Lufthansa group suspends Tel Aviv flights through June 15
German airline group Lufthansa will suspend its flights to Tel Aviv through June 15, it said on Monday, citing the 'current situation.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
3 hours ago
- Arab News
US mulls giving millions to controversial Gaza aid foundation, sources say
WASHINGTON: The State Department is weighing giving $500 million to the new foundation providing aid to war-shattered Gaza, according to two knowledgeable sources and two former US officials, a move that would involve the US more deeply in a controversial aid effort that has been beset by violence and chaos. The sources and former US officials, all of whom requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter, said that money for Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) would come from the US Agency for International Development (USAID), which is being folded into the US State Department. The plan has met resistance from some US officials concerned with the deadly shootings of Palestinians near aid distribution sites and the competence of the GHF, the two sources said. The GHF, which has been fiercely criticized by humanitarian organizations, including the United Nations, for an alleged lack of neutrality, began distributing aid last week amid warnings that most of Gaza's 2.3 million population is at risk of famine after an 11-week Israeli aid blockade, which was lifted on May 19 when limited deliveries were allowed to resume. The foundation has seen senior personnel quit and had to pause handouts twice this week after crowds overwhelmed its distribution hubs. The State Department and GHF did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Reuters has been unable to establish who is currently funding the GHF operations, which began in Gaza last week. The GHF uses private US security and logistics companies to transport aid into Gaza for distribution at so-called secure distribution sites. On Thursday, Reuters reported that a Chicago-based private equity firm, McNally Capital, has an 'economic interest' in the for-profit US contractor overseeing the logistics and security of GHF's aid distribution hubs in the enclave. While US President Donald Trump's administration and Israel say they don't finance the GHF operation, both have been pressing the United Nations and international aid groups to work with it. The US and Israel argue that aid distributed by a long-established UN aid network was diverted to Hamas. Hamas has denied that. USAID has been all but dismantled. Some 80 percent of its programs have been canceled and its staff face termination as part of President Donald Trump's drive to align US foreign policy with his 'America First' agenda. One source with knowledge of the matter and one former senior official said the proposal to give the $500 million to GHF has been championed by acting deputy USAID Administrator Ken Jackson, who has helped oversee the agency's dismemberment. The source said that Israel requested the funds to underwrite GHF's operations for 180 days. The Israeli government did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The two sources said that some US officials have concerns with the plan because of the overcrowding that has affected the aid distribution hubs run by GHF's contractor, and violence nearby. Those officials also want well-established non-governmental organizations experienced in running aid operations in Gaza and elsewhere to be involved in the operation if the State Department approves the funds for GHF, a position that Israel likely will oppose, the sources said. Gaza hospital officials have said more than 80 people had been shot dead and hundreds wounded near GHF's distribution points between June 1-3. Since launching its operation, the GHF has opened three hubs, but over the past two days, only two of them have been functioning. Witnesses blamed Israeli soldiers for the killings. The Israeli military said it fired warning shots on two days, while on Tuesday it said soldiers had fired at Palestinian 'suspects' advancing toward their positions.
Arab News
7 hours ago
- Arab News
Iraq frees Australian, Egyptian engineers after four years, but keeps travel ban
BAGHDAD: Iraq has released an Australian mechanical engineer and his Egyptian colleague who were detained for more than four years over a dispute with the central bank, authorities said Friday, though the two remain barred from leaving the country. Robert Pether and Khalid Radwan were working for an engineering company contracted to oversee the construction of the bank's new Baghdad headquarters, according to a United Nations report, when they were arrested in April 2021. A report from a working group for the UN Human Rights Council said the arrests stemmed from a contractual dispute over 'alleged failure to execute certain payments.' Both men were sentenced to five years in prison and fined $12 million, the working group said. A security official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told AFP that Pether, in his fifties, was released 'due to his poor health.' Australian media have previously reported that the family suspected Pether had developed lung cancer in prison and that he had undergone surgery for skin cancer. A second Iraqi official confirmed the release of Radwan, adding that he was not allowed to leave the country until a 'final decision' was made regarding his case. Australia's ABC broadcaster quoted the country's foreign minister, Penny Wong, as welcoming the release and saying the Australian government had raised the issue with Iraqi authorities more than 200 times. Simon Harris, foreign minister for Ireland, where Pether's family lives, posted on X: 'This evening, I have been informed of the release on bail of Robert Pether, whose imprisonment in Iraq has been a case of great concern. 'This is very welcome news in what has been a long and distressing saga for Robert's wife, three children and his wider family and friends.' Speaking to Irish national broadcaster RTE, Pether's wife, Desree Pether, said her husband was 'not well at all' and 'really needs to just come home so he can get the proper medical care he needs.' 'He's completely unrecognizable. It's a shock to the system to see how far he has declined,' she said.
