Demonstrations, Protests and Riots

Subterms

    More stories

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Protestas en Venezuela: nuevo informe vincula a las fuerzas de seguridad con 6 muertes

      by

      Un informe de Human Rights Watch es el primer esfuerzo de una importante organización internacional por verificar algunas de las dos decenas de muertes registradas en las protestas desde las controvertidas elecciones presidenciales de Venezuela.[Estamos en WhatsApp. Empieza a seguirnos ahora]Las fuerzas de seguridad venezolanas y grupos armados afines al Gobierno cometieron actos de violencia generalizados contra manifestantes y mataron a algunos de ellos tras las disputadas elecciones presidenciales del país, según un informe publicado el miércoles por Human Rights Watch.Organizaciones y medios de comunicación venezolanos denunciaron 24 asesinatos durante las manifestaciones, pero el reporte es el primer esfuerzo de una organización internacional por verificar algunos de ellos.El presidente de Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, ha enfrentado una amplia condena nacional e internacional por su afirmación de que ganó las elecciones presidenciales del 28 de julio, y la consiguiente represión violenta de las manifestaciones de protesta contra esa afirmación.El gobierno aún no ha publicado ningún recuento de votos que demuestre la victoria de Maduro. Los recuentos de los observadores electorales publicados por la oposición muestran que perdió de manera contundente.El informe de Human Rights Watch, una organización de investigación y defensa sin fines de lucro con sede en Nueva York, detalla los casos de seis personas que murieron durante las protestas a manos de las fuerzas de seguridad del Estado o de lo que parecían ser grupos de milicias armadas llamados colectivos.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Netanyahu Stands Firm on Cease-Fire Terms Amid Growing Outrage in Israel

      by

      In his first news conference since the bodies of six killed hostages were recovered, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refused to budge on his conditions for any truce in Gaza.Brushing aside pleas from allies and the demands of Israeli protesters for an immediate cease-fire in Gaza in exchange for the release of hostages, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel on Monday vowed to maintain Israeli control along the border between Egypt and Gaza, a contentious plan that appeared to dim, if not dash, prospects for a truce.In his first news conference since the bodies of six slain hostages were recovered over the weekend, Mr. Netanyahu told reporters on Monday night that, to ensure its security, Israel needed to assert control over the Gazan side of the border with Egypt, known as the Philadelphi Corridor, calling it the lifeline of Hamas.Hamas has said Israeli control of the corridor is a nonstarter in negotiations for a truce, demanding instead a complete Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.“If we leave, there will be enormous diplomatic pressure upon us from the whole world not to return,” Mr. Netanyahu said of the corridor, as a large crowd protested near his private residence in Jerusalem on Monday night.Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told reporters on Monday that to ensure its security, Israel needed to assert control over the Philadelphi Corridor, calling it the lifeline of Hamas. Ohad Zwigenberg/EPA, via ShutterstockMr. Netanyahu made the comments a day after the Israeli military announced that the six hostages had been found dead in a tunnel underneath the southern Gaza city of Rafah. The discovery devastated Israelis and spurred both the mass protests on Sunday and a widespread work stoppage by the country’s largest labor union.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Israeli Protesters Demand a Deal for the Release of Hostages

