Source link

5 min read30 min

Our incoming prime minister says the global picture is darkening. He’s right. But nowhere is that picture as dark as the humanitarian crisis that is Sudan.

Advertisement

Right now, the UN and other agencies are warning that the besieged city of El Obeid could be the next crime scene.

Britain is not a bystander. As penholder on Sudan at the UN Security Council, we are supposed to lead the international response. What Britain does next on Sudan will tell us fast whether Andy Burnham’s promise of a principled, resilient Britain means anything at all.

Like Gaza, Sudan is experiencing innocent suffering on an enormous scale, yet too much of the media and public look away. When the RSF captured the city of El Fasher last October after an 18-month siege, at least 60,000 civilians are estimated to have been killed, in a massacre a UN investigation has now concluded amounted to genocide. Repeating that failure now, in El Obeid, would be a choice, not an accident.

So, it’s worth being clear about who is funding and fuelling this conflict. Sudan’s army has been fighting a paramilitary force called the Rapid Support Forces, and the RSF’s chief backer is the United Arab Emirates, a close British ally and trading partner.

Advertisement

The UAE denies arming the RSF. But last month Nathaniel Raymond of Yale’s Humanitarian Research Lab, the group whose satellite imagery documented the massacre, told Parliament that his team had traced the weapons pipeline, tracking phones moving between Addis Ababa, RSF territory and addresses in the Emirates linked to the RSF’s leadership. Human Rights Watch, the New York Times and UN experts have gathered evidence pointing the same way.

Raymond testified that Foreign Office officials told him “significant private pressure” from the UAE meant Britain would not publish what it knew about who was arming the RSF. Instead, officials suggested that his lab, a university research team, release the evidence itself, because doing so “could help neutralise” the Emirati pressure the British government would not confront directly.

Our Foreign Office was seemingly so under the thumb that it asked American academics to do what British diplomacy could not, while prioritising its economic and diplomatic relationship with the UAE over preventing the slaughter of tens of thousands of people.

Advertisement

Burnham has stated that his first priority will be national security, because ordinary lives are impacted by global events. No one could disagree. But national security does not just mean preparing for war. It means preventing conflict, tackling the instability that reaches British citizens, and defending the international rules that keep us all safe. Burnham was right to say our foreign policy must be guided by our values. You cannot say that and then retreat into a protectionist agenda.

Keir Starmer cut the aid budget to fund defence, taking it to its lowest level in cash terms since 2012. Sudan’s aid was ring-fenced. The government has protected £146 million in humanitarian funding for this year and doubled support to local Sudanese responders. That matters, and I welcome it. But ring-fencing a budget does not make it enough. Bilateral aid to Sudan actually fell last year, to £120 million, and the government’s own aid watchdog concluded that Sudan remains one of the world’s most under-resourced crises. £146 million for 30 million people facing starvation and genocide is a drop in the ocean.

Sufficient aid would allow Sudanese communities to get healthy again and create some ingenuity of their own. When a prime minister signals that aid is expendable, the average person on the street won’t stop to give a charitable donation, and charities begin to feel Sudan is too difficult a cause to take on.

I live in Manchester, and I’ve watched Andy Burnham up close. He’s decent, and Manchester is a city with a historic solidarity with people in the global south. His whole brand is about looking past the hazy world of politics to lead our country with a principled programme.

Advertisement

He has found his voice on Gaza, apologising for Labour’s failures and promising pressure on Israel. Sudan needs the same treatment: calling out the UAE’s role and putting genuine pressure on Abu Dhabi to stop, whatever the diplomatic cost.

Britain should impose network sanctions on those profiting from the illicit gold and finance fuelling this war, targeting the Emirati refiners and traders who handle Sudanese gold, as the European Parliament has just demanded. Raymond put it in terms every Mancunian understands: “If people in Manchester were burning Emirates jerseys we would be having a very different conversation,” he told MPs, referring to Manchester City’s Abu Dhabi ownership. The forthcoming illicit finance summit is the ideal opportunity to crack down.

We should also energise the atrocity prevention coalition on Sudan that the UK itself created: monitoring, early warning, accountability, and serious discussion of a civilian protection force.

