in south Lebanon, and a halt to Israeli air strikes. Hezbollah had already relinquished a number of weapons depots in southern Lebanon to the Lebanese army in line with a U.S.-brokered truce designed to end last year's war. Aoun said the proposals to be discussed next week include seeking $1 billion annually for 10 years to support the army and the security forces and plans for an international conference to later in the year to support reconstruction efforts.
ITV News
2 hours ago
- ITV News
Minister rejects claim that recognising Palestinian state would break international law
A minister has rejected claims that plans to recognise a Palestinian state would break international law. Business minister Gareth Thomas told ITV News that the decision is a 'political judgement', after a group of peers raised concerns about the prime minister's announcement. Some 38 members of the House of Lords, including some of the UK's most eminent lawyers, have written to Attorney General Lord Hermer. As first reported by The Times newspaper, the peers warned Sir Keir Starmer's pledge to recognise Palestine may breach international law as the territory may not meet the criteria for statehood under the Montevideo Convention, a treaty signed in 1933. "I obviously respect what those lawyers and colleagues in the Lords have written, but I don't agree," Thomas told ITV News. "Over 140 countries have already recognised the state of Palestine. "And in the end, it is a political judgement that has to be made about whether to recognise a state or not. "The prime minister has been very clear this week and certainly has led the way in conversations with countries such as Canada, which have also just confirmed their intention to recognise the state of Palestine." Thomas said that the UK will recognise the state of Palestine in September at the UN General Assembly, "unless there is an end to the violence, unless the aid that is necessary gets in, and unless Israel commits to a two-state solution." In their letter to Lord Hermer, the peers said Palestine 'does not meet the international law criteria for recognition of a state, namely, defined territory, a permanent population, an effective government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states'. There is no certainty over the borders of Palestine, they said, and no single government, as Hamas and Fatah are enemies. Lord Hermer has previously insisted that a commitment to international law 'goes absolutely to the heart' of the government's approach to foreign policy. Among the respected lawyers who have signed the letter are Lord Pannick, who represented the previous government at the Supreme Court over its Rwanda scheme, as well as KCs Lord Verdirame and Lord Faulks. Some of the British-Israeli hostages, including Emily Damari, have also criticised Starmer over the government's plans. In a post on X, Damari said the move "does not advance peace - it risks rewarding terror". In response, Starmer told ITV News he does "particularly listen" to hostages. 'I particularly listen to the hostages, Emily Damari, who I have spoken to, – I've met her mother a number of times, and they've been through the most awful, awful experience for Emily and for her mother," he said. 'And that's why I've been absolutely clear and steadfast that we must have the remaining hostages released. "That's been our position throughout and I absolutely understand the unimaginable horror that Emily went through." He continued: "Alongside that, we do need to do everything we can to alleviate the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, where we are seeing here children and babies starving for want of aid which could be delivered. "And that is why I've said that unless things materially change on the ground, and we'll have to assess this in September, we will recognise Palestine before the United Nations General Assembly in September."
New Statesman
2 hours ago
- New Statesman
Ursula von der Leyen's deal exposes the delusions of EU boosters
Photo byThe French prime minister François Bayrou said it was a 'dark day' for Europe. Under the trade deal that Donald Trump and European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen announced in Scotland on 26 July, the US would impose a 15 per cent tariff on most European imports, but the European Union would not increase tariffs on American imports in return. According to Bayrou, 'an alliance of free peoples' had 'resolved to submission'. It was definitely a climbdown for the EU. Ever since Trump was re-elected last year and threatened new tariffs on imports to the US, the European Commission had threatened counter-measures – just as it did during the first Trump administration, when it responded to US tariffs on European aluminium and steel with its own tariffs on American products like bourbon. In the end, though, the EU simply accepted the new US tariffs this time – and on top of that, promised to increase purchases of American liquified natural gas and weapons. To be clear, what was agreed in Scotland is a political or 'framework' deal and a lot of the important details have yet to be worked out. In particular, it is not yet clear whether pharmaceuticals – a hugely important sector for the EU and especially Germany – will be included or how much steel will be exempt from tariffs. Moreover, the promises that von der Leyen made to increase investment in the US have already turned out to be empty – there is no way the EU can buy $750bn of American oil and gas in the next few years and it cannot direct companies to invest in the United States. Nevertheless, in the few days since the deal was announced, it has widely been seen as a humiliating European capitulation to Trump. Many critics of deal – especially EU boosters who fantasise about the idea of 'strategic autonomy' or a 'geopolitical Europe' – seem to imagine that the EU could have followed an alternative approach and stood up to Trump. In reality, though, there was little alternative to what Bayrou called 'submission'. Critics of the deal think EU member states undermined von der Leyen and forced her to negotiate from a position of weakness. It is true that some member states, especially Germany and Italy, ultimately backed off from threats of retaliatory measures because they feared that a full-on transatlantic trade war would ultimately hit important sectors of their economies harder than they are now being hit by the new US tariffs. But the idea that the EU had leverage over the US that it had but did not use – and that if it had used it, it could have struck a much better deal – is wishful thinking. As the world's largest trading bloc, the EU has long thought of itself as an economic superpower and prided itself on its ability to negotiate trade deals – that, of course, was one of main arguments why the UK should remain within in the EU. This deal has somewhat undermined that self-image. After all, in May, the UK was able to negotiate a slightly better deal with the Trump administration, with a baseline tariff of 10 per cent. But what really makes the EU weak relative to the US is its vulnerability in security terms. The idea that the EU had leverage over the US that it did not use only makes sense if you think that economics and security are completely separate realms and that security issues are irrelevant to trade negotiations and cannot be linked. But deep down, despite all the tough talk and the threats of retaliation to Trump's tariffs, European politicians knew that taking such a confrontational approach could have consequences for US support for Ukraine – or even for Nato and the US security guarantee to Europe itself. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe It's striking that this trade deal was being negotiated just as Trump seemed to be becoming increasingly frustrated with Vladimir Putin and more supportive of Ukraine. Earlier in July, Trump had reinstated supplies of US weapons to Ukraine – albeit paid for by Europeans – and threatened new economic sanctions against Russia if Putin did not make progress in negotiations within 50 days. (The day after the EU-US trade deal was announced, Trump said he was now giving Putin even less time.) As tentative as European leaders know Trump's shift on Ukraine is, they do not want to jeopardise it. EU trade commissioner Maroš Šefčovič, who apparently spent hundreds of hours in frustrating negotiations with Trump administration officials, hinted at this in a briefing the morning after the announcement of the deal. He said he could not go into the details of everything that was discussed with Trump in Scotland, but 'it was not just about trade'. In the end, what has made the EU so dependent on the US, and made the EU's 'submission' inevitable, is the war in Ukraine – or, to be more precise, the way that, for the last two and half years since the Russian invasion in 2022, European leaders have insisted that their own security depends on a Ukrainian victory. Related
