Protesters Gather in Rome for Immediate End to Gaza War
Italy's main opposition parties urged tens of thousands of people to demonstrate through the streets of Rome on Saturday against Israel's war in Gaza, according to the Associated Press. Wide Participation
The protests came in a crucial time when opposition parties accuse the right-wing government of being too silent regarding what is happening in Gaza.
The rally moved peacefully through the center of Rome with demonstrators holding a banner reading 'Stop the massacre, stop complicity!' Protesters Gather in Rome for Immediate End to Gaza War
Organized by the leftist opposition, the march witnessed the participation of 300,000 people who asked the government to clarify its stance on the conflict in Gaza.
'This is an enormous popular response to say enough to the massacre of Palestinians and the crimes of (Israeli leader Benjamin) Netanyahu's government,' the leader of Italy's center-left Democratic Party, Elly Schlein, told reporters at the march. Breaking Silent
The Italian premier has recently urged Israel to put an immediate end to its military campaign in Gaza, warning that its attacks had increased disproportionately and should be halted to protect civilians.
'(The Italian government) is not reacting despite an abnormal massacre, despite an absolutely cruel and inappropriate reaction. The (Italian) government remains silent,' said Nadin Unali, a Tunisian demonstrator at the march. A Call for Cutting Relations Protesters Gather in Rome for Immediate End to Gaza War
Last week, the government of Italy's southern Puglia region cut relations with Israel over its genocide in Gaza, according to Al-Jazeera.
Puglia Governor Michele Emiliano stated that the Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.
Therefore, Emiliano called for an immediate suspension of all relations with all representatives of Israeli government.
Emiliano also urged 'all managers and employees of the region, its agencies and participating companies to sever all relations of any kind with the institutional representatives of the Israeli government and with all those subjects attributable to it who are not openly and declaredly motivated by the desire to organize initiatives to stop the massacre of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip,' according to state-run ANSA news agency.
Since the beginning of Hamas-Israel War in Gaza in 2023, the Israeli strikes have killed more than 54,500 Palestinians and wounded more than 118,000, according to Gaza's Health Ministry.
Related Topics:
Madleen Aid Ship Nears Gaza after Reaching Egyptian Waters
Gaza Marks Eid Al-Adha with Looming Famine, Rising Violence
Israel to Block Entry of Madleen Aid Ship Heading to Gaza
Short link :
Post Views: 3
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
22 minutes ago
- Arab News
Netanyahu's delusional pursuit of a ‘new Middle East'
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu persistently declares his ambition to 'change the face of the Middle East.' Yet his repeated assertions seem to clash with the unfolding reality on the ground. Netanyahu's opportunistic relationship with language is now proving detrimental to his country. The Israeli leader undoubtedly grasps fundamental marketing principles, particularly the power of strong branding and consistent messaging. However, for any product to succeed over time, clever branding alone is insufficient; the product itself must live up to at least a minimum degree of expectation. Netanyahu's 'product,' however, has proven utterly defective. Yet the 75-year-old Israeli prime minister stubbornly refuses to abandon his outdated marketing techniques. But what, exactly, is Netanyahu selling? Long before assuming Israel's leadership, Netanyahu mastered the art of repetition — a technique often employed by politicians to inundate public discourse with specific slogans. Over time, these slogans are intended to become 'common sense.' As a member of the Knesset in 1992, Netanyahu delivered what appeared to be a bombshell: Iran was 'within three to five years' from obtaining a nuclear bomb. In 1996, he urged the US Congress to act, declaring that 'time is running out.' Iran has remained his primary focus Dr. Ramzy Baroud While the US pivoted its attention toward Iraq, following the September 2001 attacks, Netanyahu evidently hoped to eliminate two regional foes in one stroke. Following the fall of the Iraqi government in 2003, Netanyahu channeled all his energy into a new discourse: Iran as an existential threat. Between then and now, Iran has remained his primary focus, even as regional alliances began to form around a discourse of stabilization and renewed diplomatic ties. However, the Obama administration, especially during its second term, was clearly uninterested in another regional war. As soon as Obama left office, Netanyahu reverted to his old marketing strategy. It was during Trump's first term that Netanyahu brought all his marketing techniques to the fore. He utilized what is known as comparative advertising, where his enemies' 'product' is denigrated with basic terms such as 'barbarism,' 'dark age,' and so forth, while his own is promoted as representing 'civilization,' 'enlightenment,' and 'progress.' He also invested heavily in the FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) marketing technique. This entailed spreading negative or misleading information about others, while promoting his own as a far superior alternative. This brings us to 'solution framing.' For instance, the so-called 'existential threats' faced by Israel can supposedly be resolved through the establishment of a 'new Middle East.' For this new reality to materialize, the US, he argues, would have to