Category World News

The band of robbers who broke into the Louvre Museum in Paris on Sunday morning and stole eight Napoleonic pieces of priceless jewellery in a four-minute heist were just the latest in a long line of daring thieves who have targeted the iconic museum.

The robbers used a truck-mounted ladder to reach the gilded Galerie d’Apollon (Apollo’s Gallery) on the second floor before taking an angle grinder to a window to access the French crown jewels. The heist took place at 9:30am (07:30 GMT), half an hour after the museum opened to visitors for the day. The robbers are still at large and the Louvre is currently closed.

A ninth item they stole – the crown belonging to Empress Eugenie, Napoleon III’s wife – was recovered nearby after it was dropped by the group, the French Ministry of the Interior said.

The Louvre was a royal palace for more than two centuries. It opened as a public museum in 1793 during the French Revolution. The revolution had made totems of monarchical history especially vulnerable to looters, and the Louvre, besides giving everyday French people a glimpse of these precious items, sought to protect the legacy they represented, for future generations.

That did not completely stop thieves, however. Over time, there have been several attempts to steal valuable items from the Louvre – often successful.

1911: The Mona Lisa is stolen

On August 21, 1911, Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa was stolen in what was deemed the “heist of the century”.

At the time, the Mona Lisa was one of Italian painter da Vinci’s lesser-known works and had been on display since 1797. Many now say it was the theft itself that propelled the painting to its modern fame. At the time, the painting was hanging on a wall in a room called the “Salon Carre”.

The heist was carried out by Vincenzo Peruggia, a 29-year-old Italian immigrant who had briefly worked at the Louvre. He entered the museum completely unchallenged on the evening of August 20, clad in his old museum uniform.

Peruggia hid in a storage closet overnight and, in the morning, when the museum was closed and almost empty, emerged from the closet. He simply removed the painting from the wall and wrapped it in a white sheet. As he made to leave the museum, he found the stairwell door to the courtyard locked. But instead of being suspicious, a Louvre plumber helped Peruggia to unlock the door, mistaking him for a colleague.

Museum security was rather less robust back then, and paintings would often be removed for maintenance or to be photographed. Hence, no one batted an eye at the absence of the da Vinci painting for more than a day.

Concern over its absence was eventually raised by a visiting artist, who came to the Salon Carre to paint. When the Louvre guards could not find the painting, police were alerted. What followed was an extensive manhunt and media frenzy.

The police did not initially find many leads. Avant garde poet Guillaume Apollinaire was arrested and questioned due to his links to earlier thefts from the Louvre. Apollinaire, who was cleared of suspicion, pointed to his friend, a young Pablo Picasso, who was also questioned by the police.

Picasso was cleared of suspicion in the theft of the Mona Lisa, but in a grand twist, it was revealed he had previously acquired Iberian statue heads which had been stolen from the Louvre. He returned these to the Louvre to avoid any further trouble.

Rumours and speculation mounted about the painting’s possible whereabouts, with many believing it was smuggled abroad. But, the whole time, the Mona Lisa was actually in Peruggia’s one-bedroom apartment in Paris.

It was finally recovered in 1913 when Peruggia attempted to sell it to a gallery in Italy. He believed the sale had been successful when an art dealer he was in touch with invited him to Italy for a potential sale to a gallery, and he took the painting with him. Instead of buying the painting, however, the gallery turned Peruggia in. He was arrested in his hotel room in Florence.

The Mona Lisa was returned to the Louvre in 1914, and Peruggia was charged with the theft. He said he had been motivated by national pride to steal the painting, claiming the painting had been looted from Italy. The painting was actually completed in France by Da Vinci and sold to the French royal family.

1940s: The Nazis attempt to loot the Louvre

In 1940, the Nazis invaded France amid World War II and appeared poised to loot a section of the Louvre.

However, as a preemptive move, Jacques Jaujard, the director of France’s national museums, ordered more than 1,800 cases containing Louvre masterpieces, including the Mona Lisa, to be moved to the French countryside.

This prevented a large-scale cultural loss when the Nazis marched into a largely empty museum.

However, the Nazis did steal many pieces of Jewish artwork while occupying France. Many of these have been returned to France, and the Louvre began displaying them in 2018 in an attempt to reunite the stolen pieces with their original owners.

