Anyone who’s spent time around the Green Party — its politicians, activists, or campaign strategists — will most likely have heard one decisive phrase: ‘Target to Win’, or TTW.

It’s fairly uncontroversial to say that the Green Party’s considerable electoral successes in recent years up and down the UK are largely thanks to TTW.

It’s arguably thanks to TTW campaigns that the Greens quadrupled their MPs’ seats in the House of Commons in 2024, gained considerable footholds across London boroughs and multiple council areas around England over the years, and even entered government coalition in Scotland (albeit briefly).

In 2025, Young Greens credited TTW with winning 75% of the seats they stood in where they targeted. Indeed, the Green Party’s official webpage advertising How to Win Local Elections, their elections bible for party members, states:

“Virtually all of our recently elected councillors would not have been elected without the guidance of this 250-page manual. …

“It contains template election newsletters and leaflets and scripts for canvassing, as well as advice on choosing target candidates and target wards, sample questionnaires for door-to-door surveys. Everything you need for a proper target to win campaign. Everything you need for a proper target to win campaign.

Shifting political landscapes for the Green Party

However, some within the Green Party argue that they won all their prior successes in an entirely different electoral landscape to the one they confront today. Hence, MP Hannah Spencer’s history-making Manchester victory in a century-old Labour stronghold.

Labour’s popularity is at record lows and falling evermore. The Tories collapsed and aren’t meaningfully holding ground anywhere. The Lib Dems are seemingly making little use of their record number of MPs, freely admit this, and rightly fear the Greens’ surge.

Reform is now a real threat and Greens showed they can hold them off better than Labour in February’s historic Gorton and Denton by-election win. However some feel they’re not meeting the moment. One Greater Manchester-based Green activist told The Canary:

“Gorton and Denton smashed the gates open, but we’re not running through it.”

That by-election result — won by an almost 50% margin, with over 4,400 votes more than Reform — combined with surging membership (now at over 225,000), bolder leadership figures in Zack Polanski, Mothin Ali and Rachel Millward and an insurgent left-wing and grassroots force, represented partly by Greens Organise, change the landscape entirely.

Yet some in the party feel that the party isn’t capitalising on this unique electoral moment. Another Greater Manchester-based campaigner reiterated this concern:

“This [7 May 2026] is going to be an election of missed opportunity.”

 Given the Greens’ recent electoral successes, it would be potentially reckless to scrap a historically valuable strategy without a solid replacement. After all, it’s a strategy which could decide the fate of the country for the next decade potentially, for better or worse.

The question right now, then, is whether sticking to TTW in such a new political moment is really the right course of action. I spoke to different party activists to find out.

Balancing the playing-field

We can’t understand TTW without knowing why, where and how it originated.

The ‘why’ is pretty straightforward: for a small party — not historically backed by unions like Labour, nor by super-wealthy donors like Tories or Lib Dems, or Labour and Reform today — resources are scarce. It’s only with their recent membership boom that Greens can boast some competitive funding, and even then it’s relatively tiny.

Greens’ party coffers barely featured visibly in Sky’s recent graph reviewing major party donation sources, where Reform broke historic records – via Sky News.

When resources are scarce, they must be used wisely. Hence, Greens use the TTW playbook: give strong wards, constituencies or boroughs the funding, resources and volunteer support they need. It’s why they went all-in on Gorton and Denton, for example, and won recent council by-elections (even Kent!).

But, conversely, it means that non-TTW seats don’t get that same needed level of support. This leaves them as marginal or ‘cardboard’ seats — where there’s a good chance but no proper targeted campaign — or else ‘paper’ seats, where people stand without real expectation that any campaigning will (or even should be allowed to) take place.

Why ‘Target to Win’?

To find out more about TTW, I recently visited Solihull outside Birmingham, which local Green Party activists described to me as “ground zero” for the electoral strategy. It’s there, supposedly, where the Greens tested, refined and capitalised on TTW.

And it’s been a local shining success: Greens have been in formal opposition to the Tories in Solihull’s council for a decade, with no meaningful Labour presence to speak of.

This is the result of sustained local efforts, combined with national TTW strategy which dedicated resources to securing viable wins. As Solihull’s entire council stands for re-election on 7 May, owing to re-bordering of local wards (despite alleged gerrymandering), it’s plausible that Greens could even take overall control or enter a governing coalition.

But it’s also not exactly true that TTW originated there first. Former party leader Natalie Bennett admitted that Greens adopted the strategy from watching the Lib Dems’ targeted campaigns and wins which brought them into government in 2010, from which they’ve only recently recovered. One party activist and council candidate describes TTW as “guerilla-style electioneering.”

Since the Lib Dems shifted more recently to following Gail’s bakeries as their electoral guide, and their main contributions to British politics are tripled tuition fees and austerity governance, they’re a questionable guide to follow. Even a Lib Dem party veteran says:

“Sometimes there’s benefits in being a bit boring.”

Greens can’t be accused of being boring right now, judging by ongoing establishment backlash. But Polanski’s stated ambition, after all is to replace Labour, not the Lib Dems. But some in the party remain unconvinced that following Lib Dem-originated TTW strategy will achieve that.