take action to save not only Israel but also the 'civilized world.' It must be noted that Netanyahu's 'new Middle East' is not his original framing. This notion can be traced to a paper published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in March 2004. It followed the US war and invasion of Iraq, and was part of the intellectual euphoria among US and other Western intellectuals seeking to reshape the region in a way that suited US geopolitical needs. The Carnegie article sought to expand the definition of the Middle East beyond the traditional Middle East and North Africa, reaching as far as the Caucasus and Central Asia. American politicians adopted this new concept, tailoring it to suit US interests at the time. It was US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who largely rebranded 'greater' to 'new,' thus coining the 'new Middle East,' which she announced in June 2006. Clever branding alone is insufficient Dr. Ramzy Baroud Though Netanyahu embraced the term, he improvised it in recent years. Instead of speaking of it as a distant objective, the Israeli leader declared that he was actively in the process of making it a reality. 'We are changing the face of the Middle East. We are changing the face of the world,' he triumphantly declared in June 2021. Even following the events of Oct. 7, 2023, and the Israeli war and assault on Gaza that ensued, Netanyahu never ceased using the term. This time, however, his emphasis on 'change' rotated between a future possibility and an active reality. 'I ask that you stand steadfast because we are going to change the Middle East,' he said on Oct. 9 of that same year. And again, in September 2024, he proclaimed that Israel was 'pursuing' a plan to 'assassinate Hezbollah leaders' with the aim of 'changing the strategic reality of the Middle East.' And again, in October, December, and January of this year. In every instance, he contextualized the 'change of the Middle East' with bombs and rockets, and nothing else. In May, coinciding with a major Israeli bombing of Yemen, he declared that Israel's 'mission' exceeds that of 'defeating Hamas,' extending to 'changing the face of the Middle East.' And, finally, on June 16, he assigned the same language to the war with Iran, this time remaining committed to the new tweak of adding the word 'face' to his new, envisaged Middle East. Of course, old branding tactics aside, Netanyahu's Middle East, much like the old US 'greater Middle East,' remains a pipe dream aimed at dominating the resource-rich region, with Israel serving the role of regional hegemon. That said, the events of the past two years have demonstrated that, although the Middle East is indeed changing, this transformation is not happening because of Israel. Consequently, the outcome will most likely not be to its liking. Therefore, Netanyahu may continue repeating, like a broken record, old colonial slogans, but genuine change will only happen because of the peoples of the region and their many capable political players.
Arab News
an hour ago
- Arab News
Israel targeting Tehran's Evin prison, ‘agencies of repression': minister
Jerusalem: Israel targeted Tehran's notorious Evin prison as well as the command centers of security agencies in Iran responsible for 'maintaining the regime's stability,' a minister and the military said Israeli military 'is carrying out strikes of unprecedented force against regime targets and agencies of government repression in the heart of Tehran,' Defense Minister Israel Katz wrote on X as the Iran-Israel war raged for an 11th included Evin prison — 'which holds political prisoners and regime opponents' — as well as the command centers of the domestic Basij militia and the powerful Revolutionary Guards, he a separate statement, the military said that it was hitting command centers of security forces including the Revolutionary Guards, a wing of the Iranian military.'These forces... are responsible on behalf of the Iranian regime's military for defending the homeland security, suppressing threats, and maintaining the regime's stability,' it said in a began its military campaign against Iran on June 13 with strikes on the country's nuclear and missile facilities, which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has described as an 'existential' threat for his the list of targets has widened since then, encompassing state television and the Iranian domestic security forces, raising speculation that Israel is seeking to topple Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Donald Trump hinted Sunday at interest in changing Iran's system of government, despite several of his administration officials earlier stressing that US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites overnight on Saturday-Sunday did not have that goal.'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' Trump posted on his Truth Social journalists heard explosions in northern Tehran on Monday and Iran's Red Crescent reported a strike near its building in the prison is often used to hold foreign nationals and Iranians that are seen by rights groups as political is believed to hold around 20 European nationals, many of whose cases have never been published, in what some Western governments describe as a strategy of hostage-taking aimed at extracting prison is a large, heavily fortified complex located in a northern district of the Iranian capital, and is notorious among activists for alleged rights least three waves of incoming Iranian missiles were reported by the Israeli military on a hard-liner in Netanyahu's government, added that 'for every rocket fired at Israel's home front, the Iranian dictator will be severely punished, and the attacks will continue with full force.'
