Doha, Qatar – Loud cheers greeted Letsile Tebogo when he stepped onto the track for the men’s 200-metre race at the World Athletics Doha Diamond League in Qatar and stepped away a winner a few minutes later.
The Botswanan Olympic gold medallist made his Doha debut with a time of 20.10 seconds on a balmy Friday evening, coolly glancing sideways at his closest competitor as he crossed the finish line 0.01s ahead of Courtney Lindsey of the United States (US).
It was a leisurely run compared with his triumphant 19.46s finish at the Stade de France nine months ago, when he left a star-studded American lineup – including 100m gold medal winner Noah Lyles – in his wake as he brought Botswana its first Olympic gold.
As a young boy, Tebogo was a keen footballer with a preference for manning the left wing, but was pushed towards athletics by his teachers.
Seven years later, the reluctant sprinter made the world sit up and take notice as he became the first African to win a 200m gold at the Olympics.
A day prior to the Doha Diamond League, the World Athletics 2024 Athlete of the Year sat down with Al Jazeera to reflect on his achievement in Paris and its the impact on the African continent:
Al Jazeera: How has life changed for you since winning the Olympic gold? Letsile Tebogo: In so many ways.
To begin with, there’s increased awareness of the scale of my achievement, which has brought along commercial interest.
I now have multiple opportunities to support myself as multiple brands want to be associated with my name.
What I’m most excited about, though, is the impact I have made on aspiring athletes.
I have proved that by staying on the right track and working hard, it is possible to achieve your dreams no matter which part of the world you’re from.
Wherever you are, whatever you have, just make sure you put in enough effort and dedication.
Al Jazeera: How difficult is it for you to step out of your house when you’re in Botswana? Tebogo: I’m never out unless it’s for an event. I stay locked up indoors because I don’t want to be out there too much. I like having an element of mystery and want to leave people wondering: where is he, what’s he doing?
Al Jazeera: How does it feel to break the American and Jamaican hold on sprinting medals at the Olympics? Tebogo: That’s always been my goal. To snap their dominance. It was sad to see only two nations rule the sport for decades.
I wanted to make a breakthrough for African athletes. I aspired to be the one to make it happen and then take in the world’s response. And that reaction has been heartwarming.
Botswana’s Letsile Tebogo (second left) sprints ahead of his American competitors Erriyon Knighton (left) and Noah Lyles (second right) in the men’s 200m final at the Paris Olympics 2024 [File: Al Bello/Getty Images]
Al Jazeera: When compared with the success in distance running, Africa has not been able to bag as many medals in sprinting. What challenges do African athletes face when it comes to sprinting at the highest level? Tebogo: It’s mostly down to infrastructure and support but I am not entirely sure. However, I can see that Africa is looking towards investing in its athletes beyond distance running.
Once the governments are on board, it makes a massive difference to the sport.
Al Jazeera: Can you see the impact of your success for Batswana athletes? Tebogo: It’s still early days but I’ve definitely seen athletes shed a layer of self-doubt. They are no longer afraid of coming forward to showcase their talent.
I hope the new [Botswana] government will take the next step and help these athletes.
Al Jazeera: How do you see the future of sprinting in Africa? Tebogo: Africans are stepping up and we see an increased number of African athletes in global competitions.
I dream of an all-African lineup at the Olympics one day.
Tebogo is the first African to win an Olympic gold medal in the men’s 200m category [File: Julian Finney/Getty Images]
The annual summit of the Arab League has begun in Baghdad, with Israel’s war on Gaza expected to dominate the talks, alongside other regional crises.
Saturday’s talks in the Iraqi capital come only a day after United States President Donald Trump completed his Middle East tour, triggering hopes of a ceasefire and the renewal of aid delivery to Gaza.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas was the first Arab leader to arrive in Baghdad on Friday. But a diplomatic source told the AFP news agency that most Gulf countries are being represented at the summit at a ministerial level.
United Nations chief Antonio Guterres and Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez – who has sharply criticised Israel’s genocide in Gaza – have been invited as guests at the summit.
In March, Israel ended a ceasefire reached with Hamas in January, renewing deadly attacks across Gaza and forcing a blockade of food and other essential items. In recent days, Israel has intensified its offensive, as tens of thousands of Palestinians are forced to starve.
At a preparatory meeting of the Arab League summit, Iraqi Foreign Minister Fuad Hussein said they will try to endorse decisions that were made at their meeting in Cairo in March to support Gaza’s reconstruction as an alternative to Trump’s widely condemned proposal to take over the enclave.