Green Party candidates and councillors back TTW

Solihull is supposedly the ‘ground zero’ where biochemist-turned-Green Party elections chief Chris Williams won his first council campaigns, before moving onto national strategising.

One standing Green Party candidate standing there described to me their experience of being non-TTW, but later coming to accept it, as follows:

“Initially I was disappointed, and I was saying ‘Can I go out leafletting on my own?’, but I was told ‘We’d rather you come and leaflet in a target ward’.

“I’ve come round to the view that targeting is the right way, having done door-to-door and seen how time consuming it is. You haven’t got the time or the number of people to cover every single ward in the borough.”

If this argument flies anywhere, it’s surely in Solihull. One of Solihull’s star councillors, who doubtless owes his success to TTW, described it in similarly favourable to The Canary:

“TTW has been a genuinely effective framework in my personal view and Solihull is a good example of what patient, consistent, locally-rooted work can achieve.”

“The discipline of concentrating resources, building a presence over years rather than weeks, and earning credibility ward by ward — that approach has real merit and the results speak for themselves.”

Advertisement

It’s possible that people’s approaches to and opinions on TTW vary depending on their personal relationship to it: if it’s helped you or fellow activists win, you’d be more likely to see the benefits. Conversely, those who don’t see the benefits may stand more critical.

Other candidates criticise TTW

Party activists elsewhere shared their frustrations with The Canary. Some of those are in Greater Manchester, where Hannah Spencer’s by-election win is still felt as a weather-vane indication of potentially fertile ground for sweeping Green success.

Manchester’s foremost news site The Mill recently shared incumbent councillors’ concerns (mostly Labour) that they could be about to lose a great many seats to Greens across the city. But that analysis overlooked TTW as a central factor, which may or may not serve all Greater Manchester areas equally well.

One candidate faces a ward which has had huge demographic shifts in recent years — younger voters coming in, a now-thriving arts scene and Green-leaning independent businesses — which has not been captured in the party’s most recent historical voter data.

As it’s not a target ward, organisers instruct new, enthusiastic members that they’re not allowed to campaign in their ward. Rather, they should go out to another ward, which they likely have no connection to, often on the other side of their constituency, because that’s TTW. One candidate told The Canary:

“I’ve found TTW not only restrictive, but actively demobilising and disengaging for the vast majority of newer members from the Green surge, who do want to get involved but are constantly being told ‘No’ and being shut out.

“Several new members have felt on the brink of walking away entirely as a result of this.”

They describe TTW as resting on two “core assumptions.” Namely, that 1) in order to win, Greens need to intensively campaign and focus resources on a small number of wards; and 2) that any volunteering outside of TTW would have otherwise happened in a TTW ward, and so detracts from TTW campaigns.

On the first point, they said, following Gorton and Denton, that:

“I agree that strategic resource distribution can be done incredibly effectively, but my sense is that the ambition of local parties has not yet met national potential.”

They continued on the second point:

“Point 2 is where TTW is fundamentally flawed. The Green party has seen unprecedented membership surge, and the primary Green goal must be towards mass-mobilisation, grassroots activism and volunteer upskilling.

“Light-touch campaigns such as small leafleting rounds or occasional local door-knocking — which are effectively banned under TTW — are absolutely critical in terms of engaging and upskilling our membership base, in order to build not only towards next year’s local elections, but towards the 2029 general.”

From the “volunteer engagement lens,” they even advocated for a degree of blanket campaigning in wards everywhere. They weren’t oblivious about the need for some targeting, not least owing to its historical successes in capacity-building. However, they shared:

“The Greens need to stop acting like a minority party, and do justice to the surge in national polling. … Change will only come if we build it.”

Time to bin Green Party Target To Win?

I’ve seen this dynamic in messages shared around Greater Manchester. In one, a Green Party staff organiser instructed activists not to direct volunteers to a certain ward with strong Green popularity and large young professional and student populations,

“bc [because] it isn’t quite a target ward.”

One party activist commented on this incident to The Canary:

“This makes me mad; they are actually policing TTW.”

Another shared the following about the same message:

“I’ve actually never known such a top-down party organising before. It’s so restrictive and not helpful for engaging with membership.”

For some activists and dedicated volunteers, it feels like a deliberate stranglehold on local organising. One North West Green campaigner told me of two target wards in their constituency, one of which already has all three seats on the ward held by Greens.

“That [fully Green] ward feels like a safe ward, yet most of our resources are going there, [so it’s] feeling like the councillors care more about staying in power than getting more Green councillors in the area. The other target ward feels a lot more close between Reform and Green but is definitely winnable.”

Another campaigner confirmed to me that this second TTW ward in question is only being allocated “overspill” resources after the safer ward gets 100% of its allocated volunteer hours. In other words, even where two wards are supposedly TTW, that doesn’t mean they’re both getting the same level of support.

This begs the question: Are some TTW wards more equal than others?

The former campaigner pointed out that many supposedly ‘paper’ wards scheduled for 7 May elections won strong Green support at the last council elections in 2024 (since 2025 had no local elections). But now, many of these aren’t receiving TTW-strength support.

Since 2024, though, the ‘Green surge’ or ‘Polanski wave’ has dominated UK left politics and changed everything electorally. Unsurprisingly, the activist told The Canary:

“The TTW policy has felt very restrictive — to a confusing degree.”