      by

      Protesters flooded the streets of Israeli cities on Sunday in mass demonstrations demanding that the government immediately accept a deal for the release of hostages held in Gaza. The furious protests, some of the largest the country has seen over months of failed negotiations, came after the Israeli military announced that six of the hostages had recently been killed in Gaza.In Tel Aviv, protest organizers put the number of people in the hundreds of thousands. Hostage families and a crowd of supporters carried six prop coffins in a march through the city. They swarmed in front of the Israeli military headquarters and clashed with the police on a major highway.In Jerusalem, the Israeli police fired skunk water, a noxious crowd control weapon, and forcefully removed a crowd of hundreds who rallied at the city’s main entrance. In smaller cities too, including Rehovot, in central Israel, people blocked traffic and chanted, “We want them back living, not in coffins!”Israelis demonstrated outside Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office after the military recovered the bodies of six killed hostages from a tunnel underneath Rafah, Gaza.Ronen Zvulun/ReutersThe national uproar built on months of protests and increasingly aggressive actions by the families of many hostages, who have been attempting to pressure Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel to accept a deal to little avail.The frustration of the families, who have accused Mr. Netanyahu of sacrificing their loved ones for his own political gain, appeared to reach a boiling point on Sunday after the Israeli military said it had recovered the bodies of six hostages killed in Gaza. The Israeli health ministry said they had been shot at close range sometime between Thursday and Friday morning.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Gaza Debate Reopens Divisions Between Left-Wing Workers and Union Leaders

      by

      Last week’s Democratic National Convention surfaced differences over the war in Gaza that could widen fissures between labor activists and union officials.When members of the Chicago Teachers Union showed up to march at the Democratic National Convention last week, many expressed two distinct frustrations.The first was over the war in Gaza, which they blamed for chewing up billions of dollars in aid to Israel that they said could be better spent on students, in addition to a staggering loss of life. The second was disappointment with their parent union, the American Federation of Teachers, which they felt should go further in pressuring the Biden administration to rein in Israel’s military campaign.“I was disappointed in the resolution on Israel and Palestine because it didn’t call for an end to armed shipments,” said Kirstin Roberts, a preschool teacher who attended the protest, alluding to a statement that the parent union endorsed at its convention in July.Since last fall, many rank-and-file union members have been outspoken in their criticism of Israel’s response to the Oct. 7 attacks, in which Hamas-led militants killed more than 1,000 people and took about 250 hostages. The leaders of many national unions have appeared more cautious, at times emphasizing the precipitating role of Hamas.“We were very careful about what a moral stance was and also what the implications of every word we wrote was,” the president of the American Federation of Teachers, Randi Weingarten, said of the resolution her union recently adopted.In some ways, this divide reflects tensions over Israel and Gaza that exist within many institutions — like academia, the media and government.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Israeli Minister Ben-Gvir Draws Anger for Comments on Disputed Holy Site

      by

      Israel’s far-right national security minister has drawn outrage for agreeing that he would like to build a synagogue at a disputed holy site in Jerusalem that has long been a flashpoint between Jews and Muslims.In an interview on Monday on Israeli Army Radio, Itamar Ben-Gvir, the national security minister, was asked if he would build a temple at one of the holiest sites for both Jews and Muslims, known as the Aqsa Mosque complex by Muslims and the Temple Mount by Jews. “Yes, yes, yes!” Mr. Ben-Gvir replied.The affirmation by Mr. Ben-Gvir, who has a long history of incendiary comments and actions, came amid heightened tensions in the region, with the war between Israel and Hamas expected to grind on with no end in sight. Four days of cease-fire talks in Cairo between senior Israeli and Hamas officials concluded on Sunday with no breakthrough.Almost immediately after the interview, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office said in a statement that there was no change to the status quo at the site, where two ancient Jewish temples once stood. Some religious Jews want to build a third Jewish temple, a move seen as offensive to Muslims.Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Qatar quickly denounced the comments. In a joint statement, Jordan and Egypt added that a cease-fire was the only way to lessen the “grave escalation” in the region.The Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said it viewed Mr. Ben-Gvir’s statements as “an explicit and blatant call to demolish the mosque and construct the so-called Temple in its place.”Moderate Israeli officials distanced themselves from Mr. Ben-Gvir’s comments. Several Israeli leaders called on Mr. Netanyahu to discipline or control Mr. Ben-Gvir.“Challenging the status quo on the Temple Mount is a dangerous, unnecessary and irresponsible act,” Yoav Gallant, the defense secretary, wrote on X. “Ben Gvir’s actions endanger the national security of the State of Israel and its international status.”A complex agreement governs the site. Officially, Jews may visit the site, but not pray there, though Israel has quietly allowed them to do so. Jewish worshipers are supposed to pray at the nearby Western Wall.In one of a series of provocations, Mr. Ben-Gvir recently violated the agreement with a public demonstration, leading a group of about 2,000 supporters in prayers at the site. He claimed in the Monday interview that not allowing Jews to pray there was discrimination.In June Mr. Ben-Gvir joined a procession of tens of thousands of Jews through the heart of Jerusalem to celebrate Israel’s capture of the eastern half of the city in 1967.In the interview, Mr. Ben-Gvir was open about his goals — and his current limitations.“It’s not as if I do whatever I like in the Temple Mount,” he said. “If this were the case, the Israeli flag would have hung over the Temple Mount a long time ago.’’ More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Solingen, Germany, Becomes Reluctant Symbol of Migration Battles

