Israeli settlers have shown their “undying spiritual connection” to occupied Palestine – by fleeing it in panic. Footage filmed 16 March in occupation airports shows “total chaos” as mobs desperately try to get onto flights out and escape from Iranian retaliation for Israel-US attacks. Like Ben Gurion airport:

✈️🇮🇱 Chaos total à l’aéroport Ben-Gourion : files d’attente interminables en pleine guerre❗️(16 mars 2026) pic.twitter.com/jMHmzlHapK

— The News (@thenews_fr) March 16, 2026

They can all bog off back to Brooklyn pic.twitter.com/n9Wsfw80nD

— Her Royal Heinous 🇮🇪🇵🇸 (@HerRoyalHeinous) March 17, 2026

The clips triggered thousands of responses comparing the fortitude of Palestinians and Lebanese people in their razed lands with the readiness of ‘Israelis’ to run away. Like this one, captioned in French “The difference between the owner of the land and the one who stole it”:

• pic.twitter.com/4XViB9fbTS

— Fania 🦋 (@FaniaNaili) March 16, 2026

“Wah wah, my country is Israel but I want to go back to France”:

NO COMMENT ⬇️ pic.twitter.com/H9Ypix0eum

— OXYGÈNE ⚖️🗽🐢✌️ (@samisam60980585) March 16, 2026

pic.twitter.com/wRZFqWJkQD

— Mekki Rachid (@slim_o27) March 16, 2026

Advertisement

They can all bog off back to Brooklyn pic.twitter.com/n9Wsfw80nD

— Her Royal Heinous 🇮🇪🇵🇸 (@HerRoyalHeinous) March 17, 2026

Others mocked the fact that Benjamin Netanyahu has not been seen, except in AI videos, for more than a week now. Not without reason, since he has frequently fled, though whether he is hiding abroad this time or dead is not yet clear:

pic.twitter.com/tf0BzihD4w

— mujaheddin (@EdwardSaid1968) March 16, 2026

pic.twitter.com/dP4JScXXhq

— Miguel W. (@miguel_wals) March 17, 2026

Advertisement

pic.twitter.com/lZHIHqyuLL

— Pablo (@PabloEskoba72) March 17, 2026

And it’s fair to say that there was not a lot of sympathy on show:

pic.twitter.com/ETBMVBdqVL

— ostensible spam (@PsionicPsittacc) March 17, 2026

Brilliant #OperationEpicScurry

— OneQuantumLeap (@OneQuantumLeap) March 17, 2026

Advertisement

Israel had already put a ban preventing aircraft from carrying more than a hundred passengers at a time in an attempt to slow the exodus-flood. But it seems Iran noticed. Two days after the scenes were filmed, on 18 March 2026, Ben Gurion airport was heavily bombed, making fleeing even harder.

Featured image via X

Two Israeli tourists have been ejected from a Brazilian beach—by popular demand. This happened after they assaulted a woman for carrying a Palestine flag. Beachgoers chanted “free, free Palestine” as the Israelis were booed away.

The incident occurred as thousands of Israelis in occupied Palestine, fearing retaliatory Iranian attacks, formed panicked mobs at airports in an attempt to flee. A true display of their deep connection to the land of Palestine…

Featured image via X/the Canary

The Guardian has gone through 4,366 video clips that Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has made since 2021. And it has shown that, as part of his £374,893+ side hustle, Farage has happily performed for neo-Nazis. He may claim he made mistakes, but his consistent dog-whistling suggests he knows exactly what he’s doing.

Farage has received money on the Cameo platform to make videos for all sorts of fans. He recorded messages:

• For a man who got 16 months in jail for participating in far-right riots, which Farage labelled “absolutely outrageous”.
• Dog-whistling around the far-right phrase “If in doubt, kick them out”. As the Guardian said, “Farage uses – or more often alludes to – the hardline anti-immigration phrase more than 20 times”. In doing so, Dr Ashton Kingdon insisted, he was “choosing to cultivate this audience and to speak its language back to it”.
• Happily saying “up the Rhodesia”, despite that likely referring to the historical white supremacist ethnostate in Africa.
• Voluntarily referring to antisemitic conspiracy theories, saying: “Is it the Bilderbergers that are running the world? … It could be the Masons. Some think it’s the Rothschilds. Maybe it’s George Soros. I don’t know. What I do know is actually I don’t think any of it is a conspiracy theory.”
• For people who, as the Guardian said, “openly expressed offensive views in their prompts”.