They also shared that they found it counter-productive, and less engaging generally, to only engage in TTW campaigning. As a result, TTW is sometimes going ignored anyway. They shared this experience:

“I have campaigned in a non-target ward where I live with the local candidate, and I found that I had way longer chats and gave out way more posters than I ever have in the target wards. People were so happy because they had never been knocked by us before, but we don’t have the resources for an effective campaign there.”

The Rochdale resistance: another model?

That campaigner isn’t alone in forgoing TTW, in favour of a cause they believe can be won — not least where the alternative could be a Reform UK win. But one council-level party is apparently not enforcing TTW strictly, or at all, and instead spreading out its resources wherever it can.

Rochdale Green Party has never been large nor had many resources, but what resources they do have before 7 May are being shared among candidates where the committee feels they have a strong chance. Still, it won’t be easy, one committee member shared:

“We’ve got a tough deal in Rochdale, as Labour are incredibly unpopular, but we’re facing Reform plus Middleton Independents, Restore/Advance in Heywood and Worker’s Party across Rochdale town, so it’s a 4- or 5-way race in some places. It’s anyone’s game.”

In an area with such strong contender wards for split votes — compared with the three-way race of Gorton and Denton, for example, albeit at the council rather than constituency level — Rochdale could become a vital test-case for TTW.

If they can pull off big wins without using TTW in a multi-polar race, it might be a sign of time for change.

One committee member told The Canary:

“We’ve not identified any wards as TTW, because we’ve not really had much capacity in the borough before, either in terms of money or people power.

“I’ve not had much experience of TTW, but it has felt very restricted in its scope and vision. It’s obviously designed for a long-game, guerrilla-style electioneering, rather than the big insurgent wave that GPEW is currently riding.”

It might come down to the fact that a full slate of candidates across Rochdale’s wards hasn’t been possible until now, however. They indicated that TTW could feel like party ideology, rather than necessarily the best strategy in every instance:

“We’ve been lucky to have a chair and sec that haven’t dogmatically followed TTW and have run a dynamic campaign where we throw whatever we can at whichever wards we have capacity to do so.”

At the same time, they went on to suggest that TTW might be strategically adopted later, once there’s a clearer picture of the electoral ground:

“We’re gonna come out with some baseline results and be more strategic next year. This is where some elements of TTW might become useful.”

Time to test TTW

Despite their current resistance to applying TTW rigidly, the Rochdale candidates seem realistic about its strategic value in some scenarios. Perhaps that’s what’s needed when electoral politics looks more unusual than ever: a case-by-case approach.

The candidate and branch committee member continued, telling The Canary:

“I don’t think TTW will be a major issue for us in Rochdale, but I’ve heard stories in Manchester and Stockport where it’s going to be more restrictive, because they’re much more fertile ground for the Greens.

“Hopefully, in the future, TTW is seen as more of a guiding principle, or one of a set of tools that local parties can choose from, rather than a prescription imposed from above.”

Speaking of ‘above’, one name came up in my research which I knew from my time around the historic Gorton and Denton campaign — a party figure involved with an MP’s success in 2024, alongside Hannah Spencer’s win. When I contacted them for comment, they replied:

“Hey Cameron, I’m alright thank you. Busy winning elections!”

The coming week will tell if they’re right to maintain their faith in TTW. When so much depends nationally on Greens’ ability to present a progressive alternative to collapsed centrism and an increasingly emboldened and radical right-wing, it’s no small matter.

Time for the Green Party to evolve

Even Solihull’s key councillor, who leans favourably on TTW, shared that there’s “a fair conversation to have” around TTW in areas unlike his own. He told The Canary:

“The political landscape has shifted significantly. The rise of Reform, the collapse of traditional party loyalties, and the Greens now being seen as a genuine national force means the old targeting assumptions don’t always hold.

“There are communities — including more diverse urban areas — where the TTW model as originally designed hasn’t reflected the full electoral opportunity.”

As for Greater Manchester — one of those diverse urban areas he cites — fears still linger that perceived party dogma might hold Greens back from really succeeding in areas they otherwise could do better. One activist involved in Manchester’s campaigns told The Canary:

“I absolutely think we will suffer as a result of TTW. … I think a lot of people will be disappointed that we haven’t tried to expand to that degree.”

Solihull’s Green councillor offered a nuanced view that will likely resonate with many fellow activists in the run up to — and perhaps especially after — the 7 May local elections:

“My view is that the core discipline of TTW remains sound, but it needs to evolve. Targeting must become more flexible, more diverse in where it looks, and more responsive to the moment we’re in. That’s not a criticism of the strategy — it’s what any good strategy does over time.”

Green Party Deputy CEO and elections manager Chris Williams himself told Politico that he’s encouraging candidates and activists to “raise their ambitions.” Politico says that 7 May is the moment Williams has been building towards for now almost two decades. Like Williams says:

“We [Greens] are a big party now.”

The question remains whether that messaging is really cutting through at the local level, or whether branches accustomed to old TTW campaigns will fail to meet this urgent moment.

By Cameron Baillie

Source link

An inquest at Belfast Coroner’s Court has ruled that two British soldiers “overreacted” and “lost control” when killing five innocent people who posed no threat. The troops gunned down their victims on 9 July 1972, in what became known as the Springhill Massacre, after the area in West Belfast where the brutal violence occurred.