Arab News
8 hours ago
- Arab News
Britain still has work to do on defense
The British government last week published its long-awaited Strategic Defence Review. Led by former Defence Secretary and NATO secretary general Lord Robertson, the review outlines the major geopolitical challenges facing Britain and offers 62 recommendations to make the UK and its allies more secure. The government accepted all of them. Unsurprisingly, the review identifies Russia as the most acute threat to UK security. However, it also highlights the challenges posed by China, North Korea, and Iran. While many of the findings reaffirm existing concerns, the review makes three particularly important observations and course corrections that deserve attention. First, it shows that the UK is taking seriously the military lessons from Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. After three years of near-nightly missile and drone strikes on Ukrainian cities, the need for robust air defense is clearer than ever. The review pledges £1 billion in new funding for homeland air and missile defense, a long-overdue investment. Another lesson from Ukraine is the critical importance of a strong defense industrial base capable of producing large quantities of munitions and artillery shells. At points during the war, Russia and Ukraine were expending more shells in a week than some European countries manufacture in an entire year. When the time came to supply Ukraine, many European nations lacked sufficient stockpiles. This was a wake-up call — especially for countries that had allowed their defense industries to atrophy. The UK is now taking steps to address this. The review commits £6 billion to build six new munitions and missile factories, including £1.5 billion for an 'always-on' production facility. This means Britain will be able to rapidly surge production in a crisis without starting from scratch. Additionally, the review commits to producing 7,000 long-range strike weapons in the near term, another recognition of evolving battlefield needs. Second, the review firmly reorientates the UK toward European security by adopting a 'NATO First' policy. This means prioritizing Britain's role in the alliance above other regional or global commitments. The timing is appropriate. Since Britain left the EU in 2019, its place in Europe has often been questioned. But following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the UK has reasserted its leadership role in European defense — both within NATO and through bilateral and multilateral cooperation. The document also emphasizes the UK's continued engagement in the Middle East, especially with the Gulf states. Luke Coffey The explicit commitment to NATO First is a welcome signal to Britain's European partners. It affirms that, even outside the EU, the UK remains a key pillar of the continent's defense architecture. Third, while NATO remains the primary focus, the UK will continue to project power globally. The review confirms plans to produce a new class of nuclear-powered attack submarines, developed jointly with the US and Australia under the AUKUS partnership. This capability extends Britain's reach far beyond Europe and demonstrates that, in the words of the review, 'NATO First does not mean NATO only.' The document also emphasizes the UK's continued engagement in the Middle East, especially with the Gulf states. Each of the six Gulf monarchies is mentioned by name, and the review reaffirms Britain's long-standing naval presence in Bahrain — an essential strategic foothold in the region. Despite these strengths, the review contains gaps and raises concerns, particularly around funding. Accepting all 62 recommendations is politically bold, but doing so without guaranteed funding is risky. Although the government has pledged to increase defense spending from 2.3 percent to 2.5 percent of GDP by 2027, this falls short of the 3–5 percent levels being discussed by NATO leaders before their summit this month in The Hague. Take, for example, the eight new attack submarines: there is no full funding commitment. The government promises new investment 'in future years,' but offers no guarantees. A so-called Defense Investment Plan will be published this year to detail how these ambitions will be financed. But for now, this ambiguity leaves observers uncertain. Why accept all recommendations if the Treasury hasn't formally agreed to pay for them? Another concern is the lack of whole-of-government coordination. Unlike the previous Conservative-led government, which conducted numerous Strategic Defence and Security Reviews, the Labour government dropped the 'security' component. Past reviews incorporated not only military planning, but also issues such as cybersecurity, border control, counterterrorism, and resilience against pandemics and disinformation. These are vital elements of national security, and omitting them risks undermining Britain's broader preparedness. The new review does warn of threats from cyberattacks, assaults on critical infrastructure, and disinformation campaigns, but these threats are often outside the remit of the armed forces to address. Unless the government embraces a cross-departmental approach and integrates other security agencies into defense planning, it risks creating dangerous blind spots. Perhaps the most glaring issue is the size of the British armed forces. If there is one lesson from Ukraine, it is that large, professional armies still matter. Britain's Army currently stands at just 74,400 soldiers. The review proposes to increase this to 76,000 after the next election, a marginal boost that will also take years to implement. This is insufficient. Moreover, a smaller conventional force shrinks the recruitment pool for the UK's elite special forces, who are typically drawn from the regular military. Despite these challenges, the review is an important first step. Its focus on NATO, industrial resilience, and lessons from Ukraine are encouraging signs that Labour is serious about restoring Britain's defense credibility. But serious work remains. Unless the government fully funds its promises, addresses the absence of cross-government security integration, and expands the armed forces in a meaningful way, the review will fall short of its ambitions. When Labour last came to power in 1997, they published a defense review in 1998 but then failed to produce another during their entire 13 years in office. This time, they should follow the Conservative model and commit to conducting reviews every few years. As this review rightly notes, the world is becoming more dangerous. It is in everyone's interest for Britain to remain a strong, credible force on the global stage. • Luke Coffey is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. X: @LukeDCoffey.