The most shocking video, however, gave what the Guardian describes as:

a pep talk for Canadian neo-Nazis

Farage endorsing neo-Nazis? Sounds about right.

One video, the Guardian explained, wanted Farage to:

endorse the “Road Rage Terror Tour”, a Canadian show hosted by “Jeremy MacKenzie, Derek Harrison and Alex Vriend”. A quick Google would have revealed to Farage the extremist nature of the individuals and their event.

MacKenzie, Harrison and Vriend are leaders of Diagolon, a group identified as a “Canadian far-right ‘extremist’ group” by the US state department in 2022.

Advertisement

Diagolon’s website advertised a book alluding to Adolf Hitler called Meme Kampf and the group’s extremist slogan – “they have to go back” – was a nod to the forced repatriation of migrants.

Farage apparently didn’t do a quick search to find out more about the event. Instead, the Guardian said:

he duly obliged, starting his video: “They have to go back.” Farage’s message then encouraged “Andrea” to attend what he said was “the most talked-about show in Canada”. “Why not give it a go?” Farage said. “You never know, you might walk out saying, ‘Road Rage Terror Tour is the best thing that ever happened.’”

The neo-Nazi group quickly clipped up the video and used it in their propaganda. This included one video, the Guardian reported:

in which a leader of Diagolon makes shooting noises and gestures while saying: “I just saw you were brown and I couldn’t help myself.”

In another, the paper added:

Farage’s Cameo clip featured alongside white nationalist and antisemitic messaging

A representative for the far-right group itself said it showed Farage:

being lazy and stupid enough to say anything for a dollar

Farage, meanwhile, pleaded ignorance. A spokesperson said he had been using Cameo “without knowledge of the individuals”.

But we reckon Farage knows exactly what he’s doing.

Featured image via the Canary

The Israeli occupation has tried to murder RT‘s Lebanon bureau chief Steve Sweeney and his cameraman Ali Rida. Both men were wounded in the attack.

Sweeney was speaking to camera in southern Lebanon about Israel’s illegal invasion and resistance responses when an Israeli missile roared in, narrowly missing the two men – who were both clearly identified as press:

Sweeney has said that he is fine and has already had shrapnel from the bomb removed. Rida said:

We were wearing [press] uniform. The Israeli enemy targeted us deliberately.

Israel has repeatedly killed and maimed journalists in Lebanon, copying its tactics that have murdered hundreds of journalists and their families in Gaza.

Featured image via X

The FIFA World Cup 2026 is entering an early stage of testing, caught between political pressure and security concerns. These concerns extend beyond the stadium and threaten the true image of the sport.

European Commissioner for Sport, Glenn Micallef, escalated his criticism of FIFA President Gianni Infantino, condemning what he described as a lack of clarity and responsiveness to growing European concerns about the safety of spectators.

EU Commissioner presses FIFA

As the largest World Cup in history approaches, co-hosted by the United States, Canada, and Mexico, warnings are mounting about the repercussions of geopolitical tensions, following Trump’s illegal assault against Iran.

Micallef revealed that his sole meeting with Infantino in Brussels did not translate into concrete steps, despite his explicit demand for clear guarantees regarding the safety of European fans. He emphasised that the lack of follow-up from FIFA raises serious questions.

He stated:

When a host country is involved in a war, providing security assurances becomes a given, not an option.

Public safety challenges

European concerns are not limited to the political dimension. They extend to the security situation within the host countries. In the US, certain measures related to stricter surveillance and immigration are also causing anxiety. Meanwhile, Mexico is facing a rising wave of violence, particularly in areas considered potential World Cup hosting venues.

