US threatens allies: we will retaliate if you attend UN Palestine summit
Donald Trump's administration has threatened allies with consequences if they attend an upcoming UN conference on a possible two-state solution between Israel and Palestine.
The diplomatic demarche, sent on Tuesday, says countries that take 'anti-Israel actions' following the conference will be viewed as acting in opposition to US foreign policy interests and could face diplomatic consequences from Washington, Reuters reported.
France and Saudi Arabia are co-hosting the gathering next week in New York that aims to lay out the parameters for a roadmap to a Palestinian state, while ensuring Israel's security.
'We are urging governments not to participate in the conference, which we view as counterproductive to ongoing, lifesaving efforts to end the war in Gaza and free hostages,' read the cable.
Emmanuel Macron has suggested France could recognise a Palestinian state in Israeli-occupied territory at the conference. French officials say they have been working to avoid a clash with the US, Israel's staunchest major ally.
'The United States opposes any steps that would unilaterally recognise a conjectural Palestinian state, which adds significant legal and political obstacles to the eventual resolution of the conflict and could coerce Israel during a war, thereby supporting its enemies,' the cable read.
This week Britain and Canada, also G7 allies of the United States, were joined by other countries in placing sanctions on two Israeli far-Right government ministers to pressure prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to bring the Gaza war to an end.
'The United States opposes the implied support of the conference for potential actions including boycotts and sanctions on Israel as well as other punitive measures,' the cable read.
Israel has repeatedly criticised the conference, saying it rewards Islamist Hamas militants for the Oct. 7, 2023 attack on Israel that triggered the Gaza war, and it has lobbied France against recognising a Palestinian state.
The US State Department and the French foreign ministry did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Verge
38 minutes ago
- The Verge
Trump's protest threats raise surveillance alarms around his military parade
President Donald Trump's warning that protesters of Saturday's US military parade in Washington, DC, will be met with 'very heavy force' threatens to chill speech and underscores the need for protesters to take precautions around digital surveillance, privacy advocates tell The Verge. In remarks from the Oval Office on Tuesday, Trump did not distinguish between peaceful and non-peaceful protesters. 'For those people who want to protest, they're going to be met with very big force,' Trump said. (Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt later said, 'Of course, the president supports peaceful protests. What a stupid question.') 'No Kings' protests are set to take place in many cities across the country, but organizers specifically excluded DC from their plans to draw attention away from the parade, which also coincides with Trump's 79th birthday. It's impossible to predict with certainty whether surveillance tools — like facial recognition for identifying people in crowds, automatic license plate readers that track vehicles entering certain areas, cell site simulators that collect information on mobile phones, or geofence warrants that require tech companies to hand over information on all of the users present at a certain time in a given area — will be used by law enforcement to monitor protests. The White House, through an unsigned email from a general press office account, did not answer a question about whether the administration planned to deploy surveillance technologies, but it pointed to recent remarks about the protests by Trump and Leavitt. The DC Metropolitan Police pointed to remarks this week by Matt McCool, special agent in charge of the Secret Service's Washington field office, who said the agency and its partners would operate drones during the military parade. Even if it's not clear whether other surveillance tools might be used, experts say that it's prudent for demonstrators to assume they will be. Past government use of such technologies strengthens their reason for concern, as does Trump's recent deployment of military troops to Los Angeles in response to protests over Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids, an escalation made against Gov. Gavin Newsom's wishes. 'If we're talking about a president who is threatening heavy force in Washington, is already using heavy force in Los Angeles, I think it would be certainly unwise to rule out any potential surveillance uses,' says American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) senior policy counsel Chad Marlow. The Department of Homeland Security admitted to using drones to monitor Black Lives Matter protests in the wake of the murder of George Floyd by a white police officer in 2020. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) used geofence warrants in 2022 to seek information on Android users in the vicinity of an attempted arson at a police union headquarters in Seattle, which came amid protests over the police shooting of 29-year-old Black man Jacob Blake. This week in Los Angeles, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) confirmed it was flying Predator drones over the city for 'officer safety surveillance.' ICE's aggressive attempts to meet Trump's mass deportation demands, and the deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles, raise even greater alarms, experts say. 'I've been helping to lead protests since I was in middle school, and I have never seen a moment of more chilling brutality, with the level of violence and militarization being directed at those exercising their First Amendment rights to dissent against President Trump's abuses of office,' says Albert Fox Cahn, founder and executive director of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (STOP), sitting in front of his collection of copies of George Orwell's 1984. 