During his visit to Qatar, Trump on Thursday reiterated that he wanted the US to “take” Gaza and turn it into a “freedom zone”. Earlier this year, he caused an uproar by declaring that the US would turn Gaza into a “Riviera of the Middle East”, prompting Arab leaders to come up with a plan to rebuild the territory, at a summit in Cairo.
The Arab plan for Gaza proposes rebuilding the Palestinian enclave without displacing its 2.4 million residents.
Syria and Iran on the agenda?
Besides Gaza, Arab officials are also expected to discuss Syria, which only six months ago entered a new chapter in its history after the fall of longtime ruler Bashar al-Assad.
Earlier this week, Trump in Riyadh met Syria’s interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa, whose group spearheaded the offensive that toppled al-Assad last December. Prior to their meeting, he also announced that US sanctions on Syria will be lifted in a huge boost to the government in Damascus.
Al-Sharaa, who was imprisoned for years in Iraq on charges of belonging to al-Qaeda following the 2003 US-led invasion, will, however, miss Baghdad’s summit after several powerful Iraqi politicians voiced opposition to his visit.
The Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani is representing Damascus instead.
Saturday’s summit also comes amid Iran’s ongoing nuclear talks with the US.
Trump has pursued diplomacy with Iran as he seeks to stave off a threatened military strike by Israel on Iran, a desire shared by many of the region’s leaders.
On Thursday, Trump said a deal was “getting close”, but by Friday, he was warning that “something bad is going to happen” if the Iranians do not move fast.
Iraq has only recently regained a semblance of normalcy after decades of devastating conflict and turmoil, and its leaders view the summit as an opportunity to project an image of stability.
Reporting from Baghdad, Al Jazeera’s Mahmoud Abdelwahed said the summit was “very crucial” for Iraq.
In August 2005, the Israeli government officially withdrew from the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian coastal enclave it had occupied continuously since 1967. Apart from pulling back its armed forces, it had to undertake the dismantlement of 21 illegal settlements housing 8,000 Jewish settlers.
Israeli troops were deployed to begin the process, which pulled at the heartstrings of international media outlets like The New York Times. The paper reported on the sobbing settlers affected by Israel’s “historic pullout from the Gaza Strip”, some of whom had to be carried “screaming from their homes in scenes that moved a number of the soldiers to tears”.
To be sure, there is nothing quite so tragic as illegal colonisers being uprooted from one section of land that does not belong to them and transferred to another section of land that does not belong to them. It bears mentioning that a majority of the Palestinian population of the Gaza Strip are themselves refugees from Israel’s blood-drenched conquest of Palestine in 1948, which killed 15,000 Palestinians, expelled three-quarters of a million more, and destroyed over 500 Palestinian villages.
Since 2005, the myth of a unilateral Israeli “withdrawal” from Gaza has stubbornly persisted – and has been repeatedly invoked as alleged evidence of Israel’s noble willingness to occasionally play by the rules.
And yet objectively speaking, what happened in August of that year was not much of a “withdrawal” at all, given that the Israeli military continued to control Gaza’s borders while subjecting the territory to a punishing blockade and periodic wanton bombardment.
Israeli officials themselves made no effort to hide what they were really up to. In 2004, while the plan was still being discussed in the Knesset, Dov Weisglass, a senior adviser to then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, stated point-blank: “The disengagement is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians.”
By “freezing” the political process, Weisglass went on to explain, “you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem”. Thanks to “disengagement”, then, the whole issue of Palestinian statehood had been “removed indefinitely from our agenda” – and all with the “blessing” of the president of the United States of America “and the ratification of both houses of Congress”.
Since the so-called “withdrawal” from Gaza did not entail ceasing to make life hell for the Palestinian inhabitants of the territory, Israel remained ever-engaged on that front. On September 28, 2005 – the month following the drama of the sobbing settlers and soldiers – the late Dr Eyad El-Sarraj, founder of the Gaza Community Mental Health Programme, wrote on the Electronic Intifada website: “During the last few days, Gaza was awakened from its dreams of liberation with horrible explosions which have shattered our skies, shaken our buildings, broken our windows, and threw the place into panic.”
These were the effects of Israeli aircraft executing sonic booms in the skies over Gaza, a method El-Sarraj noted “was never used before the disengagement, so as not to alarm or hurt the Israeli settlers and their children”. And that was just the start of the “disengaging”.
In 2006, Israel launched Operation Summer Rains in the Gaza Strip, which scholars Noam Chomsky and Ilan Pappe would subsequently characterise as being thus far the “most brutal attack on Gaza since 1967”. This, of course, was before Gaza was awakened from its dreams of liberation with an all-out Israeli genocide, which has now killed nearly 53,000 Palestinians since October 2023.