1960s to 1990s: More robberies

In 1966, five pieces of antique, handmade jewellery were stolen from John F Kennedy International Airport in New York. The jewellery was en route back to Paris from the United States, having been loaned by the Louvre for a museum display in Richmond, Virginia. Detectives later recovered the jewellery in a grocery bag, and three men were arrested for receiving stolen property.

In 1990, Pierre Auguste Renoir’s Portrait of a Seated Woman was cut from its frame and stolen from the third floor of the Louvre. At the same time, the museum discovered that some small jewellery items were also missing – and may have been for some time. “The disappearance of these objects, which are not of great value and are often seen on the market, is certainly quite old,” the then-director of museums in France said, according to The New York Times. It is unclear whether these items were ever recovered.

What’s different this time?

This week’s jewellery heist is distinctive because previous high-profile robberies in the Louvre have largely been of paintings.

“A jewellery theft is a very different thing to consider because of the high intrinsic value of the object stolen,” American art historian Noah Charney told Al Jazeera. Paintings have a non-intrinsic value, which is value assigned to them due to their cultural significance, he explained.

“A painting doesn’t have a high intrinsic value because it’s usually made of panel and pigment, and canvas and nothing more. Whereas jewellery has a high intrinsic value because if you break down what was stolen and sell the components, the value is still significant.

“With jewels, the cultural heritage value, which provides the majority of its value, is not something that the thieves are likely to take into consideration,” Charney added.

Does this make stolen jewels harder to trace?

Yes. Collections of jewels can be broken down, recut and sold in a way that does not link them to the intact stolen items, making them almost impossible to trace — yet very valuable.

They do not even need to be on the black market if the jewels are recut significantly enough that they are not identifiable.

“The only hope that police have, and we understand this from how past cases have played out, is if they offer a reward for the recovery of all the jewels intact that is higher than the value of the component parts of the jewellery,” Charney said.

Such a move might buy the police a bit more time to track down the items and catch those responsible as the thieves ponder their next move.

Massive demolition work began this week on the White House’s East Wing as part of United States President Donald Trump’s plans to build a new ballroom in a space traditionally reserved for the first lady.

The construction, which started on Monday, is the first structural change to the complex since 1948, and the first under Trump, who has already redecorated the Oval Office in lavish gold furnishings.

According to reporting by The Associated Press news agency, the project went ahead despite not being formally approved by the National Capital Planning Commission, the federal agency that oversees such operations, which is currently closed due to a nationwide government shutdown.

Trump first announced the new addition to the White House in July and again confirmed it in a post on Monday on his social media site, Truth Social.

Here’s what to know about the ballroom plans:

Why is the East Wing of the White House being demolished?

Trump, in his announcement on Monday, said the East Wing is being reconstructed to add a ballroom. The president had, in the past, complained about the White House lacking a space large enough to host fellow national leaders and other important guests, according to the AP. Such state dinners have typically been held on the White House lawns.

“I am pleased to announce that ground has been broken on the White House grounds to build the new, big, beautiful White House Ballroom,” Trump wrote on Monday, adding that the project was being funded entirely privately, and that it would not affect the main White House building itself – a point that some have viewed with scepticism due to the huge scale of the renovations.

“For more than 150 years, every President has dreamt about having a Ballroom at the White House to accommodate people for grand parties, State Visits, etc. I am honored to be the first President to finally get this much-needed project underway — with zero cost to the American Taxpayer!” the president added.

The two-storey structure of the East Wing was added first in 1902. It has, since 1977, under Rosalynn Carter, housed the offices of the first lady and her staff, as well as a visitor’s entrance for foreign dignitaries. It also includes a large theatre and the Graphics and Calligraphy Office, responsible for producing invitations for non-political events held at the mansion. The wing is built directly on top of the underground emergency bunker reserved for the president.

What will be the cost of construction?

Trump’s ballroom is estimated to cost $250m, according to the AP and other US media reports. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, in an earlier statement in August, said it would cost approximately $200m.

Trump has said the costs would be footed by himself and private donors, although those entities have not been disclosed.

What will the ballroom be like?

The new ballroom will be approximately 90,000 square feet (8,360 square metres), and will have a seating capacity of about 650 guests, according to Leavitt. Reuters news agency reports the new room will be able to hold up to 999 people.

