Category World News

The United Nations court, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), has said Israel has an obligation to ensure the “basic needs” of the population in Gaza are met.

The panel of 11 judges said on Wednesday that Israel is forced to support the relief efforts provided by the United Nations in the bombarded Gaza Strip and its entities.

It includes UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, which Israel has banned from operating in Israel after accusing some of its staff of taking part in the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attack.

As part of its findings, the ICJ said Israel has failed to show evidence that UNRWA also worked for Hamas as it claimed.

“The court finds that Israel has not substantiated its allegations that a significant part of UNRWA’s employees are ‘ members of Hamas … or other terrorist factions'”, said ICJ President Yuji Iwasawa.

Advisory opinions of the ICJ, also known as the world court, carry legal and political weight, but they are not binding, and the court has no enforcement power.

In April, lawyers for the United Nations and Palestinian representatives at the ICJ accused Israel of breaking international law by refusing to let aid into Gaza between March and May.

Since then, some humanitarian aid has been allowed in, but UN officials say the relief is nowhere near what is needed to ease a humanitarian disaster and an Israeli-induced famine in parts of the enclave.

The 20-point ceasefire plan mediated by the US earlier this month allows for 600 trucks of aid a day into Gaza. Israel has previously accused Hamas – without providing evidence – of stealing food delivered into the enclave, which the group strongly denies.

Israel has claimed the aid restriction, still in place despite provisions in the ceasefire stipulating that aid must enter Gaza at scale, was to put pressure on the group.

Israel’s ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, slammed the ICJ’s advisory opinion as “shameful”, claiming UN institutions are “breeding grounds for terrorists”.

Israel did not take part in the proceedings, but it did submit its legal position in writing. In April, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar dismissed the hearings as a “circus” and said the court was being politicised.

Iwasawa said the court “rejects the argument that the request abuses and weaponises the international judicial process”.

Advisory ‘ very important ‘

On the eve of the ICJ ruling, Abeer Etefa, Middle East spokesperson for the UN’s World Food Programme (WFP), said 530 of the organisation’s trucks had crossed into Gaza since the ceasefire.

Those trucks had delivered more than 6, 700 tonnes of food, which she said was “enough for close to half a million people for two weeks”.

Etefa said about 750 tonnes a day were now coming through, which, although more than before the ceasefire, remains well below WFP’s target of about 2, 000 tonnes daily.

The ICJ said that Israel, as an occupying power, was under an obligation “to ensure the basic needs of the local population, including the supplies essential for their survival”.

At the same time, Israel was “also under a negative obligation not to impede the provision of these supplies”, the court said.

The court also recalled the obligation under international law not to use starvation as a method of warfare.

Al Jazeera’s Step Vaessen, reporting from The Hague, said the advisory opinion is still seen as “very important” because the ICJ is the primary legal body of the UN.

“Even if Israel ignores it, as it’s done time and time again, all the UN countries are obliged to follow up on this court’s advice”, Vaessen said. “Even if Israel is ignoring it now, it will hang over the head of Israel from this moment on”.

The UN General Assembly had asked the ICJ to clarify Israel’s obligations, as an occupying power, towards the UN and other bodies, “including to ensure and facilitate the unhindered provision of urgently needed supplies essential to the survival” of Palestinians.

ICJ judges heard a week of evidence in April from dozens of nations and organisations, much of which revolved around the status of UNRWA.

The ICJ at the time noted that UNRWA “cannot be replaced on short notice without a proper transition plan”.

Palestinian official Ammar Hijazi told the ICJ judges during the April hearings that Israel was blocking aid as a “weapon of war” and triggering starvation in Gaza.

Wednesday’s case was separate from the others Israel faces under international law over its assault in Gaza.

In July 2024, the ICJ issued another advisory opinion stating that Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territory was “unlawful” and must end as soon as possible.

A harrowing account of an Israeli raid on the Nuseirat refugee camp to free four captives that killed 274 Palestinians.

Following a three-day closure due to a jewelry heist, the Louvre Museum in Paris, France, reopened on Wednesday.

