UK will recognise Palestine as a state unless Israel agrees to a ceasefire: Starmer
Pressure to formally recognize Palestinian statehood has mounted since French President Emmanuel Macron announced that his country will become the first major Western power to recognize a Palestinian state in September.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
20 minutes ago
- Time of India
'I won't humiliate myself': Brazil's president sees no point in tariff talks with Trump
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel As U.S. tariffs on Brazilian goods jumped to 50% on Wednesday, Brazil 's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva told Reuters in an interview that he saw no room for direct talks now with U.S. President Donald Trump that would likely be a "humiliation."Brazil is not about to announce reciprocal tariffs, he said. Nor will his government give up on cabinet-level talks. But Lula himself is in no rush to ring the White House."The day my intuition says Trump is ready to talk, I won't hesitate to call him," Lula said in an interview from his presidential residence in Brasilia. "But today my intuition says he doesn't want to talk. And I won't humiliate myself."Despite Brazil's exports facing one of the highest tariffs imposed by Trump, the new U.S. trade barriers look unlikely to derail Latin America's largest economy, giving Lula more room to stand his ground against Trump than most Western described U.S.-Brazil relations at a 200-year nadir after Trump tied the new tariff to his demands for an end to the prosecution of right-wing former President Jair Bolsonaro, who is standing trial for plotting to overturn the 2022 president said Brazil's Supreme Court, which is hearing the case against Bolsonaro, "does not care what Trump says and it should not," adding that Bolsonaro should face another trial for provoking Trump's intervention, calling the right-wing former president a "traitor to the homeland.""We had already pardoned the U.S. intervention in the 1964 coup," said Lula, who got his political start as a union leader protesting against the military government that followed a U.S.-backed ouster of a democratically elected president."But this now is not a small intervention. It's the president of the United States thinking he can dictate rules for a sovereign country like Brazil. It's unacceptable."The Brazilian president said he had no personal issues with Trump, adding that they could meet at the United Nations next month or U.N. climate talks in November. But he noted Trump's track record of dressing down White House guests such as South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy."What Trump did with Zelenskiy was humiliation. That's not normal. What Trump did with Ramaphosa was humiliation," Lula said. "One president can't be humiliating another. I respect everyone and I demand respect."Lula said his ministers were struggling to open talks with U.S. peers, so his government was focused on domestic policies to cushion the economic blow of U.S. tariffs, while maintaining "fiscal responsibility."The president declined to elaborate on pending measures to support Brazilian companies, which are expected to include credit lines and other export also said he was planning to call leaders from the BRICS group of developing nations, starting with India and China, to discuss the possibility of a joint response to U.S. tariffs."There is no coordination among the BRICS yet, but there will be," Lula said, comparing multilateral action to the strength of collective bargaining in his union days. "What is the negotiating power of one little country with the United States? None."Separately, he said Brazil was looking at lodging a collective complaint with other countries at the World Trade Organization."I was born negotiating," said Lula, who was raised in poverty and rose through union ranks to serve two terms as president from 2003 to 2010, then re-entered politics in the 2022 election to defeat the incumbent he said he was in no rush to strike a deal or retaliate against U.S. tariffs: "We need to be very cautious," he about countermeasures targeting U.S. companies, such as greater taxation of big technology companies, Lula said his government was studying ways to tax U.S. firms on equal standing with Brazilian also described plans to create a new national policy for Brazil's strategic mineral resources, treating them as a matter of "national sovereignty" to break with a history of mining exports that added little value in Brazil.