Currently, most White House events are held in the East Room, which seats approximately 200 people.

Leavitt said in August that construction will be completed “long before” the end of Trump’s term in January 2029. Offices there will be temporarily relocated during what she called the “modernisation” process. Leavitt added that “nothing will be torn down”.

“It will be beautiful,” Trump said earlier in July. “It won’t interfere with the current building. It won’t be – it will be near it, but not touching it. And pays total respect to the existing building, which I’m the biggest fan of. It’s my favorite.”

Washington-based McCrery Architects will lead the project, along with construction teams from Virginia-based Clark Construction. Engineering will be provided by AECOM, headquartered in Dallas.

What previous changes have been made to the White House?

The mansion has gone through numerous structural changes since it was first completed in 1800, as different presidents aimed to redesign it to their taste.

Some of the more notable changes in the past century include:

• Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909), in 1902, removed old Victorian-style interiors, relocated the presidential offices from the second floor of the residence to a newly built West Wing, and expanded the State Dining Room to seat 100 guests from a previous 40. He also built a small East Wing as an entryway for formal guests.
• William Howard Taft (1909-1913) expanded the West Wing and created the first Oval Office.
• Franklin D Roosevelt (1933-1945), during World War II, expanded the East Wing from an entryway to a two-storey structure purposely built to cover the underground emergency bunker – the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC).
• Harry Truman (1945-1953) notably made some of the biggest changes. Workers gutted the internal structure to fix steel beams and concrete floors, leaving only the outer walls at some point. He also added the controversial second-floor “Truman Balcony” on the South Portico, which architectural purists argued clashed with the mansion’s original 16th-century Palladian style.
• John F Kennedy and Jacqueline Kennedy (1961-1963) built the Situation Room and refurbished other rooms with antiques.
• Richard Nixon (1969-1974) added a bowling alley and upgraded the Situation Room.
• Bill Clinton (1993-2001) improved security systems and internet connectivity, while George W Bush (2001-2009) renovated the press briefing room and restored several historical rooms, including the Abraham Lincoln Bedroom. Barack Obama (2009-2017) installed wi-fi throughout the White House and the West Wing and adapted existing tennis courts for basketball games.

What’s the history of the White House?

The White House, including the East and West Wings, is about 55,000 square feet across six floors. Its 18-acre grounds include 132 rooms, 35 bathrooms, and 28 fireplaces.

Its construction started on October 13, 1792, under President George Washington, and lasted until November 1, 1800, under President John Adams. It was designed by Irish-born architect James Hoban, who modelled it after Ireland’s parliament building, Leinster House.

Mountains of toxic waste are piled up on Gaza’s streets, worsening a growing public health crisis. Two years of war and blockade have crippled basic services. Sanitation workers are overwhelmed, and access to landfills is almost impossible, despite the ceasefire.

There are two conversations unfolding in the wake of the latest ceasefire, which has brought a fragile pause to the carnage in Gaza – one quiet, pragmatic, and regional, the other, loud, moral, and global. The first takes place behind closed doors, among diplomats, intelligence services and political veterans of the Middle East. The second fills our timelines, animated by outrage and solidarity – the only decent human response to horror. The first is sketching a new map of power, as the second speaks of betrayal and mistrust.

If one listens carefully, a striking conclusion emerges from regional capitals: the war in Gaza is over – not only militarily, but as a political paradigm. In the eyes of those who manage statecraft, the agreement marks a point of no return. What is unfolding is not a truce, it is a reordering. Gaza’s catastrophe has triggered a recalibration that will ripple far beyond its borders, reaching deep into Israel, reshaping Palestinian politics, and redefining what regional stability will mean for years to come.

In this new calculus, Hamas – and indeed the entire project of political Islam, alongside most non-state actors – faces exclusion from formal politics. The ruling classes of the region, newly aligned around the pursuit of stability, commerce and controlled modernisation, now regard such movements as relics of the past and as agents of chaos. A growing consensus holds that all such actors must be contained or eradicated.

The same logic of control will extend to the West Bank – simply because the emerging regional order prizes governability above all else. The Arab plan is that Arab states, joined by select Islamic and international powers, will step in to place the West Bank under temporary supervision – administrative, financial, and security-based – paving the way for a managed transition.

