Explosive kills 7 Israeli soldiers in Gaza inside an armored vehicle, military says
JERUSALEM (AP) — Seven Israeli soldiers were killed Tuesday in the southern Gaza city of Khan Younis when their armored vehicle was struck by an explosive, an Israeli military official said Wednesday.
The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in line with military regulations, said six of the soldiers' names had been cleared for publication, while one was still being kept confidential.
Also in the area of Khan Younis area, one soldier was seriously wounded Tuesday by weapons fire, the military said.
Al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas's military wing, said on its Telegram channel it had ambushed Israeli soldiers taking cover inside a residential building in southern Gaza Strip.
Some of the soldiers were killed and other injured after they were targeted by a Yassin 105 missile and another missile south Khan Younis, Hamas said. Al-Qassam fighters then targeted the building with machine guns.
It was not immediately clear whether the two incidents were the same.
Gaza's Health Ministry said Tuesday that Israel's 21-month military operation in Gaza has killed 56,077 people. The war was sparked by Hamas' surprise attack on southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, that killed around 1,200 people dead, mostly civilians, and took 251 others hostage. Many hostages have been released by ceasefire or other agreements.
The death toll is by far the highest in any round of Israeli-Palestinian fighting.
The ministry said the dead include 5,759 who have been killed since Israel resumed fighting on March 18, shattering a two-month ceasefire.
The ministry doesn't distinguish between civilians and combatants but says more than half of the dead were women and children.
Israel says it only targets militants and blames civilian deaths on Hamas, which operates in heavily populated areas. Israel says over 20,000 Hamas militants have been killed, though it has provided no evidence to support that claim. Hamas has not commented on its casualties.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump again questions NATO's collective defense guarantee ahead of summit
THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — President Donald Trump on Wednesday once again raised questions about America's commitment to defend its allies should they come under attack as he prepared to join a NATO summit in the Netherlands. Just as he did during his first term in office, Trump suggested that his backing would depend on whether U.S. allies are spending enough on defense. He's demanded that European allies and Canada dedicate 5% of GDP to their security. On the eve of the meeting in The Hague, Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One that his commitment to Article 5 of NATO's founding treaty – the organization's collective security guarantee – 'depends on your definition.' 'There's numerous definitions of Article 5. You know that, right?' Trump said. 'But I'm committed to being their friends.' He signaled that he would give a more precise definition of what Article 5 means to him once he is at the summit. As a candidate in 2016, Trump suggested that he as president would not necessarily heed the alliance's mutual defense guarantee. In March this year, he expressed uncertainty that NATO would come to the United States' defense if needed. What Article 5 says Article 5 is the foundation stone on which the 32-member North Atlantic Treaty Organization is built. It states that an armed attack against one or more of the members shall be considered an attack against all members. It also states that if such an armed attack occurs, each member would take, individually and in concert with others, 'such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.'' That security guarantee is the reason previously neutral Finland and Sweden sought to join NATO after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and why Ukraine itself and other countries in Europe also want in. When it has been invoked Article 5 was only invoked once, in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks on the United States, paving the way for NATO's biggest ever operation in Afghanistan. But NATO allies have also taken collective defense measures, including joining the U.S. to fight the Islamic State group in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as help keep the peace in the Balkans. The Three Musketeers-like pledge of all for one, one for all, is at the heart of NATO's deterrent effect. To question it too loudly might invite an adversary to test it. European officials have said that Russia is planning to do just that. The impact of Article 5 on Ukraine NATO's credibility hinges on Article 5 and its commitment to offer membership to any European country that can contribute to security in Europe and North America. But Ukraine, currently in the middle of war with Russia, might oblige all 32 member countries to spring to its defense militarily, potentially igniting a wider war with a nuclear-armed country. Trump is vetoing its membership for the foreseeable future. Article 5 becomes problematic when the territory of a member is unclear. For instance, Russian forces entered Georgia in August 2008, a few months after NATO leaders first promised the country it would join, along with Ukraine. Georgia's NATO application is still pending but seems unlikely for many years. Russia continues to occupy large swaths of Ukraine and other parts are contested, meaning that its borders cannot be easily defined.