Burnham has publicly lauded the Hillsborough law and the families who fought for it. The idea that when the state fails people, it owes them the truth, accountability and proof that lessons will be learnt to prevent it from happening again.

Advertisement

So apply that standard here, and stand alongside the thousands of Mancunians with families in Sudan.

After the revelations about the government’s response to El Fasher, the question Burnham should be asking is the one his own politics demands: how many warnings, and how many deaths, before there’s a proper inquiry into why the Foreign Office failed so badly? If he looks away, he proves his critics right that these principles are just branding. If he engages, he proves them wrong.

Mohannad Taha is an activist and chair of Manchester for Sudan

Source link

Source link

Critics are a little split over the final chapter in the Heartstopper story, which debuted on Friday morning.

Rather than a fourth season of the popular teen drama, Heartstopper Forever takes the form of a feature-length film, marking one last outing for Kit Connor and Joe Locke as boyfriends Nick and Charlie.

While critics are pretty much in agreement that those who’ve been loyal followers of Heartstopper’s first three seasons will find the movie to be a satisfying end, most have lamented that its focus on Nick and Charlie’s relationship means the wider cast has been sidelined.

Meanwhile, there’s some contention over whether or not the film allows its characters to mature convincingly, with some suggesting that the “wholesome” nature of the central couple’s relationship holds Heartstopper Forever back.

Advertisement

Here’s a selection of what critics have had to say about Heartstopper Forever so far…

“Heartstopper’s 90-minute finale of nice kids being (mostly) nice to each other could have had me reaching for my phone. Instead, I settled back like a proud parent to enjoy the cast navigate their final year of school and their evolving relationships […] LGBTQ+ children and their families need a little hope and happiness right now. Heartstopper delivers that with pretty, pastel bows on.”

“From the off, [author Alice Oseman] signposts that Charlie and Nick are in a different stage of life to when we last saw them […] Up until now, the show has rarely interrogated the stability of their romance, but these confrontations are also a showcase of how Locke and Connor have matured as performers […] Alas, the shorter length versus a full eight-episode season means that there are fewer scenes to share out among Heartstopper’s swelling ensemble.”

“Heartstopper Forever is a profoundly romantic, emotionally enlightened and essential viewing experience for anyone who has wept over the sweet simplicity of Nick and Charlie’s story before.”

“This last chapter is very much the story of Charlie and Nick […] There are a few joyous moments, of course, but it isn’t focused on falling in love or trying to navigate sex and intimacy for the first time. It’s about the work required to maintain a connection across different chapters of life.”

Advertisement

“As a stand-alone film, yes, Hearstopper Forever is far from perfect. But for those who’ve followed Nick and Charlie’s journey these past few years, the movie feels like a fitting farewell to the characters we’ve grown to know and love.”

“Part of Nick and Charlie’s glow comes from the extended cast that Heartstopper Forever mainly ignores. The film isn’t without its aww-inspiring moments, but the odd pacing, relentless Easter eggs and montages often leave it feeling like its own fan cam edit as it attempts to put the neatest possible bow on the couple’s puppy love. Nick and Charlie are supposed to be all grown up, but Heartstopper Forever treats them with kid gloves.”

“Fans were relieved that this beloved show would at least be getting a proper farewell. Sadly, it’s a pretty patchy one […] For long stretches, Heartstopper’s supporting characters barely get a look-in. […] Thankfully, Heartstopper‘s prevailing sweetness carries it to the finish.”

“All the focus on them does mean that Heartstopper Forever is a little too busy to focus on Charlie and Nick’s pals. It’s a drawback from season three, because those eight episodes meaningfully crafted their lovely queer community, emphasising the value of having people to lean on at a young age, especially if the rest of the world doesn’t understand who they are just yet […] Yet none of this detracts from Heartstopper Forever being a satisfying conclusion to this story, of two boys whose illuminating journey of self-discovery feels rare and valuable on screen, even if there’s a certain cringe factor to it.”

“If CBeebies made queer teen drama, it might be something like this. Heartstopper Forever arrives with the gentle air of an especially placid episode of Hey Duggee, but mixed with a break-up, a handful of sex scenes and a vigorous plea for trans rights.”