FIFA maintains that fan safety is a top priority, expressing confidence in the ability of the host countries to provide a safe environment.

However, this stance has not entirely dispelled European doubts, amid calls for greater transparency and detailed information.

A dispute beyond security

The tension between the two sides wasn’t limited to security matters; it extended to the nature of FIFA’s partnerships. Micallef expressed reservations about cooperating with initiatives supported by US President Donald Trump, arguing that this opens the door to increased politicisation of sports.

Conversely, he called for stronger partnerships with multilateral international organisations such as UNESCO and UNICEF, in line with the rules of the international system and to reduce polarisation.

In a broader context, the European official warned of transformations threatening the structure of sports on the continent, pointing to the National Basketball Association’s project to launch a European league and its move towards “closed leagues,” which contradicts the principle of sporting merit.

He also stressed the need to prevent the use of sporting competitions as tools for political propaganda, alluding to the renewed debate surrounding the participation of countries involved in military conflicts.

A test beyond football

These statements reflect a new reality where sport intersects with security and political considerations in an unprecedented way, transforming major tournaments into testing grounds for international influence and power balances.

Between FIFA’s assurances and European pressures, Gianni Infantino finds himself facing a complex challenge: managing a global tournament in a turbulent environment without compromising the game’s essence.

In this context, the question no longer concerns the readiness of stadiums, but rather football’s ability to remain out of the line of fire.

Featured image via White House, Instagram

Kristian Guise, is an undergraduate studying modern history and politics at the University of Southampton.

It’s been nearly two years since Starmer’s government won a landslide majority and eighteen months since the Conservative Party elected Kemi Badenoch as Leader of the Party.

Badenoch herself is a New-Right Tory and began by appointing vocal New-Right leaning members to His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition (e.g. yes, the now defector, Robert Jenrick, and still in post, Priti Patel) whilst those appointed members who’d come from a more one-nation background were far less forthcoming with their opinions.

This creates a problem for the Tories because, as the Party moves further to Right we leave more and more of our traditional One-Nation voters behind and fail to present ourselves as a political party with a broad vision. Failure to recognise this will not only cost us the next election but our hold on political relevance. As an 18-year-old member of the Party I believe the Tories should shift policies, rhetoric and vision to the centre-right to win the next General Election.

Since Brexit there has been a continuing movement of ideology and policy Right-ward, propelled by the rise of Reform – the recipients, now, of the services of the aforementioned Jenrick) The Conservative Party has begun to mimic not out-think Reform.

Take the issue of the European Union (EU) and Immigration.

Both policy issues were debated in the past in conversations that were much more constructive despite disagreements amongst members. However, in recent times, there has been a rapid conversion of the Tories to negativity within a focus on binary policymaking. Now there are few Tory MPs, let alone Shadow Cabinet members, who are willing to robustly debate EU and Immigration policy in the way the Party for so long espoused. Mrs Thatcher, for example, was, along with other members of her Cabinet, a Euro-sceptic. Yet this outlook did not prevent the inclusion of vociferous pro-European voices in her Cabinet (Geoffrey Howe was one who as Chancellor of the Exchequer resigned in 1990 over the issue of a single European currency) This shows, despite his resignation that even Thatcher’s government (seen, rightly or wrongly, as the Golden Age of Conservatism for many of today’s Shadow Cabinet members) had high-ranking Cabinet members with strongly held, pro-European sentiments.

That approach to Cabinet inclusivity contrasts with the way the Conservative Party has shifted in their tolerance of different views on the issues of the EU (and Immigration). This significant shift to the Right, I believe, has largely been brought about by a sense of apprehension about the rise of Reform. Where once there was no political alternative for Tory right-wing voters, now they find an option which not only competes but beats them in most instances with higher polling ratings amongst voters and success in local elections upon which Reform builds yet further support.

The Conservative Party’s wasteful mimicry of Reform to retain the support of right-wing voters has cost us, and will continue to cost us, votes. It is the opposite of what we need.