Three of the victims were in their teens. One of them was thirteen year old Margaret Gargan, who one of the soldiers shot in the face as she sat on a wall talking to friends.

David McCafferty was fourteen, while John Dougal sixteen when he was shot in the back as he fled. The two King’s Regiment troops, identified only as Soldier A and Soldier E, also gunned down Catholic priest Noel Fitzpatrick and Patrick Butler. The latter man left behind six children. The army men also seriously wounded two other men.

Earlier that evening, two members of the 1st King’s Regiment C Company operating in the area had sustained bullet wounds. 1972 was the bloodiest year of ‘The Troubles’, with at least 479 people losing their lives. Exchanges of fire between republican paramilitaries and British soldiers were commonplace. The King’s Regiment often killed civilians in the aftermath of attacks on its own members.

Soldiers invented narrative to conceal unjustified killings

Soldiers A and E were stationed on an elevated position at Corry’s timber yard, and were only around 100 metres away from those they killed. The British army attempted to concoct a narrative in which the yard came under sustained organised attack, but Justice Scoffield rejected this version of events.

He said radio logs from the brigade “hugely undermine” those claims, and there was not “a coordinated attack by a mass of gunmen”. Scoffield, acting as presiding coroner, said their stories may amount to:

…a cynical attempt to justify shootings which were unjustified.

British soldiers were known to use binoculars and scopes when set up in sniping positions in Belfast. The coroner determined that the murderers would have been able to determine who they were firing at. Soldier E killed thirteen year old Gargan with an “aimed shot” while there was “no firing at her location”, and she posed “no risk at all”.

John Dougal was a member of the IRA’s youth wing, but Scoffield said:

With John Dougal shot in the back as he ran from the area and taking into account the requirements of the yellow card, the force used by Soldier A was not reasonable.

The yellow card was a guidance document the army gave to its soldiers to convey rules of engagement. It had no basis in law and was simply a general means to aid soldiers in determining when they could open fire.

Margaret’s brother Harry said in response to the inquest’s findings:

The verdict of unjust killing will never end the decades of grief and trauma inflicted on our family. The truth of what happened to our beautiful sister Margaret was always what our late mother and father desired in search of a new inquest.

John Dougal’s brother Jimmy called for the soldiers involved to be held accountable:

We want justice and those soldiers to be brought to book for what they did.

Much like the case of the Bloody Sunday Soldier F case, who was accused of illegal killings in a Derry massacre by British soldiers also in 1972, the length of time the British state has delayed proceedings makes this justice far harder to obtain. Not only that, Scoffield drew attention to the possibility that there was an intentional cover up regarding Springhill, saying the scale of missing documentation may have been for “improper” reasons. He may yet recommend criminal proceedings are opened.

The inquest was close to collapsing, following the Conservative government’s introduction of the Legacy Act designed as a further means of preventing investigation into historic Troubles era crimes. All cases had to be reach a verdict stage by 1 May 2024, and the Springhill inquest did so with only hours to spare. The Act is currently being restructured by the current Labour government.

The charity Relatives for Justice, which supports families bereaved from Six Counties’ state and paramilitary violence, concluded by paying tribute to the long struggle of the Springhill families:

…it is only fitting to conclude by recognising the victims’ family members, who have fought almost 54 years for truth, to write the state’s false history and who have shown nothing but dignity and fortitude in their fight for truth, justice, and vindication.

Featured image via the IrishRepublicanNews

By Robert Freeman

Source link

The Labour friends of genocide axis’s attacks on Jewish Green party leader Zack Polanski continue. In the latest example, well-known pro-Israel horror Louise Ellman has made a sinister attack on Polanski that has undertones of threat.

Ellman is a former Liverpool MP who quit rather than face a vote of disgusted local members whether to retain her as a candidate. She claimed to have been “appalled” that then-leader Jeremy Corbyn was at an event she also attended. She seemed more concerned with blocking help to Palestinian children. And now, she says that Polanski needs to be “very, very careful in what he is peddling”:

Ellman, the bad joke who tried to sell us Corbyn’s ‘antisemitic thoughts’, attacks the Jewish leader of the Greens.
It’d be clownish were it not so sinister.
Our media must stop pretending the Israel lobby are good-faith actors.#ItWasAScam https://t.co/RqRt5r4Y7z

— simon maginn (@simonmaginn) April 30, 2026

Elllman was at the heart of the ‘Labour antisemitism’ scam when Jeremy Corbyn was party leader. That scam particularly targeted Jews who opposed Israel’s crimes. She doesn’t seem ready to realise that two and a half years of genocide in Gaza means the scam won’t work again — unless the Greens enable it — but seems just as ready to target Jews who get in the way of the Israel lobby’s plans as her fellow smearers ever were.

Featured image via LFI

By Skwawkbox

Source link

The historic Palestinian town of Sebastia, not far from Nablus in the Northern West Bank, is believed to be one of the oldest continuously inhabited places in the occupied territory. The town is an important destination for Christian and Muslim pilgrims, as St John the Baptist – known as the Prophet Yahya in Islam – is buried here.