Advertisement

Heartstopper Forever is now streaming on Netflix. Read HuffPost UK’s review of the film in full here.

Source link

Source link

Abdul El-Sayed on AIPAC spending, ‘Defund the Police’ and why he’s not a socialist

lead image

Source link

Yesterday, 15 July 2026, the London Irish Brigade held a protest outside Ireland’s embassy against the planned Ireland-Israel matches in the UEFA Nations League. The October 2026 fixtures will be held, after the Irish FA voted this month in favour of proceeding, in Hungary and, behind closed doors, in Serbia.

Irish football fans, outraged at the idea of playing sport against a genocidal apartheid colony, have been protesting against the fixtures for months. And last night, Irish people living in London took the ‘Stop the Game’ protest loudly to their own embassy:

Organiser Frank Glynn explained some of the background:

The protesters were congratulated by Palestinian ambassador Husam Zomlot:

The raucous but peaceful demonstration waved Palestinian flags and a “Stop the Game” banner, while activists handed out flyers to those who went past:

Protesters reminded passersby of the huge numbers of children and other innocent victims murdered or maimed by Israel:

Israel should be as isolated, in sport and in every other way, as apartheid South Africa ever was. Shame on the cowardly officials and bodies who are refusing to do it.

Featured image via author

By Skwawkbox

Source link

A Moroccan intelligence insider has helped expose the scale and reach of the country’s use of Pegasus spyware. The advanced Israeli-made technology hacks into smartphones allowing spies to eavesdrop on and manipulate the devices.

The former agent said Pegasus was used to spy on journalists, activists and foreign officials from Spain and France.

As the Guardian has it:

Pegasus, which is manufactured by the Israel-based NSO Group, allows its operator to access everything on a target’s mobile phone, including emails, text messages and photographs.

It can also activate the phone’s recorder and camera, turning it into a listening device.

Advertisement

Morocco claims it uses the technology, arguing:

that reporters who have investigated NSO Group were “incapable of proving [the country had] any relationship” with the company.

Inside the secret world of Pegasus

The whistleblower, known as Safir, has offered key insights into the work of the Direction Générale de la Surveillance du Territoire (DGST), Morocco’s internal security agency. Safir, who spent a decade in the agency, claims:

the country’s internal security services began using Pegasus in 2017 and went on to deploy it against domestic and foreign targets over the course of four years.

The result is a multi-year investigation across several news outlets as well as Amnesty International’s Security Lab. Le Monde, Haaretz, El Confidencial, Die Zeit and the Guardian all worked on the investigation.

The project’s coordinator, media NGO Forbidden Stories:

analysed material detailing Morocco’s surveillance practices, from leaked emails to targeting records relating to Pegasus and other spyware, and from victims’ testimony to internal training material.

The Guardian reported:

Two other former Moroccan intelligence agents also provided information and corroborated facts. Safir’s testimony is corroborated by leaked material, including the Pegasus project dataset, which has been forensically analysed by Amnesty International’s Security Lab.

Spying on dissenters and officials with Israeli tech

The investigation found DGST officials met figures from the Israeli tech firm in a swanky Morrocan villa in 2017. NSO officials demonstrated the spyware. Morocco later adopted it.

The spyware was used to target Spanish police officials and Moroccan and French human rights advocates.

Investigators say further evidence of Morocco’s use of Pegasus emerged when WhatsApp sued NSO in 2025:

Further evidence that Morocco used Pegasus emerged last year after WhatsApp’s parent company, Meta, took NSO Group to court in the US for exploiting its messaging platform to target people.

Israel allegedly barred exports of Pegasus to Morocco after a 2021 ban. The Biden administration imposed the ban on NSO for acting:

contrary to the foreign policy and national security interests of the US.

Authoritarianism is on the rise globally. Pegasus spyware is a terrifying threat. The Morocco leaks hint the scale and scope of danger this powerful Israeli hacking software poses to states and citizens alike.

Featured image via EuroMed

By Joe Glenton

Source link

Argentina’s players have been criticised after displaying a banner referencing the Falkland Islands in the aftermath of their 2-1 World Cup semifinal win over England. The banner, held aloft on Wednesday night, translated as: “The Falkland Islands are Argentinian,” prompting immediate political reaction and renewed scrutiny over FIFA’s rules on political messaging.

