Palestine supporters march through central London
Thousands of protesters have marched through central London in the latest show of support for Palestinians.
A protest organised under the Palestine Coalition, including the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) and Stop The War, gathered at 1pm in Piccadilly near Green Park station before marching to Whitehall for a rally in the sunshine.
A smaller counter-protest, organised by the group Stop The Hate, waited in Coventry Street, near Piccadilly Circus.
The groups were separated by barriers and a marked area protected by police as they passed.
Pro-Palestine protesters marched holding signs and banners that read 'stop arming Israel' and 'open your eyes Keir, see what Israel is doing'.
The Met Police had imposed conditions under the Public Order Act on both protests meaning participants of the pro-Palestine demonstration could not assemble before 12pm and the procession had to remain on the set route.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
25 minutes ago
- Politico
California court upholds John Eastman's disbarment for role in Trump 2020 plot
A California court has upheld a recommendation that attorney John Eastman should lose his law license because of his central role in President Donald Trump's effort to subvert the 2020 election. A three-judge 'review panel' of the California State Bar Court found that Eastman's conduct was so egregious — and his remorse so lacking — that the only remedy was to permanently prohibit him from practicing law. 'Eastman continues to fully deny his many unethical actions: he denies he misled the courts; he denies that he made multiple false and misleading statements … he denies that he conspired to subvert the law in order to benefit his client's desire to remain in office after his client lost a fair and lawfully conducted election,' Judge Kearse McGill wrote in the panel's unanimous ruling. 'He used his skills to push a false narrative in the courtroom, in the White House, and in the media. That false narrative resulted in the undermining of our country's electoral process, reduced faith in election professionals, and lessened respect for the courts of this land,' the judges concluded. A judge of the State Bar Court, Yvette Roland, had recommended Eastman's disbarment last year, a ruling that immediately resulted in Eastman's suspension from practicing law. The 'review panel' ruling backs up Roland's conclusion. Eastman's next step is the California Supreme Court, which has the final say over attorney discipline matters. While that's typically the end of the line, Eastman hinted he may intend to pursue his grievances against the process in federal court. 'Dr. Eastman is disappointed in the Review Court's opinion, and believes that its analysis and conclusions are not substantiated by the truth, the record, or the law,' his attorney Randall Miller said in a statement. 'Dr. Eastman will seek further review of the Review Court's decision in the California Supreme Court and, if necessary, beyond, and is highly confident of his ultimate vindication.' Eastman, who was recruited to join Trump's legal team in the aftermath of his defeat at the polls in the 2020 election, became an increasingly prominent figure in Trump's orbit as his bid to reverse the results grew desperate. Eastman helped draft legal efforts to challenge the outcome in key swing states — filings that the court found were riddled with unverified, false and misleading information. And he authored Trump's brief to the Supreme Court that served as Trump's last-ditch legal effort to halt his defeat. But it was after those efforts failed that Eastman's most memorable work began. Working with other fringe figures in Trump's orbit — after many of his campaign lawyers and Republican Party officials had told him the election was lost — Eastman helped craft a strategy to convince then-Vice President Mike Pence to block Joe Biden's victory during the Jan. 6, 2021, count of electoral votes. Pence resisted, despite pressure from Eastman and Trump, triggering a pro-Trump mob to riot and eventually breach the Capitol, forcing Pence and Congress to flee. Eastman and a handful of Trump's other attorneys have been among the few to reap consequences for their role in the 2020 election saga. Disciplinary panels in Washington, D.C., have similarly found that attorney Rudy Giuliani should be disbarred and former Justice Department lawyer Jeff Clark should be suspended from practicing law. The ruling is still under review and has not yet been implemented. Clark, Giuliani and Eastman have also been criminally charged for their roles, though the cases have been mired in pretrial disputes.
