Medvedev defeats Nakashima to win Brisbane trophy before Australian Open

Three-time Australian Open runner-up Daniil Medvedev has warmed up for an assault on this year’s opening Grand Slam in perfect fashion by winning the Brisbane International final.

The Russian world number 13 was too strong for American Brandon Nakashima on Sunday and ran out a 6-2, 7-6 (7/1) winner in 96 minutes at Pat Rafter Arena for his 22nd ATP Tour title.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

Medvedev broke a shell-shocked Nakashima twice in the first set and looked on course for a quick victory.

Nakashima rallied in the second to force a tiebreak, but the towering Russian raced to a 5-0 lead in the breaker, and the match was as good as over.

“I started pretty strong, but then Brandon found his way back, saved some match points, then almost got it to a third set,” Medvedev said.

The Australian Open begins in Melbourne on January 18.

“It’s been a great start to the year,” said Medvedev, who made the final in Brisbane in 2019.

“I said then that I would try and come back and win it. I came back seven or eight years later, and I’m happy to hold the trophy.”

Medvedev was the Australian Open runner-up in 2021, 2022 and 2024 [Dan Peled/Reuters]

Benin votes in key parliamentary, local polls a month after thwarted coup

Voters in Benin are casting ballots to select members of parliament and local representatives, just weeks after a failed coup attempt by army mutineers.

President Patrice Talon’s governing coalition is projected to strengthen its already powerful position in Sunday’s elections, with the main opposition Democrats party barred from the local polls.

The streets of economic capital Cotonou were calm as polling stations opened at 7am local time (06:00 GMT) on Sunday, according to the AFP news agency. Polls are scheduled to close at 5pm (16:00 GMT).

“I’m coming to vote early so I don’t have to deal with the midday crowds after church,” restaurateur Adeline Sonon, 32, told AFP after casting her ballot.

The single-round legislative polls will elect 109 members of the National Assembly, where Talon’s three-party bloc hopes to strengthen its majority.

The Democrats, contesting only the parliamentary races, risk ceding ground to the ruling coalition, which currently holds 81 seats.

Some observers say the opposition may lose all 28 seats, given the current electoral law requiring parties to gather support from 20 percent of registered voters in each of the country’s 24 voting districts to stand for parliament.

The elections come weeks after a deadly coup attempt by soldiers on December 7, which was thwarted in a matter of hours by the military, with support from neighbouring Nigeria.

The campaign unfolded without large rallies, with most parties opting for grassroots strategies like door-to-door canvassing.

“All measures have been taken to guarantee a free, transparent and secure vote. No political ambition can justify violence or endanger national unity,” head of the electoral commission, Sacca Lafia, said on Saturday.

The legislative elections are set to define the political landscape ahead of April’s presidential poll, with the opposition struck off the ballot.

While Talon, 67, who is nearing the end of his second five-year term, is barred from running in April’s elections, his hand-picked successor, Finance Minister Romuald Wadagni, is a strong favourite to win.

An urgent appeal to save the lives of Palestine Action hunger strikers

To the government of the United Kingdom:

We, the undersigned, write to you today as survivors of state violence.

We are a collective of former hunger strikers from Palestine, Ireland and Guantánamo Bay. Hunger strikes end only when power intervenes, or when people die. We learned, through pain, permanent damage, and watching our comrades fall, how states behave when prisoners have no choice but to refuse the only right afforded to them: food.

As such, we write in uncompromising solidarity with the hunger strikers held today in British prisons: Qesser Zuhrah, Amu Gib, Heba Muraisi, Kamran Ahmed, Teuta Hoxha, Jon Cink, Lewie Chiaramello, and Muhammad Umer Khalid. They are imprisoned on remand, without trial and without conviction. For some, their remand has lasted over a year, and for most, they will not see trial for two.

The UK government has chosen prolonged remand, isolation and their censorship. It has chosen to restrict their contact with loved ones, allow medical neglect, and deployed the language of terror in an insidious attempt to deliberately strip these prisoners of public sympathy and basic rights before any trial takes place.

We cannot forget what the hunger strikers today stand for. They stand for Palestine. They stand for dismantling the infrastructure of weapons that kills Palestinians. They stand for the end of the apartheid regime implemented by the Israeli government. They stand in solidarity with the Palestinian prisoners. They stand for the complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea.

For years, Palestinian prisoners have been subjected to systematic abuse inside Israeli prisons, including well-documented torture, extreme sexual violence, medical neglect, and death in custody. Yet, the UK government, through its unwavering support for the Israeli state continues to choose to be complicit in its actions. It chooses to continue to arm Israel and shield Israeli officials from accountability while Palestinian bodies – men, women and children – are violated and destroyed in their streets, in their homes, and behind bars.