Sebastia – an extremely important ancient Palestinian site the Israeli occupation intends to steal

Sebastia’s nearby archaeological site is also impressive. Excavations have taken place here for more than a century, and have revealed that its earliest remains date to the Bronze Age, 3000 years ago.

Ruled by multiple civilizations – including the Assyrians, Persians and Romans – it was named Sebaste, which means Augustus, by Herod the Great in honour of the Roman emperor Augustus Caesar. Its ancient ruins include a Roman amphitheatre, a Hellenistic tower, a Byzantine Church, and the remains of a colonnaded street.

For these reasons, Sebastia has been on the UNESCO Tentative List of World Heritage Sites for the State of Palestine since 2012.

To the local community of around 3500 Palestinians, the archaeological site and the town are inseparable. Both are part of the same important cultural and historical landscape, which not only plays an essential role in their rich heritage, but provides an economic lifeline to the population.

More than 2000 visitors arrived daily to the archaeological site, known as the acropolis. It was a favourite spot not only for foreign tourists, but Palestinians from the surrounding area, and the rest of the West Bank. But this is not the case any more.

In November 2025, the Israeli occupation’s ‘Civil Administration’ issued a confiscation order stating its intention to seize the entire acropolis of Sebastia, in Israeli occupation controlled Area C, along with around 1400 dunums, or approximately 350 acres, of surrounding land. This is the largest area confiscated by the Israeli occupation from an archaeological site in the occupied West Bank since 1967. The reason given was

the preservation and development of the site as a visitor-accessible site for the general public.

The Israeli occupation’s confiscation order will mean residents lose their ancient heritage and their source of income

Fascist Israeli occupation Heritage Minister and illegal settler Amichai EliyahuIn – who is part of Ben-Gvir’s Jewish Power party and openly supports full Israeli annexation of the West Bank – announced Sebastia’s land confiscation in a social media post.

Referring to the large Palestinian flag flying at archaeological site, he also declared that “the flag of the invented people” will be replaced by the “flag of the Jewish people.”

Sebastia’s mayor, Mohammad Azem, tells the Canary:

It’s empty here now. Nobody is coming to Sebastia, as all the people are afraid to come here and visit the site, since the decision in November.

The Israelis are stealing our land. Around 97 percent of this confiscation order is for private Palestinian land, mainly olive groves that belong to families from Sebastia and the nearby town of Burqa. And there are ownership documents from 1958 to prove this.

6000 olive trees will be lost, and 10 touristic facilities will be forced to close as a result of the Israeli occupation’s land theft. This will spell disaster for the community, who will not only lose their ancient heritage, but their two main sources of income – olives and tourism.

Azem says:

Then people will leave because they have no money. This is the plan of Israel, to emmigrate the people from their land. But it is not only about wanting to control the land. They also want to make the Palestinians feel scared, so they can expel them from Sebastia town as well.

Residents of Sebastia town – Palestinian administered and in Area B – endure constant raids, with Israeli occupation forces (IOF) storming the place day and night.

Because no one is stopping them, the IOF have become more and more aggressive. Residents are afraid, while most tourists have now decided against even visiting the town, as they also have to navigate their way through Israeli occupation checkpoints located close to the nearby illegal settlements.

The occupation is weaponising archaeology in the occupied territory in an attempt to erase Palestinian heritage, history and identity

In May 2023, the occupation approved a budget of 32 NIS, equivalent to almost £8 million, which came mainly from the Environmental Protection and Tourism ministries, to:

restore and develop Sebastia for public access.

These “development plans” for Sebastia include the confiscation of all open archaeological zones and historic remains, for the creation of a new “Israeli” park called “Shomron National Park”.

Of course, only the area’s Jewish roots will be highlighted in this park, while all other eras that form the site’s true identity will be completely erased by the Israeli occupation.

This is an attempt to rewrite history and erase Palestinian identity, something that has already happened in several places, including the Palestinian neighbourhood of Silwan, in East Jerusalem. Here, illegal settlers run the City of David Archaeological Park tourist attraction, in an attempt to forcibly displace the local Palestinian residents and judaise the neighbourhood.

The Israeli occupation is weaponising archaeology. It is using the false narrative of preservation and development to justify cultural erasure and dispossession of Palestinians from their land. At the same time, illegal settlers and the occupation’s military are tightening their control over the lives of Palestinians, expanding settlements, and are another step closer to annexation.

The “development” of Sebastia includes fencing off the site, charging for entry, and establishing a visitor’s centre. Unsurprisingly, the occupation sees these plans as yet another way to enforce their control over Palestinians, so increased law enforcement to “prevent vandalism” will also be a feature.

“Development plans” include a Jewish only access road that will cut off Sebastia town from its archaeological site

A new settler only access road is also currently being constructed to the archaeological site, which will completely bypass the town of Sebastia, severing the ancient site from the historic centre. If these measures are carried out, Sebastia’s residents will be cut off from their land and their heritage.

Azem says:

They say they want our land to make conservation and preservation for the archaeological site, for the public benefit. But we know this is an annexation plan – one that is not only for Sebastia, but all of the West Bank.

Israel is now making a road from the settlements in the North of Nablus – Shavei Shomron and Homesh – to Sebastia, which will get linked to Route 60, so settlers feel more comfortable, and it is easy for them to come here. Then it will be a closed area, only for these illegal settlers and Israelis.