But there was plenty of brutality in between, from Israel’s Operation Cast Lead – which kicked off in December 2008 and killed 1,400 Palestinians in a matter of 22 days – to Operation Protective Edge, which slaughtered 2,251 people over 50 days in 2014.
Along with periodic bouts of mass killing, the fluctuating Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip posed additional existential challenges. In 2010, for example, the BBC listed some of the household items that had at different times been blocked from entering Gaza, including “light bulbs, candles, matches, books, musical instruments, crayons, clothing, shoes, mattresses, sheets, blankets, pasta, tea, coffee, chocolate, nuts, shampoo and conditioner”.
In 2006, Israeli government adviser Weisglass – the same character who revealed the “formaldehyde” approach to disengagement – also took it upon himself to charmingly clarify the logic behind Israel’s restrictions on food imports into the Gaza Strip: “The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.”
Now that Israel is literally starving Palestinians to death in Gaza with the full complicity of the United States, it seems the “idea” has undergone some revisions. Meanwhile, recent news reports citing unnamed Israeli officials indicate that Israel is also currently plotting the “conquest” and full military occupation of the Gaza Strip.
Two decades on from Israel’s withdrawal-that-wasn’t from Gaza, it’s safe to surmise that “disengagement” paved the way for conquest. And this time around, there’s no disengagement plan.
Jalen Brunson and OG Anunoby each scored 23 points as the New York Knicks reached the Eastern Conference finals for the first time since 2000 by steamrolling the visiting Boston Celtics 119-81 in Game 6 of their second-round series.
Mikal Bridges had 22 points and Karl-Anthony Towns added 21 points and 12 rebounds for third-seeded New York, which led by as many as 41 points on Friday. The Knicks wrapped up the best-of-seven series with the largest winning playoff margin in franchise history.
“There’s more to go,” Bridges said. “We’re not done. We came out there tonight and played hard and handled business. But our season is not over. We have much more to go.”
New York surpassed a 36-point playoff victory over the Milwaukee Bucks in the decisive Game 5 of the 1970 Eastern Division finals.
Josh Hart contributed 10 points, 11 rebounds and 11 assists to record New York’s first postseason triple-double since Walt Frazier accomplished the feat in 1972.
“I want to congratulate the Celtics on a terrific season,” Knicks coach Tom Thibodeau said. “Unfortunate injury to Jayson Tatum. They’re a terrific organisation, ownership, front office, Joe Mazzulla is a terrific coach, great players.
“They’re not going to hand you anything. You have to earn it.”
The Knicks will open the conference finals at home against the fourth-seeded Indiana Pacers on Wednesday.
Defending NBA champion Boston was led by Jaylen Brown, who had 20 points, six rebounds and six assists before fouling out late in the third quarter. The Celtics were again short-handed after losing Tatum to a ruptured right Achilles during Game 4 on Monday.
“Upset or not, we beat a great team,” Brunson said. “They obviously lost a huge piece (in Tatum). The way they came out in Game 5, they’re still a good team. Regardless of what anyone thinks – upset or not – we’re just happy to come out of the series with a win and now we’ll prepare for another team.”
Jalen Brunson #11 of the New York Knicks drives to the basket during the game against the Boston Celtics during Game 6 [Brian Babineau/Getty Images via AFP]
New York shot 46.2 percent from the field, including 16 of 45 (35.6 percent) from 3-point range. The Knicks held a 55-36 rebounding advantage.
Payton Pritchard scored 11 points and Al Horford added 10 for Boston, which shot 36 percent and was 12 of 40 (30 percent) from 3-point range.
The score was tied at 16 before the Knicks began pulling away.
New York led 26-20 at the end of the first quarter and then opened the second with a 16-4 surge to open up an 18-point lead midway through the period.
After Boston’s Luke Kornet interrupted the burst with a three-point play, the Knicks rattled off 16 of the next 21 points to take a 58-32 lead on a putback dunk by Miles “Deuce” McBride with 1:31 left.
McBride buried a 3-pointer as time expired in the half for a 64-37 lead at the break. That marked New York’s largest halftime advantage at the break since leading the Los Angeles Lakers 69-42 in Game 7 of the 1970 Finals, won by the Knicks.
“You win a championship and you have that target on your back from Day 1,” Celtics guard Derrick White said of falling well short of winning back-to-back NBA titles. “There’s ups and downs through every season. This part sucks and we didn’t complete the goal that we set out to get.”
The contest was effectively over when Brown fouled out with 2:50 left in the third quarter and Boston down by 33. Anunoby poured it on with consecutive 3-pointers to end a 10-0 push as the margin went above 40 at 92-51 with 1:51 remaining in the third.