The Falkland Islands remain a UK overseas territory, with islanders voting overwhelmingly in 2013 to retain that status. The islands have long been a point of tension between the two nations, most notably during the 1982 conflict, when Argentinian forces invaded before being forced to surrender two months later.

Argentina have previously been sanctioned for similar displays. FIFA fined the federation after players held up a banner with the same slogan following a 2014 friendly against Slovenia. Under Article 34.3 of the tournament regulations, political messages or slogans are prohibited before, during or after matches.

Business Secretary Peter Kyle told BBC Breakfast that the gesture crossed a clear line. “My reaction is that it was entirely inappropriate,” he said:

Politics needs to be separate from football. In fact, the World Cup has one of its central tenets that politics is separate from football. That is now a matter for FIFA. I expect FIFA to do its investigation thoroughly.

Kyle added that an investigation was inevitable given the nature of the breach:

We expect FIFA to undertake an investigation into this. I think it was certain to happen because it was such an egregious violation of the rules of not having political activity as part of the football.

The political reaction drew comparisons with a recent UEFA case. Spain players Rodri and Álvaro Morata were banned for one match each after singing about Spain’s claim to Gibraltar following their Euro 2024 triumph. Citing those sanctions, Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey called for the Argentina players involved in Wednesday’s banner display to be suspended for Sunday’s final against Spain.

England’s exit sets backdrop for controversy

The banner emerged in the immediate aftermath of England’s elimination. Anthony Gordon had given England a first‑half lead, but Argentina overturned the deficit with two late goals from Enzo Fernández and Lautaro Martínez, both created by Lionel Messi, who once again shaped the decisive moments of a major tournament.

England’s performance was statistically stark, with five shots, 12% possession, and long spells spent chasing Argentina’s movement and tempo. Messi’s influence, as ever, proved pivotal, threading passes that unlocked England’s defensive structure and swung the semifinal decisively.

Argentina’s victory booked their place in Sunday’s final against Spain, who beat France in the other semifinal. The win also extended Messi’s remarkable run of decisive contributions deep into major tournaments, with his creativity again proving the difference.

Argentina — FIFA expected to review incident

FIFA has yet to comment publicly, though the governing body is expected to review the incident under its regulations on political messaging. The organisation has historically taken a strict stance on such matters, and the precedent from 2014, when Argentina was fined for the same slogan, adds weight to expectations of formal action.

The banner’s appearance also revived long‑standing sensitivities around the Falklands, a subject that has periodically surfaced in football contexts despite FIFA’s attempts to keep political issues separate from the sport. The governing body’s rules are designed to prevent precisely these moments, where geopolitical disputes spill into the global spotlight of a major tournament.

Wider context

The incident sits within a broader pattern of political expressions in football being met with disciplinary measures. UEFA’s sanctions against Rodri and Morata last year underscored the governing bodies’ insistence on neutrality, particularly during major competitions where global attention is heightened.

Football’s reach often makes it a stage for political symbolism, intentional or otherwise. Governing bodies have repeatedly emphasised that the sport’s global appeal depends on maintaining separation from political disputes, even when players or fans feel compelled to express national sentiment.

In this case, the banner’s message touched on a decades‑long territorial dispute that remains deeply sensitive. The Falklands conflict, though more than 40 years old, continues to shape political identity and national narratives in both countries. The World Cup’s scale ensured that the gesture would draw immediate and widespread reaction.

England left to reflect on familiar shortcomings

Away from the political fallout, England’s exit prompted renewed scrutiny of their tournament shortcomings. The semifinal defeat followed a pattern familiar to recent campaigns. There was early promise, moments of control, but ultimately undone by lapses and the brilliance of elite opponents.

Anthony Gordon’s opener had given England a foothold, but Argentina’s late surge driven by Messi’s vision and the clinical finishing of Fernández and Martínez, clearly exposed England’s vulnerabilities. The Three Lions struggled to retain possession, failed to impose their rhythm, and were repeatedly forced into reactive defending.