A group of thieves robbed the iconic museum in the French capital on October 19 and broke into the city’s famous museum, stealing eight pieces of jewelry containing priceless pieces from the Napoleonic era. The jewels have not been recovered, but the robbers are still at large.

What we currently know about the location of the jewelry, where it might be found, and where the thieves might be able to hide it.

What did the Louvre steal?

A group of robbers climbed a truck-mounted ladder at 9:30 am (07:30 GMT) to the second floor of the museum’s gilded Galerie d’Apollon before attempting to gain access to the French crown jewels using an angle grinder to a window. Around 30 minutes after the museum’s opening to the public, the heist took place.

The items that were stolen were:

• A tiara from Queen Marie-Amelie and Queen Hortense’s jewelry collection

• a necklace from the same duo’s sapphire jewelry collection
• The sapphire jewelry set includes one earring.
• Empress Marie-Louise’s collection includes an emerald necklace.
• Emerald earrings from the Marie-Louise collection
• A “reliquary” brooch known as the “reliquary” brooch
• Empress Eugenie’s tiara
• a large brooch of Empress Eugenie

The crown of Empress Eugenie, the wife of Napoleon III, was also taken by the robbers. The French Ministry of Interior claims that it was found nearby and that it must have been dropped by the thieves.

What is the value of the stolen goods?

According to Parisian public prosecutor Laure Beccuau, the haul of jewels is estimated to be worth 88 million euros ($102 million).

This damage is not comparable to the historical damage caused by this theft, according to Beccuau.

What distinguishes this heist from previous museum heists?

The Louvre has been robbed before, not once. However, previous robberies typically involved the theft of jewelry, such as the Mona Lisa, which was taken in 1911.

Because of the high intrinsic value of the stolen object, American art historian Noah Charney said on Tuesday, “A jewelry theft is a very different thing to think about.”

Because it is typically made of canvas and only panel, pigment, and oil, a painting doesn’t have a high intrinsic value. The value of jewelry is still significant if you sell the components and break down what was stolen, according to Charney.

The jewels could not be located now.

According to Dutch art historian Arthur Brand, the jewels are most likely still there.

Due to the high risk associated with acquiring them, selling them on the black market would lower their value.

According to Brand, “they are very hot,” and the black market price will be significantly lower than the regular market, where the black market prices would be between 10 and 30% of their value. On the black market, this means that the $ 102 million jewels could be sold for between $ 10 and $ 30.

If the jewels are significantly recut and no longer recognized, Charney claimed the thieves won’t need to go to the black market. Re-cutting gems also lowers their value, though. Athief may lose some of the value and size of an antique diamond if they attempt to re-cut it to a contemporary shape.

The stolen jewels may eventually be sold in major diamond markets like Antwerp in Belgium, where some buyers may not care about their origins, according to Corinne Chartrelle, a former officer with the French Police’s unit for cultural property trafficking.

According to Brand, “they might try to sell the jewels in nations like India, Israel, or Dubai.”

Will anyone find the thieves?

“The thieves will undoubtedly be caught,” he declared. According to Brand, 50% of the jewels are recovered, depending on how long it will take to catch the thieves.

The BRB (Brigade de Repression du Banditisme), a specialized Paris police unit with experience handling high-profile thefts, has been given the task of public prosecutor to look into the heist.

Former BRB officer Pascal Szkudlara, who previously worked for the police, described how the unit handled the $4 million theft of media personality Kim Kardashian’s engagement ring in Paris. Szkudlara claimed he had a “100 percent” belief that the thieves would eventually be apprehended.

In an effort to find suspicious people in and around the building, police are expected to review surveillance camera footage going back weeks.

However, time is tight because, even if the thieves are caught, the jewels will never be returned to their original condition if they are recut.

Have there recently been any additional robberies in European museums?

The Louvre robbery comes in response to recent jewelry thefts from other European museums. Among the recent events are:

Museum of Natural History, France, September 2025

A 24-year-old Chinese woman was detained in Barcelona on September 30 after stealing six gold nuggets from Paris’ Museum of Natural History. The gold nuggets had a price tag of about 1.5 million euros ($1.74).