This is for one simple reason: we cannot out-Reform the Reform Party. They were founded on divisive, New-Right focused policies and values, the Tories were not. In an important contrast that should not be overlooked, our Party was founded in 1834 by Sir Robert Peel and a few decades later moulded by Benjamin Disraeli into a party of One-Nation principles and values. With this history in mind and our future in view I call for a return to the centre-right. Surely, we must accept mimicry of Reform is no substitute for originality. What is needed is for the members of today, younger and older, to rise up with vote-catching policies of positivity and pragmatism that offer hope for the UK’s over-taxed and under-rewarded people.

Another case for adopting centre-right policy and, as important, robust rhetoric is the electoral reality that our future majority will be found in the centre ground. The 2024 General Election taught us that. The Liberal Democrat Party (Lib Dems) achieved 72 seats in the House of the Commons. This is the biggest number of seats the party has won since being founded in 1988. This was achieved because they scooped up middle ground voters, including many One-Nation Tories.

One-Nation Tories and other middle ground voters gave their vote to the Lib Dems because they had had enough of the Tory Party and by July 2024 felt alienated. A key reason for such alienation was the poor economic performance that occurred under the Tories. Namely Liz Truss’ ‘Mini-Budget’ which devastated the £ and damaged the economy. Once again, a New-Right Conservative did not pay heed to One-Nation principles of pragmatism opting instead for unfunded, unplanned tax cuts that were unsustainable and, as Labour love to keep reminding the British public at PMQs, Truss “crashed the economy”^[3].

This constant focus on New-Right policies has cost the Tory Party in recent years and is why it is imperative the Party return to the centre-right. Without this shift, millions of middle ground votes will continue to be cast for the Lib Dems. Out of the last three elections where the Conservative Party obtained a majority in the Commons, two were won on One-Nation principles and the other (under Boris Johnson) was also delivered by One-Nation policies.

Since the 1945 General Election there have been twenty-two General Elections, around half won by centre-right policies. This highlights how crucial a well-articulated, vocal and visible centre-right position is for winning elections and why the Conservative Party should adopt a centre-right approach to attract and regain the trust of middle ground voters to win the next General Election.

Embracing the centre-right improves our electability by shedding the baggage of the past 10 years since Brexit. Former Prime Minister David Cameron launched the EU Referendum in 2016 as an attempt to quell the growing tension within the Conservative Party, we have struggled because we have not adhered to our One-Nation roots haunted by the conflicts borne of Brexit. Just as Macbeth never rid himself of Banquo’s ghost, we shall never rid ourselves of the ghost of Brexit until we firmly and positively abandon New-Right principles.

First, accept Brexit’s failures, for without acceptance we can never win anything.

Secondly, make the evidently necessary decision to harness the Party’s policies to centre-right values. Our Party should celebrate young voices. Highlighting their 21st century vision of tomorrow. Unless there is radical change and a vocal, well-articulated move towards the centre-right my Party will fall into the abyss of political irrelevance until we find ourselves with little influence, a third party eking out a subsistence lifestyle.

The trifecta of challenges I outline (dangerous mimicry of Reform, majority of votes being in the middle ground and no policies of positivity to improve our electability) show the Party must shift towards the centre-right, adopt One-Nation principles and be seen and heard to do so!

Our next test comes in May when 32 London Boroughs, 32 Metropolitan Boroughs and 10 directly elected Mayoral offices go to the polls.

With May in the forefront of my mind I’d argue a Tory revival lies in the centre-right not on the failing altar of the New-Right.

Liverpool Friends of Palestine (LFP) and the Palestine Trauma Centre (PTC) are holding a free event on the evening of 25 March in the Toxteth area of the city.

Titled “Continuous Trauma: the mental health impacts of the genocide in Gaza”, the event features PTC patron Gwyn Daniel, The venue is Crawford House, Upper Warwick Street L8 8DN and doors will open at 6.30pm for a 7pm start:

Scientific studies of the psychological impacts of Israel’s genocide in Gaza show the horrific trauma inflicted on survivors, especially children, describing it as an “irreversible human catastrophe” that leaves children in constant fear and suffering the deepest imaginable post-traumatic stress, if they survive long enough amid the ongoing slaughter.