“They played better than we did,” Mazzulla said. “I’m happy for Thibs [Thibodeau]. He’s been coaching for a long time. That’s the biggest thing. You pay your dues, you put forth everything. That guy is a lifer. He’s what a coach is all about and he deserves it. And they deserve it as a team. You got to take your hat off to them.”
New York Knicks fans celebrate after their team won Game 6 of the NBA playoffs against the reigning champions Boston Celtics outside Madison Square Garden in New York on May 16, 2025 [Leonardo Munoz/ AFP]
A Russian drone strike on a civilian bus has killed nine people, says Ukraine, with the attack coming hours after the two countries held their first direct peace talks in years.
Four others were injured in the attack in Ukraine’s northeastern region of Sumy, officials said on Saturday, as Russia’s Ministry of Defence said it had targeted Ukrainian military equipment.
“This is not just another shelling – it is a cynical war crime,” Ukraine’s National Police said in a post on Telegram messaging app, which featured photos of the badly damaged vehicle.
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha denounced the attack as an “deliberate and barbaric war crime”, accusing Russian President Vladimir Putin of continuing “to wage a war against civilians”.
Russia’s TASS news agency, citing a statement from the Defence Ministry, said Russian drones had struck a Ukrainian military equipment staging area in Sumy.
Russia denies targeting civilians since launching a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, although thousands have been killed.
The strike in Sumy came shortly after Russian and Ukrainian officials met in Istanbul on Friday to broker a temporary ceasefire.
The 90-minute talks failed to reach a breakthrough, but ended with both sides agreeing to swap 1,000 prisoners in what would be the largest such exchange since the start of the war in 2022.
Vladimir Medinsky, the lead Russian negotiator, expressed satisfaction with the talks and said Moscow was ready for further negotiations, including on a ceasefire. “We have agreed that all sides will present their views on a possible ceasefire and set them out in detail,” he said after the meeting.
A source in the Ukrainian delegation told Reuters news agency that Russia’s demands were “detached from reality and go far beyond anything that was previously discussed”.
The source told the agency Moscow had issued ultimatums for Ukraine to withdraw from parts of its own territory to get a ceasefire, “and other non-starters”.
Al Jazeera’s Zein Basravi, reporting from Kyiv, said Medinsky had sent a clear message during the negotiations that Moscow was ready to continue the war for years – and had no problem in continuing to conduct the war at the same time as it held talks.
“And that is exactly what they have done,” said Basravi.
In his post on social media after the Sumy attack, Ukraine’s Sybiha called for additional pressure on Russia.
“There should be no illusions. Pressure on Moscow must be increased to put an end to Russian terror,” the foreign minister wrote.
Krakow, Poland – As Adrian Zandberg, leader of Poland’s left-wing Razem (Together) party, prepared to speak to the large crowd at his rally in one of Krakow’s central squares on Wednesday this week, he wasn’t just getting ready to contest Sunday’s presidential election.
Speaking with a revolutionary zeal to the cheering crowd, Zandberg put forward his ideals: Quality public services, affordable housing for all, investment in education and science and the end to a toxic right-wing duopoly in Polish politics.
Zandberg is one of two presidential hopefuls of Poland’s left – the other is Magdalena Biejat of the Lewica (The Left) party. Between the two of them, they represent a political force that has long remained on the margins of politics. Sunday’s contest is also a fight for the leadership of this movement which is popular with urban, generally younger people.
Opinion polls suggest that the final presidential battle – first-round voting takes place on Sunday – will be between the two favourites, Rafał Trzaskowski and Karol Nawrocki, representatives of right-wing parties Civic Platform and Law and Justice (PiS) which have dominated the country’s political scene for the past 20 years.
Nevertheless, Zandberg was confident and full of passion as he addressed his supporters.
“I believe that we can build a different, better Poland. I believe that we can afford for Poland to become a country with decent public services,” he declared. “That we can afford for people in the 20th economy in the world to stop dying in line to see a doctor. That we can afford for young, hard-working people to be able to rent a roof over their heads for a normal price, so that they can afford to start a family.”
Calling the current system “unconstitutional” and one which “explodes with inequalities”, he called for a change. The system, he said, “is a threat to the future of Poland”.
Like other left-wing politicians, he has been a staunch critic of the neoliberal views of the two main candidates, their lack of commitment to securing affordable housing for people (which is a constitutional right), attempts to privatise the healthcare system, and their seeming embrace of rising anti-migrant sentiment within the country.