Player ratings reflected the gulf in influence. Messi earned a 9/10 for his decisive contributions, while England’s key figures were unable to match Argentina’s tempo or creativity. The defeat extended England’s wait for a major tournament final and added another chapter to their catalogue of near‑misses.

Argentina moves on, England head home

Argentina now prepare for a final against Spain, a matchup shaped by contrasting styles and the presence of generational talents on both sides. Spain’s controlled possession game and Argentina’s incisive transitions promise a compelling contest, with Messi once again central to Argentina’s hopes.

England, meanwhile, depart with frustration and familiar questions. Their semifinal exit, combined with the controversy surrounding Argentina’s banner, ensured a dramatic and politically charged end to their campaign.

Nothing will come of FIFA’s investigation, which is expected to unfold in the coming days, but for now, Argentina’s focus shifts to Sunday, and the chance to lift another World Cup trophy.

Featured image via the Canary

By Faz Ali

Source link

Boycott calls are growing as Sahrawis slam Christopher Nolan’s decision to film The Odyssey in occupied territory. All while doing nothing to acknowledge the occupation or the Sahrawis who continue to resist Morocco’s ethnic cleansing campaign to force them from their land.

Nolan chose Dakhla as the location for the film, set for release on Friday 17 July, despite the fact that the land has been occupied by Morocco for 50 years. In turn, critics have pointed out that this can only work to normalise the oppression and forced displacement of Sahrawis.

Sahrawi filmmakers and journalists have condemned this deplorable lack of empathy for the people of Western Sahara and a failure to uphold any sense of “ethical responsibility”. As a result, they now argue that boycotting the film is essential to push back against military occupation, dispossession and injustice.

One of those making this call is Sahrawi journalist and filmmaker Mamine Hachimi who powerfully stated to Middle East Eye:

It is deeply disturbing that while Sahrawi journalists are imprisoned for exposing abuses, an international film production can use our homeland as a cinematic backdrop without addressing the reality of the occupation.

Sahrawi campaigners and filmmakers are calling for a boycott of The Odyssey by Christopher Nolan over his decision to shoot the film in Morocco-occupied Western Saharahttps://t.co/yA77f8mpV3

— Middle East Eye (@MiddleEastEye) July 15, 2026

Imprisoned for life after documenting human rights violations

Imagine a major Hollywood production choosing to film in the occupied West Bank while ignoring Zionist Israel’s occupation and its settler-colonial violence, terrorism and crimes against humanity. The Odyssey was filmed on occupied and dispossessed land.

Like in Palestine, resistance is a crime in itself for people in Western Sahara. Those who dare to document the crimes of the Moroccan oppressor face arbitrary punishments, Some have been imprisoned for life simply for documenting ongoing violations against the human rights of Sahrawis.

Hachimi co-directed a short documentary, ‘Three Stolen Cameras.’ The film spotlights the challenges facing Sahrawi media organisation Equipe Media as it tries to capture evidence of the crimes perpetrated by Morocco against the people of Western Sahara. However, its premiere in Beirut back in 2017 was shut down as a result of undue pressure by the Moroccan government. One of the many attempts by Morocco to make the film disappear.

Those working within the media organisation have faced arrest and harassment from the occupying authorities. This reminds us of Israel — one of only 2 countries, along with the US, that recognise Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara — and the way in which it is murdering journalists en masse in Palestine and Lebanon. Moreover, the lawfare used by Zionists and pro-Israel groups across the West to shut down the ability of the wider public to learn the truth about Palestinians also mirrors the struggle of those brave journalists and filmmakers like Hachimi.

Speaking to Middle East Eye, Hachimi added:

This is not a campaign against cinema or artistic freedom – it is a call for ethical responsibility.

Two of my colleagues, Abdallah Lhafaouni, who is serving a life sentence, and Bachir Khadda, who is serving a 20-year sentence, are political prisoners simply because they documented human rights violations in occupied Western Sahara.

The Odyssey — No solidarity

The fact that Nolan has refused to comment on this choice and carried on filming — despite seeing visible protests in Dakhla making clear the anger and frustrations of local people — exposes a complete lack of solidarity between Western filmmakers and filmmakers from the Global South.

The same silence echoes across much of the Western mainstream media. Journalists have shown little urgency — let alone outrage — over the relentless targeting of journalists in Palestine and Lebanon.