Advertisement

This is stealing. Israel is stealing our land. They want to make settler controlled tourism projects, so Sebastia and other West Bank archaeological sites will be under full Israeli control and Palestinians will be excluded.

Emek Shaveh is an Israeli NGO that monitors and campaigns against the use of archaeology as a political tool for strengthening Israeli occupation control in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. It too believes  the occupation’s focus is not on preserving heritage or encouraging tourism, but on ethnically cleansing the West Bank of Palestinians.

In a statement, it says:

Israel is taking weaponisation of archaeology to new heights. In this cynical move, Israel is fragrant violating international law, turning archaeology into a tool for settlement and annexation, while depriving the Palestinian residents of Sebastia and Burqa of their land and cultural heritage.

False claims that Palestinians neglect and destroy archaeological sites have increased Israeli occupation control over them

In recent years, there has been a noticeable increase in Israeli occupation control over archaeological sites in the occupied West Bank.

This has been aided by a settler led campaign that claims Palestinians are neglecting and deliberately destroying “Jewish heritage sites.” But nothing is further from the truth.

Palestinians treasure their heritage and do not practice selective archaeology, as zionists do. They try their hardest to maintain their heritage sites as best they can, although maintenance and restoration is made almost impossible by the Israeli occupation, who constantly invade the sites and prevent Palestinians from carrying out any necessary work.

Azem tells us that, several years ago, staff from the Palestinian Ministry of Antiquities wanted to do maintenance work on the loose stone from the Basilica inside the archaeological site. But the IOF and settlers turned up and stopped them working. They were arrested and detained for more than five hours.

Then, in 2023, when Palestinian archaeologists were working in Area B, in Sebastia town, they discovered a Roman cemetery. The Palestinian Antiquities department started working on the site, until the IOF arrested them again.

The Israeli occupation Antiquities Authority later came to work on the site, and stole a large number of artifacts from inside the cemetery.

According to reports, between 2013 and 2025, Israeli occupation authorities issued 63 military orders, concerning archaeological sites in the occupied West Bank. These resulted in more than 7000 dunums – equivalent to around 1730 acres – of land either being confiscated or placed under the exclusive control of the Israeli occupation.

These measures have been accompanied by new laws and government decisions expanding the authority of bodies like the Israel Antiquities Authority into areas previously administered by Palestinians. This includes parts of Areas A and B – which, under the Oslo Accords, fall under the control of the Palestinian Authority.

The purpose of this is to extend the Israeli occupation’s control under the guise of environmental and archaeological protection, and to use cultural heritage as a means of land theft and forced displacement.

#SaveSebastia before it is too late

Despite all the harassment and violence, the majority of Sebastia’s residents are going nowhere. They say they will never leave.

Although Sebastia’s municipality presented an objection to the courts – which are controlled by war criminals Ben Gvir, Smotrich, and Netanyahu – it was refused. But they are not giving up. A new objection to the confiscation is currently being prepared after the courts rejected the first.

Azem tells the Canary that everyone around the world should join the Save Sebastia Campaign. The residents of Sebastia are calling for archaeologists, historians, human rights activists, and every free voice around the world to stand with them, visit Sebastia and Palestine, and speak out against the Israeli occupation’s assaults and violence, and its decision to annex Sebastia, before it is too late.

Featured image via the Canary

By Charlie Jaay

Source link

OnlyFans creators have been weighing in on the storyline involving Sydney Sweeney’s character in the new season of Euphoria.

In the first two instalments of the current season, viewers discovered that Cassie, played by the Emmy nominee, had turned to modelling on the adults-only website OnlyFans to help fund her lavish wedding to Jacob Elordi’s Nate.

As the storyline progressed, Cassie began taking part in increasingly extreme photo-shoots, which has so far generated a lot of debate among critics and Euphoria fans.

Off the back of the controversy, many real-life OnlyFans performers have been sharing their takes on Cassie’s story arc, with a range of different opinions.

Advertisement

Alex Paige Moore has suggested that Euphoria oversimplifies how easy it is to become successful on OnlyFans.

“It’s not as simple as ‘send a message and make $50’ – if it was, everyone would be doing it,” Alex claimed.

“Most creators start on $1–2k (around £750–£1480) a month. It takes serious strategy, social media presence and consistency to build it up.”

She pointed out: “Cassie’s already rich – she’s just doing it because she wants more money, and for Nate to spend more money, which I think is a negative representation of the sort of girl that does only OnlyFans.”

Advertisement

Alex started her OnlyFans to help earn financial independence to leave a toxic relationship while still being able to spend time with her young daughter.

“I feel like for a lot of people, joining OnlyFans is more of a last resort,” she added. “They’re not spoiled brats. They’re not mean people that’re giving their partners ultimatums.”

She also took issue with the portrayal of OnlyFans modelling as “easy”, noting: “The idea that it’s easy work, easy money – that you don’t have to do much – makes it sound like a lazy job, which it really isn’t.”

Fellow performer Amira Evans agreed: “OnlyFans is NOT a get rich quick scheme. People need to understand the stigma and risks. The internet is forever.”

Others were more enthusiastic about OnlyFans modelling being represented on a show like Euphoria.