Adrian Zandberg, leader of Razem party, reacts after exit poll results for the parliamentary elections are announced in Warsaw, Poland, on October 13, 2019 [Jedrzej Nowicki/Agencja Gazeta via Reuters]
Having a ‘real’ effect on Polish politics
The day before, in another square in central Krakow, Biejat, Zandberg’s main competitor for the hearts and minds of Poland’s left and deputy marshal of the Senate, stood before her own crowd of supporters. Unlike Zandberg’s Razem, her party, Lewica, is part of the ruling Civic Coalition along with the centre-right Civic Platform.
Lewica’s decision to enter the coalition government in late 2023 prompted criticism among some on the left, and has become the main bone of contention between the two leftist presidential candidates.
Speaking at her rally on Tuesday, Biejat defended the decision to join the coalition as the right one. According to her, it has allowed her party to have a real effect on politics in Poland.
She listed their achievements: “It is thanks to Lewica being in the government that we managed to introduce a pension supplement for widows. We managed to introduce a pilot programme which shortened working hours. We managed to increase the funeral allowance,” Biejat said.
“We have changed the definition of rape, so that women no longer have to explain to the judges that it was not their fault that someone had hurt them. Thanks to us, parents of premature babies have received additional leave days for each week spent in hospital with a small child.”
The Krakow crowd, albeit smaller than Zandberg’s, cheered Biejat’s declarations of support for the rights of women, LGBTQ people and those with disabilities and for affordable housing.
Magdalena Biejat of the Lewica party speaks at her rally in Krakow on May 13 [Agnieszka Pikulicka-Wilczewska/Al Jazeera]
A fragile resurgence?
The two-term presidency of the left-wing Aleksander Kwasniewsk, an independent but also one of the founders of the Democratic Left Alliance, was highly successful. Under his presidency, which ended in 2005, Poland joined NATO and the European Union and introduced a new constitution. Since his departure, however, the left has been in crisis.
While the ideals of the left-wing candidates barely differ from those of left-wing candidates in other European countries, their appeal in Poland is limited these days as people have become disillusioned with immigration, and resentment towards the one million Ukrainian refugees taking shelter from the war with Russia has grown. According to Politico’s latest aggregate poll, the two leftist candidates are each expected to win 5 percent of the vote.
In the most recent European election in 2024, Lewica secured just 6.3 percent of the vote, the lowest score in its history. In the most recent parliamentary elections of 2023, the party secured just 5.3 percent of the vote. The question now is whether leftist parties can start to make a comeback.
Some observers see signs of a possible resurgence – but it is fragile.
“Any result above 5 percent for each of the candidates [in the upcoming presidential contest] would be a good score. And below 4 percent – a bad one,” said Bartosz Rydlinski, a political scientist at Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw.
He credits Zandberg with “restarting the Razem party project” by appealing to younger voters. “Recent studies show that he is competing with Slawomir Mentzen [the highly popular ultraconservative and free-market-enthusiast leader of the Confederation Party] to be number one among the youngest voters.
“Magdalena Biejat, on her part, represents women from the middle class, living in large cities. She is their mirror image. The election will show which one of them is more popular,” Rydlinski said.
Limited appeal
At the last presidential election five years ago, Robert Biedron of Lewica, who now serves as a Polish member of the European parliament (MEP), won just 2.2 percent of the vote. This time around, the left is expected to do better, but its appeal remains limited.
According to experts, the left has lost much of its traditional support base to the nationalist conservative Law and Justice (PiS) party, which attracted voters with generous welfare packages. In this presidential election, Karol Nawrocki, who is backed by PiS, is expected to take 25 percent of the vote in the first round, according to Politico’s aggregate poll.
This is despite the fact that Nawrocki has abandoned Law and Justice’s commitment to social welfare and has embraced free-market thinking with a focus on strengthening an alliance with the US while distancing Poland from the EU.
His main competitor,Rafał Trzaskowski of the centre-right Civic Platform, is polling at 31 percent.
“The left is continuously trying to win back pro-social Law and Justice voters, but so far it has failed,” Jakub Majmurek, a commentator at the left-wing Krytyka Polityczna media outlet, told Al Jazeera. “First of all, because these voters are often calculating and feel that the Law and Justice is a much more credible welfare provider than the weak left.
“Second, these voters are largely pro-church and much more conservative when it comes to social issues than the left.”
A good result for the left in the Sunday election could have the effect of bringing left-wing politics back to the agenda, analysts say, and make some inroads into reversing the long-term trend of far-right and centre-right politicians dominating government.
“If the combined result of Biejat and Zandberg is around 10 percent, in the second election round, Trzaskowski or even Nawrocki will have to try to claim this left-wing electorate somehow,” Majmurek explained.