The Palestine Action political prisoners began their hunger strike when they had no other choice. The state’s decision to rely on the use of the classification of “terror” to enforce the systematic repression of those who refuse to conform has left them with no other alternative as they seek the rights they are entitled to by law.

This is not a new phenomenon: the use of the word “terror” has long been used to manufacture fear, to poison public perception, to justify the repeated violation of even the most basic human rights. Once this label is attached, rights become conditional, liberty becomes transactional, and the presumption of innocence evaporates. The rule of law that is so proudly claimed to be upheld is swiftly desecrated in the face of a singular word, deployed by unscrupulous politicians determined to protect their own interests: “terrorist”.

The proscription of Palestine Action was not about safety. It was about control. The repeated and flagrant breaches of sub judice were not about convincing the public that this was a dangerous organisation; it was about condemning the prisoners before they stood trial. It was about isolating them, criminalising solidarity, and sending a warning to anyone who might speak or organise against the Israeli war machine.

No trial held under an atmosphere of state-manufactured fear can be deemed as fair, and no jury exposed to decades of terrorism rhetoric can operate free of bias. These prisoners were smeared the moment the announcement of their arrest made mention of a “terrorism connection”, despite those proceedings not having taken place.

We therefore demand the following:

1. An urgent ministerial meeting with families and legal representatives to agree on actions that will preserve the lives of the hunger strikers. Immediate bail for the Palestine Action prisoners (known as the Filton 24) and all hunger strikers.

2. Dropping of terror charges designed to criminalise dissent.

3. Fair trial conditions free from fear-driven narrative and political interference.

4. Immediate access to independent medical care chosen by the prisoners.

5. An end to censorship and restrictions on family visits.

In 1981, Britain chose to let the Irish hunger strikers die in the Long Kesh prison. In the 2000s, Britain chose silence over the plight of the detainees at Guantánamo Bay. For decades, Britain – along with other governments – continued to choose inaction in Palestine. Each time, British officials claimed responsibility rested elsewhere. Each time, history recorded the truth.

The Suffragettes, despite being force-fed and labelled as terrorists, are today celebrated as heroes and freedom fighters. The Long Kesh prisoners, despite the smears they faced, are now seen as a vital part of the peace achieved under the Good Friday Agreement. The Guantánamo Bay prisoners, despite their inhumane treatment and public consent for torture, remained untried and were largely released without conviction.

Just as they were all vindicated, history will too vindicate the Palestine Action prisoners who sought to stop the slaughter of innocent people, against the wishes and interests of the British government.

We are not merely observers, but witnesses to the injustice currently being dispensed by the hands of the state against people who history will no doubt vindicate, as it has done those hunger strikers who have gone before.

Signatories:

Shadi Zayed Saleh Odeh, Palestine

Mahmoud Radwan, Palestine

Othman Bilal, Palestine

Mahmoud Sidqi Suleiman Radwan, Palestine

Loay Odeh, Palestine

Tommy McKearney, Ireland

Laurence McKeown, Ireland

Tom McFeely, Ireland

John Nixon, Ireland

Mansoor Adayfi (GTMO441), Guantanamo

Lakhdar Boumediene, Guantanamo

Samir Naji Moqbel, Guantanamo

Moath Al-Alwi, Guantanamo

Khalid Qassim, Guantanamo

Ahmed Rabbani, Guantanamo

Sharqawi Al-Hajj, Guantanamo

Saeed Sarim, Guantanamo

Mahmoud Al Mujahid, Guantanamo

Hussein Al-Marfadi, Guantanamo

Osama Abu Kabir, Guantanamo

Abdul Halim Siddiqui, Guantanamo

Ahmed Adnan Ahjam, Guantanamo

Abdel Malik Al Rahabi, Guantanamo

Ahmed Elrashidi, Guantanamo

Israel kills Palestinian in Hebron, raids Nablus, East Jerusalem wedding

A Palestinian man has died from gunshot wounds after Israeli forces opened fire on his vehicle in Hebron, amid escalating violence against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank as Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza shows no signs of abating.

Shaker Falah al-Jaabari, 58, succumbed to his injuries on Sunday morning after being shot the previous night in eastern Hebron, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

The Israeli army said forces opened fire at a vehicle that accelerated towards soldiers in the Haret al-Sheikh neighbourhood; however, in a later statement, the military acknowledged that an initial review found no evidence that the incident was an intentional attack.

Israeli authorities seized his body following the shooting, the Palestinian Wafa news agency reported. The Palestine Red Crescent Society told Al Jazeera that its crew was prevented from reaching the man.