'It really is taking us into uncharted territory, and I say that a full recognition that our starting point in this entire saga was an awful one.' 'There is damage there that can't be reversed' Surveillance data can be used to retaliate against protesters, and Marlow and Cahn both say that when law enforcement collects it, we usually don't find out until after the fact. Information on protesters' whereabouts and activities could be used against them, for example, to allege they engaged in crimes or assist a deportation — and some surveillance tools, like facial recognition, can cause false identifications, especially among people of color. The courts have so far blocked many attempted actions by the Trump administration. But Marlow warns that even if groups like the ACLU secure wins in court later on against the use of surveillance technology, some damage could already be done — including scaring people away from showing up to protest. 'There is damage there that can't be reversed,' he says. Protesters can take steps to limit their privacy risks. Those include wearing a face covering to weaken the efficacy of facial recognition technology, leaving your smartphone at home — or at least logging out of accounts in case it's seized — and writing down important phone numbers like emergency contacts and legal aid on your arm. The ACLU maintains a list of protesters' rights, and The Verge has a guide on how to secure your phone ahead of a protest. 'At a moment like this, we just don't know what the risks are as the rule of law in this country continues to erode' Marlow and Cahn note that these warnings might make some people reticent to exercise their First Amendment rights — but they're important to deliver anyway. 'As public interest lawyers, our role is to give people honest information. And in chilling moments, that data might make some unwilling to protest,' Cahn says. 'But the goal isn't to spread fear, and I think we also combat a lot of misinformation as well. But it's so important, not just to equip protesters with an understanding of what their rights are, with an understanding of what tactics help preserve their privacy, but with an honest assessment of the risks. And frustratingly, at a moment like this, we just don't know what the risks are as the rule of law in this country continues to erode.' It's because of this chilling effect that Cahn says 'protest surveillance is simply not compatible with freedom of speech. When you give the government the power to create a dossier of everyone who raises their voice in dissent, it's going to silence millions.'
Hamilton Spectator
41 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
UN votes overwhelmingly to demand Gaza ceasefire, hostage release and aid access
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — U.N. member nations voted overwhelmingly Thursday to demand an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, the release of all hostages held by Hamas, and unrestricted access for the delivery of desperately needed food to 2 million Palestinians. The vote in the 193-member General Assembly was 149-12 with 19 abstentions. It was adopted with a burst of applause. The resolution, drafted by Spain, 'strongly condemns any use of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare.' Speaking before the vote, Israel's U.N. Ambassador Danny Danon vehemently opposed the resolution. He denied that Israel was using starvation as a weapon of war, calling the accusation 'blood libel,' and insisted that aid is being delivered. Experts and human rights workers say hunger is widespread in Gaza and some 2 million Palestinians are at risk of famine if Israel does not fully lift its blockade and halt its military campaign, which it renewed in March after ending a ceasefire with Hamas . At the start of Thursday's meeting, Spain's U.N. Ambassador Héctor José Gómez Hernández urged members to vote in favor of the resolution in light of 'the catastrophic humanitarian situation in Gaza.' The Palestinian U.N. ambassador, Riyad Mansour, also pleaded with U.N. members to vote in favor. 'The actions you take today to stop the killing, displacement and the famine will determine how many more Palestinian children die a horrible death,' he said. Last week, the U.N. Security Council failed to pass a resolution demanding a ceasefire in Gaza and calling on Israel to lift all restrictions on the delivery of aid. The United States vetoed the resolution because it was not linked to the release of the hostages, while all 14 other members of the council voted in favor. There are no vetoes in the 193-member General Assembly. But unlike in the Security Council, assembly resolutions are not legally binding, though they are seen as a barometer of world opinion. After a 10-week blockade that barred all aid to Gaza, Israel is allowing the United Nations to deliver a trickle of food assistance and is backing a newly created U.S. aid group, which has opened several sites in the center and south of the territory to deliver food parcels. But the aid system rolled out last month by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation has been troubled by near-daily shootings as crowds make their way to aid sites, while the longstanding U.N.