Hamilton Spectator
33 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
FIFA investigates if Real Madrid's Rüdiger was racially abused by opponent at Club World Cup
MIAMI (AP) — FIFA has opened a disciplinary case at the Club World Cup after Real Madrid defender Antonio Rüdiger claimed he was racially abused by Pachuca captain Gustavo Cabral. Rüdiger, who is Black, and Cabral clashed in the final minutes of Madrid's 3-1 win Sunday in Charlotte, North Carolina. After the German player spoke to referee Ramon Abatti, the Brazilian match official made the FIFA-approved signal with raised arms crossed to start an anti-discrimination protocol. FIFA confirmed late Tuesday it is formally investigating. 'Following an assessment of the match reports, the FIFA disciplinary committee has opened proceedings against Pachuca player Gustavo Cabral in relation to the incident involving him and Real Madrid's Antonio Rüdiger,' the soccer body said. A verdict is likely before Pachuca plays Thursday in its final Group H game, against Al Hilal in Nashville. It will be Pachuca's last game at the Club World Cup because the Mexican team cannot finish higher than third in the standings and will not advance to the round of 16. The 39-year-old Cabral has denied the racism allegation and said he used an insult that is common in his native Argentina. ___ AP soccer:
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How US adults' views on same-sex marriage have changed since the Supreme Court's 2015 ruling
WASHINGTON (AP) — For years, it looked as though the United States was steadily climbing toward a consensus on same-sex marriage. But 10 years after the Supreme Court ruled that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, the split between Republicans and Democrats on the issue is wider than it's been in decades. Recent polling from Gallup shows that Americans' support for same-sex marriage is higher than it was in 2015. Gallup's latest data, however, finds a 47-percentage-point gap on the issue between Republicans and Democrats, the largest since it first began tracking this measure 29 years ago. The size of that chasm is partially due to a substantial dip in support among Republicans since 2023. An Associated Press polling analysis shows how same-sex marriage shifted from a clear minority position to a stance with broad support — and what the future could hold for views on the issue. Same-sex marriage was once highly unpopular Less than 40 years ago, same-sex marriage was a deeply unpopular issue. In 1988, The General Social Survey showed that just about 1 in 10 U.S. adults 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' with a statement that gay couples should have the right to marry. At that point, roughly 7 in 10 Americans — including similar shares of Democrats and Republicans — disagreed with the statement. But as early as the 1990s, the politics of same-sex marriage were shifting. Gallup data from 1996 — the year the Defense of Marriage Act defined marriage as between one man and one woman — showed that 27% of U.S. adults said marriages between same-sex partners 'should be recognized by the law as valid.' But Democrats and Republicans weren't in lockstep anymore: Democrats were nearly twice as likely as Republicans to support legal recognition of same-sex marriages. Democrats' support for same-sex marriage shifted faster By 2004, the legalization of same-sex marriage started to unfold at the state level. That year, Massachusetts became the first state to allow same-sex couples to marry. President George W. Bush, a Republican, championed a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage on the campaign trail, while Democrats vying for their party's 2004 presidential nomination said the legalization of same-sex marriage should be left to the states. At this time, Americans' support for same-sex marriage was still somewhat limited, and the divide between Republicans and Democrats deepened. About 4 in 10 U.S. adults agreed that same-sex marriage should be permitted, according to the Gallup data. Among Democrats, that agreement was higher — about half were in favor — compared with 22% of Republicans. Since then, Americans' upward movement on support for same-sex marriage has been driven by Democrats and independents. Throughout Gallup's trend, Democrats have been more supportive of same-sex marriage than Republicans have. Since 2006, at least half of Democrats have supported same-sex marriage, and independents started to see consistent majority support in 2012. The gap between Democrats and Republicans, meanwhile, stayed wide. By 2015, the year of the Supreme Court's ruling, about three-quarters of Democrats — but only about one-third of Republicans — supported same-sex marriage. But Republicans did become somewhat more supportive of same-sex marriage between 2010 and 2020. While Democrats continued to lead the shift, Republican public opinion also moved during this decade — signaling a broader movement toward acceptance of same-sex marriage across party lines, even if it wasn't always linear. Republicans' support for same-sex marriage dropped in recent years About 7 in 10 Americans think marriages between same-sex partners should be recognized by the law as valid, according to Gallup data from this year, which is similar to the latest General Social Survey data showing 63% of U.S. adults agree that same-sex marriage should be considered a right. But while the public's support for same-sex marriage ticked up in the years following the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling — from about 60% in 2015 — it has been relatively steady since 2020. At the same time, Republicans' support has fallen in each of the past three years. Now, about 4 in 10 Republicans say marriages between same-sex partners should be recognized as legal, down from a record high of 55% in 2021 and 2022. This latest decline by Republicans returns their views to their 2016 measure, when 40% supported legal same-sex marriage. Gallup Senior Editor Megan Brenan said Republicans' recent shift in opinion on same-sex marriage is dramatic. 'This was a much steeper fall from 2022 through 2025,' she said. 'And now, of course, we have the widest partisan gap that we've seen in the trends.' Younger and older Republicans split on same-sex marriage Even as overall Republican support for same-sex marriage declines, a generational split within the party suggests that opposition may not hold in the long run. Among Republicans under age 50, about 6 in 10 say same-sex marriages should be legally recognized, the Gallup poll finds. That stands in stark contrast to just 36% of Republicans over 50 who say the same —- suggesting that views on the issue could continue to shift. Overall, younger adults are significantly more likely to support legal recognition of same-sex marriage. About 8 in 10 adults under 35 are in favor, compared with roughly 7 in 10 between ages 35 and 54 and 6 in 10 among those 55 or older. Brenan noted that younger Americans are more accepting of same-sex marriage than older adults are, and it's an issue that especially appears to divide Republicans today. 'I think that's a key to where things will be headed, presumably,' Brenan said. 'Historically, people have become more conservative as they age, but this is an issue that's so ingrained in society today and especially younger society.'