Time of India
28 minutes ago
- Time of India
Stanford's student newspaper sues Trump administration over ‘ideological deportation' of pro-Palestinian students
The Stanford Daily , a student-run newspaper at Stanford University, has filed a federal lawsuit against the Trump administration, challenging what it calls an unconstitutional policy that targets noncitizen students over their political speech. The case, filed in a California federal court on Wednesday, takes aim at two specific provisions within the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). These provisions, according to the complaint, have enabled the administration to pursue deportation of international students engaged in pro-Palestinian activism. The plaintiffs argue that this approach infringes on First Amendment protections and has created a climate of fear among noncitizen students on college campuses. Fear of deportation leads to self-censorship on campus Attorneys representing The Stanford Daily and two unnamed former international students say that staff members have begun to avoid writing or publishing articles on the war in Gaza, or are requesting previous coverage be removed, fearing that their immigration status could be jeopardised. According to court filings, the chilling effect has intensified since March 2025, when the administration began using the INA to remove lawfully present noncitizens on the grounds of their political expression. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like With temperatures hitting 95°F, this is the mini air conditioner everyone's buying in the U.S News of the Discovery The attorneys argue that these actions violate core constitutional protections by punishing individuals for speech that would otherwise be protected. Legal focus on two provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act At the heart of the legal challenge are two sections of the INA. One grants the Secretary of State broad discretion to revoke a noncitizen's visa at any time. The other allows the secretary to determine a person's removability if their beliefs are viewed as compromising 'a compelling United States foreign policy interest.' These tools, the lawsuit claims, have been selectively deployed to silence dissent related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The legal team, which includes attorneys from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, contends that the government's actions have already reshaped student behaviour on campus. 'The First Amendment does not allow the government to retaliate against individuals simply because it disapproves of their message,' the lawyers wrote in the filing. 'When federal statutes are used to suppress protected speech, constitutional principles must prevail. ' Ongoing legal scrutiny of the administration's immigration actions The case follows a separate bench trial in Boston that concluded on July 21. During that trial, members of the Trump administration testified under oath about the government's coordination between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the State Department in identifying noncitizen students and professors for immigration review based on their political views. That trial, overseen by US District Judge William Young, now awaits a decision on whether the administration's 'ideological deportation policy' unlawfully chilled protected speech in violation of constitutional rights. Legal experts suggest the outcomes of both cases could have wide-reaching implications for how universities support international students engaged in political discourse. For students working in campus journalism, especially those on temporary visas, the evolving policy landscape has introduced new layers of complexity. Some international students are reevaluating the risks associated with participating in editorial decisions or publishing content that may be perceived as controversial. The Stanford Daily's legal action signals a broader concern that self-censorship could become normalised if legal safeguards are not clarified. As the academic year approaches, institutions may also be called to reassess their support structures for international students facing legal and political uncertainty. For many, these developments are not just about legal protections, but about the core values of academic freedom and open expression on campus. TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us here. Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
UCLA faces uncertainty as Trump suspends $584 million in federal grants over civil rights probe
The University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) is facing a major funding crisis after the Trump administration formally suspended $584 million in federal research grants, nearly twice the previously estimated amount. The move follows findings by the US Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division that UCLA violated civil rights laws by failing to address alleged antisemitic incidents on campus. This marks the first time a public university has had its federal research funding halted under the administration's growing scrutiny of higher education institutions. The implications are far-reaching, potentially disrupting scientific research, faculty-led projects, and student programs across multiple departments. Allegations tied to campus protests and civil rights protections According to the Justice Department, the suspension follows a civil rights probe that concluded UCLA acted with 'deliberate indifference' in allowing a hostile environment for Jewish and Israeli students. The investigation cited incidents during the 2024 pro-Palestinian protests, when demonstrators allegedly blocked access to classes and other facilities. The federal government said UCLA's handling of these events violated both the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Susan Boyle Is Now so Thin and Looks Beautiful! Undo The university has denied wrongdoing but agreed to a $6 million settlement with three Jewish students and one Jewish professor who filed a lawsuit claiming their civil rights were violated. Chancellor Julio Frenk described the situation as a critical moment for the university. 'If these funds remain suspended, it will be devastating for UCLA and for Americans across the nation,' he said in a statement, highlighting the university's role in conducting 'groundbreaking research.' Funding cuts impact major research bodies The suspended grants span several federal agencies, including the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the Department of Energy. These funds play a central role in supporting advanced research, scientific innovation, and faculty development. James B. Milliken, the newly appointed president of the University of California system, criticised the funding cuts, arguing that they do not serve the stated purpose of addressing antisemitism. 'The extensive work that UCLA and the entire University of California have taken to combat antisemitism has apparently been ignored,' he said, adding that the loss of funding threatens research that 'saves lives, grows our economy, and fortifies our national security. ' The university has agreed to enter talks with the administration in an effort to resolve the matter. As part of the lawsuit settlement, UCLA will contribute $2.3 million to eight organisations focused on combating antisemitism and supporting Jewish students. It has also established an Office of Campus and Community Safety and introduced new policies for managing on-campus protests. A pattern emerging across universities The administration's action against UCLA follows a similar approach taken with Columbia University. Last month, Columbia agreed to pay $200 million to settle allegations of violating federal antidiscrimination laws. That agreement restored more than $400 million in research grants. Officials have indicated that the Columbia settlement may serve as a model for how the federal government addresses comparable issues at other universities. The Trump administration's strategy appears to tie institutional accountability directly to research funding, using financial pressure to enforce compliance with federal civil rights standards. What this means for students and campus life While the legal and administrative outcomes continue to unfold, the immediate consequences for students are less abstract. The suspended funds support a range of university functions, including student fellowships, lab work, faculty-led research opportunities, and programs that many students rely on for academic and career development. A prolonged freeze could limit student access to research roles, delay ongoing projects, and reduce campus resources in the coming academic terms. For those in fields tied to federally funded research, particularly STEM and public health — the uncertainty introduces new challenges in an already competitive environment. UCLA has said it remains committed to maintaining a safe and inclusive campus for all students. As negotiations with the federal government proceed, the university community, especially its student body, is bracing for further clarity on how the situation will affect academic programs in the months ahead. (with AP inputs) TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us here. Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