Advertisement

“I actually think it’s a positive step,” Bonnie Locket claimed. “For a long time, there’s been a lot of stigma, and shows like this open up the conversation.”

Alix Lynx went on to say: “The reality is that people are on OnlyFans and so I love that it’s being shown on such a big show.”

Meanwhile, Taila Maddison noted: “I think it’s actually a really good thing that OnlyFans is being represented in Euphoria. It might boost its popularity a bit and remind people of what it is.

“A lot of people already subscribe, but this could catch some viewers by surprise and spark new interest.”

Advertisement

Looking ahead, Taila suggested: “I do think Euphoria might initially portray joining OnlyFans as something a bit humiliating, because that’s often the reality when people first find out – especially friends and family. There’s usually shock, like, ‘Oh my God, I can’t believe they’re doing that’.

“But I’m hoping the narrative shifts over the season and people start to admire her for it. It feels like they’re trying to reflect real reactions first, and then maybe challenge them later.”

Euphoria star Chloe Cherry was also a pornographic performer and OnlyFans model before landing her role in the hit US drama.

Asked for her take on the OnlyFans storyline last week, Chloe told Refinery29: “People have the weirdest ideas and like fantasies of sex work being so empowering and we’ve seen all these news stories where they’re like, oh, OnlyFans models makes $700 billion in a month, and everyone’s like, ‘whoa’. I literally just think that these things are a bit of smoke and mirrors, actually.”

Advertisement

Chloe claimed: “It’s really hard to say if it would give [Cassie] any power. Obviously, Cassie is extremely attractive, so it probably would lead to her making a lot of money. But it just feels crazy as fuck to see somebody living like Cassie turn to sex work. It’s like, ‘holy shit, that’s where we’re at in society?’.”

Euphoria creator Sam Levison previously shared his intention with the portrayal of OnlyFans work in his show before season three began.

Euphoria is available to stream in the UK on Now, Sky and HBO Max.

Source link

Green Party leader Zack Polanski has let himself down and millions of Israel’s victims, those who advocate against genocide, and the millions in this country who need the reversal of decades of Thatcherism under successive blue and red governments. The situation is not yet irredeemable after he apologised for sharing a post condemning police brutality against an unconscious, immobilised and mentally unwell man. But it is very dangerous – both for the Greens electorally and for the nation that is looking to them to halt the drive into fascism.

Polanski capitulates

Polanski has capitulated to pressure from the Israel lobby and Israel’s enablers in government, who are busy turning the UK into a police state to protect the apartheid colony, and apologised for not ‘lowering the temperature’:

Full contact bullshit

Met Police commissioner Mark Rowley tried to excuse the brutal assault on an immobilised, sick man by quipping that policing is a “full contact and messy task”. This contemptible excuse makes it sound like they went in a bit hard in a rugby match. In reality, they had the Golders Green knife attacker immobilised, and stunned after being tased and kicked.

And then they kicked him in the head. Again and again and again. After he was helpless:

The law does not say it’s ok to risk kicking a suspect to death because you don’t like what he allegedly did. Polanski sharing an X post that condemned that brutality was not ‘raising the temperature’ of a ‘both sides’ debate. It was the least that right-thinking people expect from someone who is in a position to stand up for what’s right.

The lessons of abdication

Apologising is abdicating that responsibility, in order to try to appease people who won’t be appeased – because they want Polanski gone or neutralised and this is just one step toward that goal.

If there was any lesson from the Corbyn era of Labour, it’s that. Corbyn, terminally optimistic about finding common ground, thought he could meet the Israel lobby in the middle by apologising for ‘Labour antisemitism’. There was no Labour antisemitism. It was a scam. Now, after two and a half years of Israel’s genocide in Gaza, the ‘Green antisemitism’ scam is even more transparent.

The people pushing the Labour scam didn’t really care about Jewish feelings, or even about antisemitism. They wanted him gone and any concession short of his resignation was going to be pocketed and then more demanded, never taking yes for an answer. And demanding more still, until the end goal was achieved. If someone wants your head, offering them an apology is only strengthening them. And Corbyn – encouraged by his advisers – strengthened his attackers until they had what they really wanted – his political head.

The Brexit Syndrome

What makes it even more dangerous for Polanski – and therefore millions of the rest of us – is the Brexit syndrome.

In 2017, Corbyn was seen by millions of voters as the genuine article – which he was – and he presented a ‘Labour Brexit’ that he genuinely believed in as an alternative to the Tories’ racist recklessness. And he stunned the establishment and came within a few thousand votes of winning a general election.

But in 2019, after allowing saboteur Keir Starmer to drag him and the party into a nonsensical ‘second referendum’ position, conman Boris Johnson was able to fool voters that he was the anti-establishment candidate, while Corbyn was one more politician who wanted to ignore their 2016 vote. It was a deadly combination and a huge scam – but it worked, and what happened to Corbyn is now history.

Now the same UK-Zionist establishment is terrified of Polanski and his party’s electoral surge. That surge is, in large part, because Polanski comes across as the real thing. Voters are impressed that he has not danced to the tune of the Labour-Reform-Tory uniparty and its Israel lobby. They like his irreverence and his refusal to lie down and take the smears against him.