It is unknown who may have melted the melted gold, but the woman was detained while attempting to dispose of it. In a cyberattack, the museum’s alarms and security system were disabled, but it’s not clear whether the thieves were responsible for the cyberattack or whether the theft was opportunistic.

Drents Museum, Netherlands, January 2025

The Drents Museum in Assen, northeast of the Netherlands, where thieves stole four artefacts, including three gold bracelets and a gold helmet, which are thought to be around 2,500 years old.

The ancient Dacians, a society that once lived in the region that is now Romania, were the subject of an exhibit.

The Dutch Public Prosecution Service (PPS) announced in late July that the heist investigation had come to an end and that three suspects had been identified. According to Dutch media reports, the suspects have been detained and formally indicted. Their most recent hearing took place in an Assen court on October 16.

The PPS did not provide location information for the stolen goods. It stated in an update on May 9 that it still believed the main suspects were still in possession of them and that they hadn’t been completely destroyed. The PPS stated that there is no current information about whether an external client was responsible for the theft.

May 2024: Ely Museum, UK

A gold torc and gold bracelet from the Bronze Age were taken from the Ely Museum in Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom, on May 7.

A 5, 000-pound ($6, 671) reward was provided later that month for information that led to the theft. No information has been released regarding the theft’s progress or the recovery of the stolen goods.

Germany’s Celtic and Roman Museum opens on November 20, 2022.

483 antiquated gold coins were taken from the Bavarian Celtic and Roman Museum in Manching. According to what the New York Times reported at the time, an official estimated the coins’ estimated value of $1.7 million.

Seven Zimbabweans made the announcement on October 4 that they were suing the Church of England for allowing the brutal abuse they endured from John Smyth, a prominent member of the church’s evangelical movement. Their cause was not just justice for the past. It was an indictment of a school that had no idea how violently organized it was when it was promoted as a form of religion.

Smyth wasn’t a singular predator. He was a member of the powerful inner circle of the Church. He oversaw Christian camps where more than 100 boys and young men were abused in the United Kingdom, Zimbabwe, and South Africa. He was a well-known British barrister and an evangelical leader. He embodied the authority and social privilege that kept him safe from scrutiny. The Church chose silence over accountability when his abuse first surfaced in England in the early 1980s, allowing him to carry his cruelty to Africa. His victims in Zimbabwe included 16-year-old Guide Nyachuru, who was found dead in a camp swimming pool in 1992. He was one of the boys who were victims of Christianity. More than 30 years later, the family of Nyachuru is suing the Church, demanding accountability for the abuse and the Church’s deliberate inaction, along with six other survivors.

The Church is now in the Church’s shoes. What started out as one man’s crimes were hidden, but now a much older truth is revealed: the Church of England’s authority in Africa was never only for the spiritual. It was founded on empire-sanctification, complicity, and conquest.

The Makin Review, an independent inquiry into the abuse committed by Smyth, released its long-awaited findings on November 7, 2024. The report was damning. It revealed how prominent Church officials had systematically covered up his crimes for decades, calling him “a problem that was solved and exported to Africa.”

Archbishop Justin Welby accepted both personal and institutional responsibility for what survivors described as a decades-long conspiracy of silence and announced his resignation four days later. His departure marked a symbolic shift in accountability, but those who had to endure Smyth’s cruelty found little comfort in his demise. The Church should use this transition as an opportunity for real accountability, as opposed to another regrettable gesture, as Sarah Mullally is now the archbishop-designate.

In the Smyth case, the Church’s failures were more than just moral failings. They exemplified its imperial practices in modern times, with the emphasis on preserving privilege at home and exporting problems to colonies. The logic of dominance, which once permitted silence during a conquest, was.

My family was raised in the Anglican Church’s long shadow.

My father attended one of Zimbabwe’s oldest and most admired Anglican schools, St. Augustine’s High School in Penhalonga, in the 1950s. In the 1970s, his elder brother went there to pursue a distinguished Anglican priesthood, teacher, and head teacher at St. Mathias Tsonzo.

I received my christening at St. Paul’s in Marlborough and baptized at Kambuzuma’s Anglican Church. I feel deeply ashamed of my relationship to the Church because of this.