Leaders
2 hours ago
- Leaders
INTERVIEW-Tehran's Response will be Limited to Escalation with Israel: Dr. Youssef Badr
As the conflict between Iran and Israel entered its tenth day, the US joined to Israel's side, striking three key nuclear facilities in Iran with bunker-buster bombs and Tomahawk missiles and risking further escalation. The announcement came early on Sunday, as the US President, Donald Trump, declared that Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities, Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan, have been 'completely and totally obliterated.' In response, Iran accused Washington of launching a dangerous war on Tehran, in complicity with Israel, warning of the 'everlasting consequences' of the US strikes and stressing Iran's right to respond. The recent escalation has put the world on edge, as Tehran is weighing its response, including the possibility of closing the Hormuz Strait – a move that could send shockwaves across the global economy. As a result, world powers have called for restraint and de-escalation, urging all sides to return to diplomacy. To gain more insights into the ongoing conflict, Leaders MENA Magazine reached out for Dr. Youssef Badr, a scholar of Middle Eastern affairs. In this interview, Dr. Badr explains the implications of the recent developments on Iran and the wider region. Iran's Nuclear Program Q: Have the US and Israeli strikes succeeded in eliminating Iran's nuclear program? Officially, Trump promotes that the Iranian nuclear program is obliterated in order to end the war. In fact, however, the US and Israel have not managed to completely eliminate the Iranian nuclear program. They have just disrupted it. The Iranian nuclear program cannot be obliterated because – unlike projects previously destroyed in Libya or Iraq – it depends on national expertise, whether in terms of scientists, equipment production, or facility construction. Therefore, the US policy, which was swayed by the Israeli narrative, does not appear successful because the Iranian project could go underground. In this case, it will be more dangerous than monitoring it by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Tehran's Options Q: Would Iran escalate or succumb to Trump's threats and choose peaceful settlement? And what options does Tehran have to respond? Tehran will not accept a forced peace, just as it has rejected a forced war. Hence, it will not be easy for the Iranians to accept any settlement that comes at the expense of their status and regional interests. Iran's history bears this out. The Iranians did not end war with Iraq – even though they were not the ones who initiated it – until they secured their demands. Indeed, Iran welcomes an end to the war, but not in the form of a capitulation. Any settlement must yield benefits. The Iranians may not oppose giving up the right to uranium enrichment in exchange of something bigger, such as the return of Iran to the global economy in a competitive way. Tehran's options to respond to the US strikes will remain limited to escalation with the Israelis and disturbing the Americans. The Iranian military strategy does not invite a war with the US and consider it a red line. However, Iran has the ability to endure a long attrition war, although the large geographical distance between Iran and Israel makes it unlikely. Escalation Risks Q: Trump told the Iranians that there are 'many targets left' that the US could strike if 'peace does not come quickly.' In your opinion, what was Trump referring to? It is a warning message to pressure Iran to accept a deal that brings the war to an end. He means draining what is left of Iran's economic, military or nuclear capabilities. Despite Tehran's rejection of ending the war, negotiations have not stopped and Trump sends messages to Iran through mediators. Moreover, the Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi's visit to Moscow indicates that reaching a solution is possible, particularly that Tehran met with the E3. This also indicates a failure of Trump's policy, which refused multilateral talks in the beginning. Intervention Implications Q: What potential repercussions does the US' military intervention in Iran have on the Middle East and the world? Two nuclear powers attacked an undeclared nuclear state, which has a nuclear program that, despite suspicions, has not been proven to be non-peaceful. This undermines the UN Charter and constitutes a failure of the IAEA's mission and goals. Therefore, it makes the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) membership pointless, especially that Trump publicly acknowledged striking nuclear facilities and NASA confirmed the operation. Furthermore, Israel's involvement in the operation will drive the region's countries to seriously consider the danger of Israel's nuclear capabilities, aside from Iran's issue. Similarly, the American move emboldens Russia to replicate the strike against Ukrainian nuclear facilities. Russia and China Q: How do you assess the positions of Russia and China toward the current escalation? Would they intervene in the conflict? Russia has taken advantage of the West's focus on Iran, intensifying its strikes on Ukraine and occupying more territories to gain more bargaining chips with the Western powers. Despite limited support, there will be no direct Russian intervention to Iran's side unless Iran agreed to include military partnership in the strategic agreement between the two countries. But this risks broadening the war. Current conflicts involve a side that engages in a direct confrontation and another side that provides undeclared support, as seen with NATO's unofficial support to Ukraine. Moreover, Moscow does not want a strong Iran as this will deny Russia an avenue to maneuver against Western and European sanctions. At the same time, it does not welcome the fall or fragmentation of Iran. In such case, Russia could reoccupy the northern regions of Iran to protect its interests and influence. As for China, Iran is not like Pakistan, which borders China and received its support against India. Still, Iran is important for China as a gateway to Europe, the Gulf and the Middle East. So, it does not welcome its collapse. Meanwhile, Russia and China are both responsible for the dilapidated state that Iran is experiencing. The two countries have not given Tehran its demanded weapons, defense systems and fighter jets, under the pretext of compliance to international sanctions. Thus, Iran has not received sufficient development since it aligned itself with them. Domestic Impacts of Escalation Q: How is the current conflict impacting Iran domestically? And is the collapse of the regime imminent? There are opponents, even enemies, to the current regime. But at the same time, there are supporters, and Iran's social and organizational structure is contributing to protecting this regime. Just as the opposition propaganda claims that the Iranian regime has begun to erode, the current war may have given it a new lease on life. The regime managed to adapt to the war in Iraq for eight years. Additionally, the 2015 nuclear deal granted Iran an opportunity for change, as a result of its engagement with the West – a development that unsettled Russia and China. However, Trump scrapped the deal and caused a mistrust in the West. This lack of trust in the Western powers will keep pushing Iranians toward alignment with Moscow and Beijing. Short link : Post Views: 10