So they are trying to manoeuvre him into a position where he loses that authenticity and edge; where he sounds and acts like one more politician – and if ‘they’re all the same’, what’s the point in choosing? And capitulating to attacks for doing the right thing in the face of police brutality and police-state collusion is what ‘one more politician’ does.

Polanski, please don’t fall for it

Polanski seemed to show he had understood what was done to Corbyn when he apologised to Corbyn for being fooled by it. But the lesson hasn’t gone deep enough. If Polanski wants to continue his surge, thwart the fascists, and rescue the UK, he has to learn it fast.

No, not fast. Right the hell now. No more apologies. No more falling for the scam or even flirting with it. Back to being the version of himself that scoffs at, and then wipes the floor with, his smearers.

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

Source link

Meryl Streep has admitted that she came close to turning down one of her most iconic roles in The Devil Wears Prada.

Appearing on The Today Show to promote the sequel, Meryl recalled how as soon as she read the script for the original film, she knew immediately that it was “going to be a hit”, so seized an opportunity.

“I thought, it’s a great script. And they called me up and made an offer and I said, ‘No, I’m not gonna do it’,” Meryl recalled.

She continued: “I knew it was gonna be a hit, and I wanted to see if I doubled my ask, and they went right away and said, ‘Sure’.”

Advertisement

Meryl went on to share that it took her a long time to “understand that I could do that” and that “you can ask for what you want”.

“I was sure it would be a hit, and they needed me,” she added. “I wanted it, but if they didn’t want to do that, I was OK because I’m old. I was ready to retire.

“But that was a lesson. That was a great way to start, so I was in a good mood when we began.”

Alongside the returning faces from the original Devil Wears Prada film, Meryl is joined in the new follow-up by the likes of Bridgerton’s Simone Ashley, Justin Theroux, Lucy Liu and a wave of celebrity cameos.

Advertisement

The Devil Wears Prada 2 arrives in cinemas on Friday 1 May. Check out HuffPost UK’s review of the film here.

Correction: A previous version of this article erroneously stated that Meryl Streep initially turned down The Devil Wears Prada 2, rather than the first film. This has now been corrected.

Source link

Comedians Bob Mortimer and Paul Whitehouse have paid tribute to the canine companion with whom they shared the screen numerous times over the years in their hit series Gone Fishing.

The pair first encountered the Patterdale Terrier mix Ted in season three of Gone Fishing, back in 2020, and he went on to make numerous on-screen appearances alongside the presenters.

On Monday morning, the BBC announced that Ted had died, with both of Gone Fishing’s hosts sharing touching tributes.

“So very, very sad,” Bob lamented, remembering “lovely Ted” as “the best companion and the greatest little chum”.

Advertisement

“Going to miss him so much.,. and away boss,” he added.

Paul agreed: “He wasn’t a dog, he was a species all of his own. He’s gone to the great briefcase emporium in the sky. We will really miss you mate.”

Louise Meager/BBC/Owl Power/Louise Meager

After his first introduction in 2020, Ted became a fan-favourite with Gone Fishing viewers, and in the 2025 Christmas special, he was awarded an honorary Lifetime Achievement Award.

The BBC explained that when Ted was around six months old, he was rescued from a dog’s home and went to live with Gone Fishing’s executive producer Lisa Clark, who was his owner until he died.

Advertisement

In her own statement, the producer: “Ted was a much-loved family pet as well as a treasured companion to Paul and Bob on Gone Fishing. He took fame in his little stride and loved nothing better than messing around on the riverbanks, nicking jammy dodgers from Bob and bait from Paul.

“He will be sorely missed both at home and on screen. We’ll never forget him. He is survived at home by Bo the Briard.”

Ted is due to make one final posthumous appearance in Gone Fishing in its upcoming ninth season, which is expected to air on the BBC later this year.

Source link

Beef creator Lee Jung Sin is weighing in about what’s next for the award-winning show.

After Beef’s inaugural series proved to be a huge success with both critics and viewers, Netflix made the decision to turn it into an anthology series, focussing on a different set of characters – and, indeed, a different central feud – each time.

Season two premiered earlier this month, with Lee previously sharing his hopes to conclude after a third run.

However, in a candid new interview with The Hollywood Reporter, the three-time Emmy winner made it clear that he’s at peace if Beef were to come to an end without a third iteration.

Advertisement

“I’d be perfectly happy if this were the last season,” he claimed. “I think it’s really emotionally taxing, the making of it and the rollout of it.”

He continued: “I feel like I’ve said it through two seasons of Beef. But I do remain open if the universe shows me something in the future and it feels right for Beef. I’m definitely open.”

The first season of Beef featured Ali Wong and Steven Yeun as a pair of strangers who become engrossed in each other’s lives when a chance road range encounter bubbles over into an all-encompassing vendetta.

In the follow-up, the stakes were raised even higher, with Carey Mulligan, Oscar Isaac, Charles Melton and Cailee Spaeny playing two feuding couples on opposing sides of a generational and class divide that leads both pairs to ask big questions about their partners, and themselves.

Advertisement

Back in 2023, while promoting season one, Lee told Rolling Stone that he’d always envisaged Beef telling three separate stories.

“I have one really big general idea that I can’t really say yet, but I have three seasons mapped out in my head currently,” he claimed.

Seasons one and two of Beef are now streaming on Netflix.

Source link

Source link