Mike Amesbury, the former Labour Member of Parliament for Runcorn and Helsby, received a ten-week jail sentence for assaulting a man during a drunken altercation in the street. Deputy Chief Magistrate Tan Ikram delivered the ruling at Chester Magistrates’ Court. He described the incident as a “drunken brawl” that stopped only when bystanders intervened. Amesbury, 55, pleaded guilty to assaulting 45-year-old Paul Fellows on Main Street in Frodsham, Cheshire, in the early hours of October 26. Judge Ikram noted that Mr. Fellows showed no aggression and did not retaliate against Amesbury. The judge emphasized that the assault was unprovoked. Judge Ikram explained that the immediate custodial sentence served both as punishment and deterrence. He stated that Amesbury’s drunken state could not excuse his actions. As an elected representative, he should expect robust challenges from constituents. The judge condemned the former MP’s behavior, saying, “You continued the attack while the victim was on the ground. This incident may not have ended if bystanders hadn’t intervened.” After the verdict, two dock officers escorted Amesbury out of the courtroom. He appeared not to have brought any personal belongings, as he was set to go directly to HMP Altcourse in Liverpool. Following his removal, Amesbury’s attorney, Richard Derby, requested the judge to reconsider bail. However, Judge Ikram returned to the court and stated, “Application refused.” The court heard details of the events leading to the assault. Amesbury had been drinking before arriving at a taxi rank. There, he encountered Mr. Fellows, who approached him to discuss a local bridge closure. Eyewitness footage captured Amesbury punching Mr. Fellows in the head, knocking him to the ground. Despite being vulnerable, Amesbury followed and struck him at least five more times. He taunted Mr. Fellows, saying, “You won’t threaten your MP again, will you?” This incident has sparked considerable backlash. Many view it as unacceptable behavior for an elected official. Constituents have expressed disappointment, noting that MPs should set a positive example. The fallout from this case may resonate within political circles, raising questions about accountability and the expected conduct of public figures. As news of Amesbury’s sentencing spreads, it reminds us of the consequences of unchecked aggression. It highlights the importance of maintaining decorum, especially among those in public service. The case has also reignited discussions about the impact of alcohol on behavior and the responsibilities of elected officials to uphold the law.
Friedrich Merz has indicated he is considering leveraging the current parliament to ease the nation’s stringent limits on public borrowing, following Sunday’s election results that produced a minority coalition capable of obstructing any proposed measures. Merz remarks come in the wake of a tightly contested election that has left the German Bundestag with a fragmented representation. The implications of this scenario are profound, particularly as the newly formed minority coalition, which includes various parties with differing agendas, poses challenges to any sweeping reforms, especially those related to fiscal policy and public finance. Speaking to reporters on Monday, Merz emphasized that the political landscape, while complex, does not preclude action on pressing issues. He pointed out that parties could still take meaningful steps regarding the so-called debt brake within the existing legislature, which is in session until March 24. This debt brake, a constitutional rule aimed at enforcing strict limits on public borrowing, has been a focal point of economic policy debates in Germany. Critics argue that it constrains the government’s ability to invest in crucial areas such as infrastructure, education, and climate change initiatives. “The German Bundestag has the capacity to make decisions at any time without interruption, even after elections,” Merz stated, asserting his belief in the parliament’s ongoing functionality despite the electoral outcome. His confidence reflects a commitment to governance that prioritizes economic stability and responsiveness to current challenges. Merz’s strategy involves reaching out to other political factions to foster dialogue around possible adjustments to the debt brake. “I will engage in discussions with the parties that retain their mandates in the German Bundestag,” he added, referencing the Social Democrats (SPD), the Greens, and the Free Democratic Party (FDP). This approach indicates a willingness to collaborate across party lines, a crucial factor in navigating the complexities of a minority government. The prospect of reforming the debt brake raises questions about fiscal responsibility and the balance between maintaining budgetary discipline and addressing urgent socio-economic needs. Advocates for reform argue that loosening these limits could provide the necessary flexibility to invest in critical areas that support long-term growth and societal well-being. On the other hand, opponents caution against any measures that could lead to excessive borrowing and jeopardize financial stability. As Merz engages in discussions with other parties, the response from the SPD, Greens, and FDP will be pivotal. Each party has its own priorities and concerns, which could either facilitate or hinder potential reforms. The SPD, traditionally focused on social welfare programs, may be inclined to support measures that promote economic equity, while the Greens are likely to emphasize sustainability and environmental considerations. The FDP, known for its pro-business stance, may advocate for policies that encourage investment and innovation. The upcoming weeks will be crucial as Merz seeks to navigate this political landscape. His ability to forge alliances and build consensus will determine the feasibility of any proposed changes to the debt brake. Moreover, public sentiment regarding fiscal policy will play a significant role in shaping the discourse. Citizens are increasingly aware of the implications of government borrowing on their lives, particularly in the context of rising living costs and economic uncertainty. In conclusion, Friedrich Merz’s exploration of reforms to the debt brake reflects a proactive approach to governance in a challenging political environment. By engaging with other parties and emphasizing the Bundestag’s capacity to act, he aims to address critical economic issues while navigating the complexities of a minority coalition. The outcome of this endeavor will not only impact fiscal policy but also set the tone for future collaboration among Germany’s diverse political landscape.