The killing came as Israeli forces besieged a house in the Old City of Nablus on Sunday, with undercover units infiltrating neighbourhoods before military vehicles stormed the city from multiple directions.

Two Palestinians were arrested as troops deployed across several areas and live gunfire echoed through the eastern market, according to Palestinian security sources cited by Wafa.

In a separate incident, Israeli forces raided a Palestinian wedding in occupied East Jerusalem, firing live ammunition and stun grenades at attendees.

Several men were arrested, including the groom, with footage showing soldiers inside the hall and security forces throwing stun grenades as guests were forced outside.

The escalation follows stark findings from the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), which documented that 240 Palestinians were killed in the occupied West Bank in 2025, including 55 children.

The year also saw more than 1,800 settler attacks, the highest since the United Nations began recording such incidents in 2006, with five attacks occurring each day on average.

More than 1,190 Palestinians were injured in these attacks, with 838 wounded directly by Israeli settlers, an average of two Palestinians injured daily by settlers alone.

The violence coincides with a landmark UN human rights report released on Wednesday, labelling Israeli policies as resembling “apartheid”, the first time a UN rights chief has used the term.

Volker Turk called for Israel to “dismantle all settlements”, describing a “systematic asphyxiation of the rights of Palestinians in the West Bank”.

Hours after the report’s publication, Israel cleared the final hurdle to begin constructing the controversial E1 settlement project near Jerusalem.

A government tender published on Tuesday seeks developers for 3,401 housing units on land that critics say would effectively bisect the West Bank and prevent the establishment of a contiguous Palestinian state.

Initial construction could begin within weeks, according to the anti-settlement group Peace Now.

Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who oversees settlement policy, declared in August that “the Palestinian state is being erased from the table not with slogans but with actions,” adding that “every settlement, every neighbourhood, every housing unit is another nail in the coffin of this dangerous idea”.

Settlement expansion drives mass displacement

Al Jazeera correspondent Nida Ibrahim, reporting from a Bedouin camp in Ras al-Auja being dismantled under Israeli orders, described it as “one of the largest shepherding communities in the West Bank”.

She noted that 26 families had already left, with 20 more preparing to depart.

“The other location is completely unknown; they still don’t know where they’re going to go,” Ibrahim said, adding that Israeli settlers were “coming in and intimidating people” as filming took place.

More than half a million Israeli settlers now live in West Bank settlements, which are considered illegal under international law.

Is the US War Powers Act unconstitutional, as President Trump says?

After President Donald Trump’s unilateral decision to use the United States military to capture Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, some lawmakers criticised him for ordering it without any authorisation from Congress.

Trump, in a January 8 Truth Social post, said he has the power to do that and questioned the constitutionality of a related law.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

“The War Powers Act is Unconstitutional, totally violating Article II of the Constitution, as all Presidents, and their Departments of Justice, have determined before me,” Trump wrote.

But Trump went too far by calling the 1973 War Powers Resolution unconstitutional. Courts have repeatedly declined to rule on its constitutionality.

Within days of the Venezuela operation, the US Senate advanced a resolution to limit further military operations in the Latin American country without congressional backing, with five Republicans joining Democrats in supporting it. But this measure has little chance of being enacted, since it would need Trump’s signature if the Republican-controlled House passes it, which is uncertain.

For decades, presidents and Congress have battled over who has the institutional power to declare war.

The US Constitution assigns Congress the right to declare war. The last time Congress did that was at the beginning of World War II.

Since then, presidents have generally initiated military action using their constitutionally granted powers as commander-in-chief without an official declaration of war.

In August 1964, President Lyndon B Johnson asked Congress to back his effort to widen the US role in Vietnam. He received approval with the enactment of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, which easily passed both chambers of Congress.

As public sentiment turned against the Vietnam War, lawmakers became increasingly frustrated about their secondary role in sending US troops abroad. So, in 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, which was enacted over President Richard Nixon’s veto.

The resolution required the president to report to Congress within 48 hours of introducing armed forces into hostilities and to terminate the use of US armed forces within 60 days unless Congress approves. If approval is not granted and the president deems it an emergency, an additional 30 days are allowed to end operations.

Presidents have often, but not always, followed the act’s requirements, usually framing any entreaties to Congress as a voluntary bid to secure “support” for military action rather than “permission”. This has sometimes taken the form of an “authorisation for the use of military force” – legislation that amounts to a modern version of a declaration of war.

Trump has a point that presidents from both political parties have sought to assert power and limit lawmakers’ interference, including in court. But these arguments were never backed by court rulings.