Miami Herald
2 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Why are Israel and Iran at war? What are the risks? Experts weigh in
The war between Israel and Iran continues to rage on, with both sides ramping up deadly attacks on one another, threatening to engulf the region in a broader conflict. How did the war begin? Why did Israel initiate it? And what are the risks associated with it — particularly for the U.S.? Experts on the region weighed in below. How did the war start? On June 13, Israel launched a large-scale military campaign against Iran — its long-time adversary, which it accuses of sponsoring terrorism — code-named Operation Rising Lion. Dozens of military sites across the country, including nuclear sites, were struck with air-to-surface missiles, according to the Israel Defense Force (IDF). Nine nuclear scientists and multiple top generals were also killed. Hours later, Iran responded by unleashing a barrage of missiles on Israeli cities, many of which were intercepted by the country's Iron Dome defensive system, but some broke through, with explosions rattling Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Over the ensuing days, both sides carried out more attacks, which have amounted to more than 200 deaths in Iran and 24 deaths in Israel as of June 16. The outbreak of conflict came just days before Iran was scheduled to enter into its sixth round of nuclear talks with the U.S. Why did Israel attack? Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said the offensive against Iran was carried out in order to cripple its nuclear program, which they assert was on the verge of developing a nuclear bomb. 'The proximate trigger for the conflict was intelligence that Iran had, in fact, made advances on weaponization of a potential nuclear weapon which, combined with the progress in enrichment and its worrisome stockpile of highly enriched uranium, posed an imminent threat of breakout,' Robert Satloff, the executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told McClatchy News. Multiple Middle East experts, though, pushed back against the notion that Iran posed an immediate danger. 'The nuclear threat from Iran was potential, not imminent,' Richard Betts, a professor emeritus of war and peace studies at Columbia University, told McClatchy News. 'No serious analyst of this topic believes Iran was about to produce a nuclear bomb and drop it on Israel,' Nader Hashemi, a professor of Middle East politics at Georgetown University, told McClatchy News. The U.S. intelligence community has recently shared this view as well. In March, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified before Congress that Iran is not in the process of constructing a nuclear weapon (Trump, on June 16, disregarded this assessment, asserting the country was 'very close' to developing a weapon). Aside from fears about Iran's nuclear ambitions, other factors likely played into Israel's pre-emptive attack, experts said. Among them are 'the prime minister's domestic political calculations, the protracted campaign against Palestinians in Gaza, and a more permissive international environment that features a sympathetic Trump administration,' Nathan Funk, a professor of peace and conflict studies at the University of Waterloo, told McClatchy News. 'Netanyahu likely arrived at the conclusion that he has little to lose and much to gain,' he said. Was the U.S. involved? Messaging from the Trump administration has been mixed as it relates to whether U.S. officials had direct involvement in Israel's attacks. Shortly after they began, Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote on X that 'Israel took unilateral action against Iran,' adding, 'We are not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region.' The message was shared by the White House. But, Trump later told Reuters he had advance knowledge of the attack, saying 'we knew everything.' In a June 16 post, he said 'IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON' and added 'Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!' 'The exact position of the Trump administration in all of this is still opaque,' Funk said. 'The extent to which Trump and his deputies approved of this attack — or merely decided to accommodate it — remains uncertain.' Satloff added that Trump has long been a top ally of Israel — and that the U.S. military is already involved to some degree. 'From the outset, the Trump administration has been very supportive, especially in terms of playing a key role in Israel's layered defense against Iranian missile strikes,' he said. Throughout the latest conflict, U.S. military assets in the region have assisted Israel in intercepting Iranian missiles, according to Axios. 'To date, the U.S. has not gotten directly involved but this might soon change, (especially) if Iran attacks U.S. troops or ships,' Hashemi said. What are the risks? Experts warned that there are numerous risks if the U.S. were to be more actively involved in the conflict — which Trump has said is a possibility. 'There are grave risks to the U.S. if this situation persists, including threats to U.S. personnel and infrastructure in the Gulf region, economic dangers associated with a possible impact on oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, and the possibility that the U.S. could be drawn directly into the armed conflict if it continues to escalate,' Funk said. Hashemi said there are alarming parallels to previous wars in the region. 'This feels very much like the lead up to the 2003 war in Iraq,' he said, citing exaggerated claims about weapons of mass destruction and a flouting of international law. 'It is clear the West has learned very little from the Iraq war.' Satloff, in contrast, pushed back against comparisons to the Iraq War, which led to the deaths of over 4,400 U.S. service members and about 200,000 Iraqi civilians over the course of eight years. 'I think the potential for an 'Iraq war 2.0' is slim to none,' he said. 'This is principally an aerial conflict, without the tens of thousands of boots on the ground that characterized Iraq.' But, without diplomacy, the situation could escalate, 'leading to outcomes that would be profoundly destructive to U.S. security interests and to the peoples of the region,' Funk cautioned. 'Diplomacy can be frustrating,' he said, 'but war is much, much worse.'
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
Justin Brannan just proved he can't be trusted to serve as city comptroller
It really tells you all you need to know about City Councilman and comptroller-candidate Justin Brannan that a dozen or so clergy just called him out for falsely claiming their endorsements. 'I felt violated,' Bishop E.M. Davis told The Post. 'Let me make my own decision,' fumed Pastor Louis Bligen. After multiple faith leaders stood up to complain, some saying they'd never even heard of him, Brannan's campaign deleted the social-media post. It blamed an external vendor for the screwup — though getting bishops, pastors and so on to endorse you seems a truly bizarre thing to outsource. That is: Even Brannan's excuse has to make you ask why he should be given huge power over city pension funds, among the other responsibilities of the comptroller's office. As the chosen candidate of the far-left Working Families Party, Brannan can at least console himself with the backing of a slew of pro-Hamas Israel-haters, such as anti-cop Councilwoman Tiffany Caban (D-Queens) and the infamous Linda Sarsour. Of course, Brannan has earned Caban's love on many fronts: He endorsed the council Progressive Caucus' 2020 plan to defund the NYPD by $5 billion over 10 years and was one of 11 members who pledged to vote no on a city budget that 'does not significantly #DefundNYPD.' And when the City Council nonetheless passed a budget that didn't cut the NYPD deeply, he vowed that 'the work doesn't stop tonight.' Not that he didn't try going after Mark Levine, his opponent in the primary, as a cop-defunder, until the debate moderator called out Brannan for throwing stones in a glass house: As the clergy fiasco shows, Justin isn't one to let facts get in his way. The good news is, if Brannan can't con the voters into making him comptroller, term limits will soon force him off the council — and perhaps out of city politics entirely.