I never fully confronted its past or present brutalities, as many others have. Robert Mugabe, the country’s first and foremost Catholic, advocated a policy of reconciliation that called for justice without progress and forgiveness when it gained independence from Britain in April 1980. We were told to move on and never look back after decades of colonial rule and to re-visit before the Berlin Conference of 1884.

There hasn’t been much effort to hold the Church accountable for its expansive role in the colonization of Zimbabwe for 45 years.

The Anglican Church established itself as the spiritual arm of conquest in 1890 when Bishop George Knight-Bruce gave blessing to the Pioneer Column, a paramilitary expedition funded by the British South Africa Company (BSAC) to seize Mashonaland and Matabeleland for the empire.

Empire and evangelism were seen as essential components of the divine order by Knight-Bruce and his successors. While preaching salvation through submission to the colonial state, they seized large tracts of land from the BSAC.

St. Augustine’s, St. Faith’s, and St. David’s (Bonda) in Manicaland were the Anglican Church’s mission stations by the turn of the 20th century. These were evangelical outposts, centers for colonial consolidation, settlement, and colonial consolidation that later morphed into significant educational and medical institutions, not their original locations.

They also taught the virtues of industry and obedience as Christian virtues in the service of the empire, and they also trained and disciplined African laborers. The classroom served as a tool of subtle erasure and indoctrination, while the pulpit served as an assimilation tool. Subjugation was disguised as enlightenment in both the sermon and the Bible.

The Church of England benefited morally, spiritually, and materially from the bloodletting of local communities because Zimbabwe’s colonization was primarily a business enterprise. Children were taught to reject their culture and submit to an English superior. The soldier’s rifle and the missionary’s cross both supported the other’s success. Conversion evolved into a different type of conquest.

This belief guided generations of African Christians, including myself, in our belief that Western dominance was a divine design.

Not a peculiarity in Zimbabwe, this.

Anglican missionaries were deeply entangled in African imperial aggression. In Kenya, for instance, the Church incorporated the colonial system of mass incarceration and violence in the 1950s. Its brutality enabled domestic violence in England, which is both polished and brutal in practice.

The Anglican Church served as a model for moral authority while Smyth was able to abuse Zimbabwean children under the pretext of religion.

In the 1980s, I was fortunate to emerge from St. Paul’s youth program on Friday afternoons. Others had a different perspective. Because the Church’s leaders in Britain saw lives as disposable, they endured Smyth’s violence.

The Church’s inability to confront its past and change its moral culture directly contributed to this official dehumanization. The monster Smyth became in Zimbabwe as a result of centuries of Anglican hypocrisy, entitlement, denial, and racism perfected on slave plantations and in the colonies.

Despite my background, I no longer identify as a Christian or an Anglican. I haven’t visited an Anglican church in 16 years, and I don’t intend to.

Indeed, I no longer pray to the English God. I have a terrible faith in the Church of England and its teachings.

I’m not an atheist, but rather one who is seeking a belief, redemption, and identity that are rooted in the knowledge that the Manyika of Manicaland practiced their religion well before colonization. Our ancestors lost their voice, voice, and sacred connection to the divine in what the Church called civilisation.

The Church of England continues to ignore Zimbabwe’s harm to this day. It has steadfastly resisted the crimes it sanctioned in Africa, insisting that it will offer “no apology for spreading the gospel around the world,” despite sporadically expressed regret.

Little evidence exists that the Church will face this legacy with the courage and sincerity it demands now that Sarah Mullally has been chosen as archbishop-designate. Its public displays of contrition are still performative and hollow.

However, the Church’s wealth, which was the result of centuries of tithes, land seizures, slavery, and imperial investments, now exceeds 11.4 billion pounds ($14.88 billion). A Church that was shaped by empire still acts as though African pain deserves sympathy but not reparative justice despite its wealth, reverent words, and purported moral leadership.

The Church will continue to be the Church it has always been: the principal accomplice and moral heir to the empire until it pays compensation for stolen land, funds reparations, and redeems what it destroyed.

The “Zimbabwean seven” case demonstrates the spiritual ruin of a place that was sustained by white divinity’s delusions.

Zimbabwe is owed more to the Church of England than an apology. If it still has a soul, it must be reckoned with by us.