The Palestinian Authority will be offered what may be its final opportunity to reform – a process that will be overseen by a team of independent technocrats tasked with restructuring institutions, governing Gaza, and preparing the ground for elections. Should the Palestinian Authority resist this restructuring, it risks isolation and insolvency.

Many will see this as an attempt not at reform but at co-option – certainly the logic of those driving this process is not democratic idealism. They seek to secure the Palestinian street through a leadership that can both contain discontent and negotiate in predictable terms. Palestinians do not have monarchs or dynasties, and in the absence of such structures, the ballot box remains the only viable tool to sustain internal legitimacy, even if born out of external calculation.

The Palestine Liberation Organization, long hollowed out, may soon stand as little more than a symbolic umbrella, a ceremonial home for the parties of “liberation”. In the emerging regional order, it risks being seen as a structure that has outlived its political moment, its struggle reduced to declarations, appeals, and the pursuit of donor funds. Keeping in mind the new order, those who want to maintain their political relevance must resurrect as civilian parties withholding their revolutionary ethos.

What many in policy circles now view as inevitable has its origins in these conditions. It is a vision that few people openly describe, but it is quietly being welcomed with growing confidence from Riyadh to key Western cities in Amman and Cairo.

The divide is here, though. Many people around the world are offended by what they perceive as cynical calculation and co-option, a rearrangement of power that lacks justice, accountability, or honest vision, while insiders speak in the language of systems, supervision, and “order.” These maneuvers are seen by activists and solidarity movements as betrayal rather than reordering. They have no faith in Israel or the United States, nor do they trust regional governments’ apparent self-interest in money and power. They are suspicious, too.

There must be room for realism, not the realism of resignation, but of awareness, between naivete and cynicism. The development of a new structure that will define what justice can or cannot accomplish is what is happening right now. It forfeits its authority once more if it is ignored.

The definition of the conflict has been altered by the Gaza earthquake. Despite its brutality, Israel’s position is no longer absolute. Regional politics are changing. The new order is being written, and actors who want to continue acting must learn its language. Otherwise, they run the risk of being forgotten as only their inability to adapt to the world as it rebuilt itself in front of their eyes.

In my opinion, both realities, the pragmatic and the moral, are currently intertwining, clashing, and progressing in harmony. On the other hand, Israel’s unwavering expansionist project continues to undermine and undermine any emerging frameworks of order, justice, or peace. The other, as defined by regional powers’ transactional calculations, was in part tethered to and having an impact on the United States.

The collision of these currents is likely to cause turbulence in the near future. However, in the long run, it is difficult to imagine how the regional pragmatists will not ultimately prevail, perhaps sooner than expected, because Washington’s attention will always be forced to shift to China and Russia and as Western public opinion will always be decisively opposed to Israel’s impunity and the colonial logic underpinning it.

Solidarity movements will continue to appear in the register of values that still call for justice in an era of convenience, including those of rights, memory, and morality. Their voice is still a necessity because the conscience is what politics frequently forgets. The history’s arc must be pulled by those who reject amnesia and who don’t sacrifice values for comfort because it won’t always come to justice on its own.

The work is already in progress for diaspora Palestinians and the international public, which is unmistakable. They must resist the lulling comfort of apprehension-boosting gestures like recognitions, resolutions, and reconstruction promises that will undoubtedly increase. Accept these with grace, but don’t mistake them for transformation.

The drive for real-world changes as well as accountability-focused efforts must continue. The genocide’s perpetrators in Gaza must one day appear before the court, not out of revenge, but to give justice its own meaning. Only with such perseverance can conscience remain a political force, and the struggle for equality, truth, and dignity continues to shape the moral outlook of our time as well as the fate of our people.

The other, more challenging task is the one that is frequently overlooked: establishing new political leadership on the ground. A gap exists now that is real, uncertain, and narrow. Although it’s not easy to enter, it’s a serious one.

The generation that comes after must comprehend that speaking on the sidelines, protesting, or commenting. No one will respond with an invitation to lead; instead, they must take the initiative, clarity, and organization work to claim that space.

Those who want a new kind of leadership must engage directly in policy formulation and funding as Palestinians return to political ground zero.

Palestinians can reclaim their voice in this new chapter only with the development of new political forces and a language that can speak both to the street and the halls of power.