-run system has struggled to deliver food because of Israeli restrictions and a breakdown of law and order. Like the failed Security Council resolution, the resolution passed on Thursday does not condemn Hamas' deadly attack in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, which ignited the war, or say the militant group must disarm and withdraw from Gaza. Both are U.S. demands. Acting U.S. Ambassador Dorothy Shea told the assembly before the vote that the resolution 'sends an unacceptable message to Hamas and other Iran-backed terrorist proxies, and that message is, you will be rewarded for taking hostages, diverting aid and launching attacks from civilian areas.' The resolution references a March 28 legally binding order by the top United Nations court for Israel to open more land crossings into Gaza for food, water, fuel and other supplies. The International Court of Justice issued the order in a case brought by South Africa accusing Israel of acts of genocide in its war in Gaza, charges Israel strongly denies. The resolution stresses that Israel, as an occupying power, has an obligation under international law to ensure that humanitarian aid reaches those in need. It reiterates the assembly's commitment to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with the Gaza Strip as part of a Palestinian state. The assembly is holding a high-level meeting next week to push for a two-state solution, which Israel has rejected. The resolution supports mediation efforts by Egypt, Qatar and the United States aimed at implementing a January ceasefire agreement. The Hamas-led militants killed around 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and took 251 hostages. About 55 hostages are still being held. Israel's military campaign has killed over 55,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza's Health Ministry. It says women and children make up most of the dead, but doesn't distinguish between civilians and combatants. Israel says it has killed more than 20,000 militants, without providing evidence. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Boston Globe
42 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Judge opens door to releasing Mahmoud Khalil as soon as this week
Khalil, a Columbia University graduate and legal permanent resident, was detained in March, the first of a number of noncitizen student protesters to be arrested by the Trump administration as it began to scrutinize the pro-Palestinian protests that shook college campuses last year. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up To justify Khalil's arrest, Secretary of State Marco Rubio cited a rarely used law, saying that Khalil's presence in the United States threatens the country's foreign policy interest of preventing antisemitism. Advertisement Farbiarz had already found that the law itself was likely to be unconstitutional. On Wednesday, he found that Khalil had shown he would be irreparably harmed were he not released. Khalil's 'career and reputation are being damaged and his speech is being chilled — and this adds up to irreparable harm,' he wrote. Though Farbiarz took longer than judges assessing similar cases to arrive at the conclusion that Khalil should not be detained, he also took a deeper look at the core constitutional issues informing the case, ultimately concluding that the law Rubio invoked could not be used as grounds for deportation. Advertisement 'Mahmoud has maintained since day 1 that the government should not be allowed to detain or deport him based on Rubio's say-so,' said Ramzi Kassem, a co-director of CLEAR, a legal clinic at the City University of New York that represents Khalil. 'Today, the court agreed, and ICE should release Mahmoud immediately so he can return to his home and family in New York City.' Another of Khalil's lawyers, Marc Van Der Hout, said that his legal team would write to the Homeland Security Department asking for confirmation that Khalil was to be released Friday and for help coordinating arrangements to return him to his family. But there is still an asterisk. Weeks into Khalil's detention, the Trump administration accused him of willfully failing to disclose his membership in several organizations when he applied for permanent residency, allegations that Khalil's lawyers have contested fiercely. Farbiarz wrote that it was 'overwhelmingly likely' that Khalil would not be detained based solely on those allegations. But it is not clear that he would be released Friday if the government were to argue that those allegations were, in fact, the reason for his detention. It is also plausible that the government could try to hasten Khalil's deportation on those or other grounds. Farbiarz noted that a bar he placed on deporting the Columbia graduate as related to the secretary of state's determination did not apply to efforts to remove Khalil from the country for other reasons. Advertisement Still, the ruling marks a victory for Khalil, whose wife and infant son are US citizens. He has been held in Louisiana for three months without being accused of a crime. And though his arrest set off an outcry from Trump administration critics who feared the free speech and due process implications of the case, his name had begun to disappear from the headlines as he has languished in a Louisiana jail cell. Khalil's wife, Noor Abdalla, said she was hoping he would be home to see his son this weekend. 'I will not rest until Mahmoud is free and hope that he can be with us to experience his first Father's Day at home in New York with Deen in his arms,' she said. The White House has accused Khalil of 'siding with' the terrorist group Hamas, but the administration has not provided substantive evidence that he expressed support for the group. Khalil's lawyers, on the other hand, have called attention to remarks he has made decrying antisemitism, including on CNN, where he said 'antisemitism and any form of racism has no place on campus and in this movement.' Several of Khalil's peers who also appeared to have been targeted by the Homeland Security Department for pro-Palestinian speech — including Rümeysa Öztürk, Badar Khan Suri, and Mohsen Mahdawi — were released weeks ago. And another legal permanent resident, Yunseo Chung, was never arrested at all after a federal judge barred authorities from detaining her on the same basis for which Khalil has been imprisoned. This article originally appeared in