      by

      After a stabbing attack that prosecutors say was committed by a Syrian who was rejected for asylum, the city of Solingen finds itself at the center of a longstanding debate.Two days after a deadly knife attack in the German city of Solingen, the youth wing of the far-right AfD party put out a call for supporters to stage a protest demanding the government do more to deport migrants denied asylum.The authorities had identified the suspect in the stabbing spree that killed three people and wounded eight others as a Syrian man who was in the country despite having been denied asylum and who prosecutors suspected had joined the Islamic State. The attack tore at the fabric of the ethnically diverse, working-class city in the country’s west.But even before the right-wing protests had begun on Sunday, scores of counterprotesters had gathered in front of the group home that housed the suspect and other refugees. They carried banners that read, “Welcome to refugees” and “Fascism is not an opinion, but a crime,” and railed against those who would use the attack to further inflame an already fraught national debate over immigration and refugees.The dueling protests — not unlike those recently in Britain — are emblematic of Germany’s longstanding tug of war over how to deal with a large influx of asylum seekers in recent years. The country needs immigration to bolster its work force, but the government often finds itself on the defensive against an increasingly powerful AfD.The party and its supporters are attempting to use the stabbing attack to bolster their broader anti-immigrant message, with some blaming the assault on “uncontrolled migration” even before the nationality of the suspect was known.“They are trying to use this tragedy to foment fear,” said Matthias Marsch, 67, a Solingen resident who was at Sunday’s counterprotest and worries about a rightward drift in society. “I’m here to stand against that.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Greenpeace Tries a Novel Tactic in Lawsuit Over Dakota Access Pipeline

      by

      The environmental group, which is being sued by the pipeline company in North Dakota, threatened to use new European rules to try to limit potential damages.The NewsGreenpeace recently unveiled a new strategy for fighting a costly lawsuit by an energy company that the group contends is designed to silence critics of the oil industry.The suit, first filed in federal court in 2017, alleged that Greenpeace had incited the protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in North Dakota in 2016 and 2017, and it sought $300 million in damages.Greenpeace disputes the claims. It says the lawsuit is designed to essentially force the environmental group to go out of business with an expensive legal fight.Its new tactic, led by Greenpeace International in Amsterdam, would use the European legal system to try to minimize the financial consequences of a potential loss in United States courts. In a letter to the company last month, lawyers for the group cited a new European Union directive aimed at curbing SLAPP suits, or Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation. Those are defined as meritless suits that seek to shut down civil society groups.The letter called on the company suing it, Dallas-based Energy Transfer, to drop its suit against Greenpeace International, and to pay damages for its legal costs, or risk a countersuit under the new European rules.The BackgroundAfter the Dakota Access Pipeline was approved in 2016, it became the target of high-profile protests by Native American tribes and environmental groups. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe argued that the pipeline encroached on reservation land and endangered the water supply. Thousands of its supporters joined a nearly eight-month protest encampment near the reservation, and tribal leaders mounted their own legal challenge to the project.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More