The contrast couldn’t be more jarring. Nolan travelled to occupied territory to film his next blockbuster, while other filmmakers risk punishment, sanctions and even criminalisation simply for documenting what life under occupation actually looks like.

This only serves to benefit the Moroccan government, whose minister of culture — Mohamed Mehdi Bensaid — took selfies with Nolan, saying that the film would:

give visibility to Dakhla as a film location and not just a tourist destination.

This becomes all the more offensive to those who have suffered under this oppressive occupation when we learn that Nolan made use of security services provided by the same military that is hurting, injuring and silencing Sahrawis resisting Morocco just a mere few kilometres away.

Sahrawi campaigners say The Odyssey serves to whitewash the long-running and ongoing exploitation of their own territory by Morocco. In turn, this normalises occupation by powerful states, which only leaves ordinary civilians vulnerable to these acts of dominance and aggression.

Colonialist abuses in the global south have long been ignored — receiving nowhere near enough criticism or scrutiny — an issue this film could have avoided:

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by The Funambulist (@thefunambulistmagazine) 

Missed opportunity to challenge today’s oppressors

The Odyssey looks set to dominate the summer box office. With a reported $250 million budget, it’s one of the year’s biggest releases, and audiences around the world are counting down to Friday. Packed with mythology, epic battles, gods and sorcery, it’s also poised to make its creators and investors a fortune.

But in chasing an ancient story, the film missed the chance — whether by choice or not — to shine a light on a very real struggle unfolding today, and on the remarkable resistance that has endured through five decades of Moroccan occupation.

Sahrawi filmmaker Abidin Mohamed Hamudi argues that, instead of standing with those fighting for freedom, human rights and self-determination, the team behind The Odyssey has made itself “complicit” in the abuses taking place in Western Sahara.

Speaking to MEE, Hamudi argued that Hollywood’s silence reflects the priorities of capitalism and the corrosive logic of Western economic interests. He concluded:

Shame on them – history will put everyone in the place they deserve, and they will be in the dustbin of history, remembered as nothing but cultural parasites.

With #TheOdyssey about to be released, it's more important than ever to know the truth behind #ChristopherNolan's film and to hear directly from its victims. Thank you, @MiddleEastEye, for giving a voice to those silenced by #Morocco and its accomplices
https://t.co/bKfcKv2iCD pic.twitter.com/GqCMADpxxH

— FiSahara (@FiSahara) July 16, 2026

Nolan’s past comments regarding criticisms were that “they’re always irrelevant”, giving little hope he will right his wrong in this instance:

Christopher Nolan says the online backlash to ‘THE ODYSSEY’ comes with the territory.

“These conversations that happen before people see the film – they’re always irrelevant. Because no one having them knows what the film actually is yet.”

(Source: https://t.co/J378r5GWMy) pic.twitter.com/fUfthbUeyV

— DiscussingFilm (@DiscussingFilm) July 10, 2026

Advertisement

The Odyssey — More backlash but for all the wrong reasons

Nevertheless, Nolan may be in for some financial woes. Alongside the boycott calls from activists, the film is also facing backlash from far-right bigots targeting its casting of a Black woman as Helen of Troy and trans man actor Elliot Page as Sinon.

That double-sided controversy could end up hitting The Odyssey where it hurts most: at the box office.

BOYCOTT THE ODYSSEY MOVIE pic.twitter.com/lmSo4gFZEV

— GORGO (@GORGO4547) July 11, 2026

Elites failing ordinary people, yet again

Therefore, it seems that an opportunity was there for successful Western filmmakers to use their celebrity status and their privilege to help those made voiceless — which would be a true act of a genuine filmmaker.

Others, including Javier Bardem, Greta Thunberg, and Pedro Almodóvar, have urged Christopher Nolan to cut any scenes his team filmed in the occupied lands of Dakhla. So far, Nolan, his production company Syncopy Inc., and Universal Pictures have stayed silent.

That silence risks turning Nolan’s latest film into yet another reminder of Western indifference to — and complicity in — the crimes against humanity and historical breaches of international law still taking place today.

Featured image via IMDb

By Maddison Wheeldon

Source link