Featured image via Liverpool Friends of Palestine

We hope you love the products we recommend! All of them were independently selected by our editors. Just so you know, HuffPost UK may collect a share of sales or other compensation from the links on this page if you decide to shop from them. Oh, and FYI – prices are accurate and items in stock as of time of publication.

After what feels like 10 years of dull, grey winter, spring has finally sprung.

Even if you abide by the astronomical way of thinking, spring officially starts on the 20th of March this year, so it’s nearly time for us to pack away our big coats and dig out the sunnies and gardening gloves.

But if you haven’t got a garden in which to get reacquainted with this thing called sunshine, there are ways you can bring this fresh new season into your home.

With these 12 fun and flowery buys from M&S, you can bring the bright energy of a springtime garden into your living space to enjoy year-round.

4 min read12 min

These are the steepest aid cuts of any G7 country – deeper even than those passed under Donald Trump – and they are being implemented by a Labour government elected on a commitment to increase aid spending and tackle the global debt crisis. The consequences will be profound: for millions of people living in poverty, for the stability and security of our world, and for Britain’s own reputation.

The idea that the UK can turn inward, neglecting global challenges in order to fix problems at home, is a dangerous illusion. Whether we like it or not, we live in an interconnected world. Conflict shocks, climate‑driven disasters and global market instability do not stop at national borders. They push up prices in British supermarkets, raise borrowing costs for the UK government, and make life harder for households already struggling to get by. None of us benefit from living in a less safe, less stable world.

Yet today’s allocation announcements reveal cuts to the very tools designed to build global stability. Redirecting resources from development towards defence is not only morally indefensible – it is strategically self‑defeating. Military leaders themselves have long warned that the less we invest in preventing crises, the more they will ultimately cost – both financially and in terms of lives lost.

The human cost of these decisions is staggering. Independent analysis shows that as a result of the cuts, 2.9 million fewer children will go to school, twelve million more people will lose access to clean water and sanitation, and over 600,000 additional people will die from preventable diseases. These are not abstract figures. They represent children pulled out of classrooms, parents unable to provide safe water for their families, and communities plunged deeper into crisis.

Britain’s reputation – already strained by months of uncertainty about the UK’s direction – is now further damaged by our role in the global debt crisis. While cutting aid to some of the world’s poorest countries, the UK continues to host the legal infrastructure that allows predatory private lenders to sue those same debt‑distressed nations in our courts. The government could change this tomorrow at zero cost to the Treasury. It is choosing not to.

This contradiction is especially glaring as the UK prepares to take on the G20 Presidency later this year. Leadership on the world stage requires credibility. Yet at the very moment global poverty, debt distress and climate-linked disasters are escalating, Britain arrives at the table with an aid budget in tatters and no coherent offer to countries seeking urgent relief from unsustainable debt payments.

The picture on climate is equally troubling. Despite claiming climate is a priority, the government appears to have reduced funding for the next round of International Climate Finance to just £6 billion. Cutting climate support now – when extreme weather is accelerating hunger, driving mass displacement, and threatening hundreds of millions of lives – is short‑sighted in the extreme. It will cost vastly more in the long term and leave the UK more exposed to the global shocks that follow.

The government is right to prioritise fragile and conflict‑affected states, including Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan and Lebanon. But even these areas will face real‑terms reductions, while thousands of other programmes will be terminated altogether. Bilateral aid – the support that goes directly to individual countries – is likely to be the biggest casualty. This is not the Britain that Labour members, activists or the international community expect. Labour has a proud legacy of global leadership, from founding the Department for International Development to driving international action on debt relief and poverty reduction.

If ever there were a moment to fix the broken systems that hold so many countries back – from exploitative debt markets to escalating climate damage – that moment is now. This government can still choose a different path: one rooted in internationalism, justice, and the understanding that the future of the UK is inseparable from the world around us.

Maria Finnerty is a member of the Executive Committee, Labour Campaign for International Development