The United States and Europe are locked in tense negotiations at the United Nations and G7 over the question of accountability for Russia’s ongoing war against Ukraine. This conflict has been exacerbated by a notable shift in stance from former President Donald Trump, which threatens to fracture the longstanding unity among Western nations. This week, the Trump administration and the European Union have submitted competing resolutions at both the UN Security Council and the General Assembly. As G7 diplomats engaged in discussions over the weekend, a key point of contention emerged: whether a forthcoming joint statement from the wealthy nations would explicitly refer to Russia’s “aggression” against Ukraine. Officials have indicated that, without a last-minute compromise, the U.S. could align itself with Russia and China, thus undermining a Western-supported initiative aimed at showing solidarity with Ukraine. EU chief diplomat Kaja Kallas expressed her concerns, stating, “If we look at the messages coming from the United States, it is clear that the Russian narrative is very strongly represented.” Trump’s recent push for a swift resolution to the conflict, along with his initiation of bilateral peace talks with Russia and his increasingly contentious exchanges with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, have disrupted three years of unified Western denunciations of Moscow’s invasion, which began in February 2022. In a symbolic move to mark the third anniversary of the war, Ukraine, alongside the EU, has drafted a UN resolution condemning Russia’s invasion. This resolution is slated for a vote among the General Assembly’s 193 member states on Monday afternoon. However, sources reveal that the U.S. has called for the withdrawal of this resolution. Instead, Washington is advocating for its own text that equates the actions of Ukraine and Russia, expressing sorrow over “the tragic loss of life across the Russian Federation-Ukraine conflict.” This proposed wording has been met with strong opposition from European officials, who characterize it as part of a troubling shift in U.S. policy. France, with backing from its European allies, has suggested an amendment to the U.S. resolution, asserting the need to acknowledge “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine” and reaffirming Ukraine’s “sovereignty, independence, unity, and territorial integrity.” Should this amendment be disregarded, a significant number of European nations may opt not to support the resolution, although some may diverge from the EU’s collective stance to back the U.S. As the Security Council convenes later today, European representatives are expected to reintroduce their amendment, but they face the possibility of a veto from Russia and China. The situation is further complicated for France and the UK, both permanent members of the council, as they must decide between vetoing the U.S. resolution or abstaining, potentially allowing it to pass. Meanwhile, the G7 leaders held a virtual meeting on Ukraine, where a source reported an “agreement in principle” on a compromise text. However, Trump’s insistence on tying this agreement to the UN resolutions has created additional friction. Last week, the U.S. declined to support a G7 statement that categorized the conflict as “Russian aggression.” U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reiterated this stance over the weekend, stating that the situation remains “very complicated.” As the diplomatic battle unfolds, the implications for Western unity and the future of Ukraine remain uncertain, underscoring the complexities of international relations in a time of crisis.
Israeli tanks moved into the occupied West Bank on Sunday for the first time in decades in what Palestinian authorities called a “dangerous escalation,” after the defence minister said troops will remain in parts of the territory for a year and tens of thousands of Palestinians who have fled cannot return. Associated Press journalists saw several tanks move along unpaved tracks into Jenin, long a bastion of armed struggle against Israel. Israel is deepening its crackdown on the Palestinian territory and has said it is determined to stamp out militancy amid a rise in attacks. It launched the offensive in the northern West Bank on Jan. 21 — two days after the current ceasefire in Gaza took hold — and expanded it to nearby areas. Palestinians view the deadly raids as part of an effort to cement Israeli control over the territory, where 3 million Palestinians live under military rule. Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz said he and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered the military to “increase the intensity of the activity to thwart terrorism” in all refugee camps in the West Bank. “We will not allow the return of residents, and we will not allow terrorism to return and grow,” he said. Earlier, Katz said he had instructed the military to prepare for “an extended stay” in some of the West Bank’s urban refugee camps from which about 40,000 Palestinians have fled, leaving them “emptied of residents.” The camps are home to descendants of Palestinians who fled during wars with Israel decades ago. It was not clear how long Palestinians would be prevented from returning. Katz said Israeli troops would stay “for the coming year.” Netanyahu said they would stay “as long as needed.” Tanks were last deployed in the West Bank in 2002, when Israel fought a deadly Palestinian uprising. The Palestinian foreign ministry called the Israeli moves “a dangerous escalation of the situation in the West Bank,” and urged the international community to intervene in what it termed Israel’s illegal “aggression.” “Even if they stay, we will return to the camp at the end,” said Mohamed al-Sadi, one of those displaced from Jenin. “This camp is ours. We have no other place to go.” Israeli tanks moving into the Palestinians city of Jenin in the occupied West Bank on Sunday.Majdi Mohammed / AP
Provisional results confirmed that mainstream conservatives led by Friedrich Merz won Germany’s national election, while a far-right party surged to become the nation’s second-largest. The campaign was dominated by worries about the yearslong stagnation of Europe’s biggest economy and pressure to curb migration, something that caused friction after Merz pushed hard in recent weeks for a tougher approach. It took place against a background of growing uncertainty over the future of Ukraine and Europe’s alliance with the United States. The results released by the electoral authority showed Merz’s Christian Democrats and the center-left Social Democrats winning a combined majority of seats in the national legislature after small parties failed to make the electoral threshold. That gives Merz the best chance of becoming the country’s next chancellor. He said on election night that he hopes to form a government by Easter at the latest. He has ruled out a coalition with the far-right Alternative for Germany, or AfD, which is now the country’s second-largest party after its best showing ever. For the time being, departing Chancellor Olaf Scholz, whose Social Democratic party suffered a stinging defeat, will remain. Merz’s conservatives won 208 seats in the 630-seat Bundestag, while the AfD won 152. The three parties in the former governing coalition lost seats, with the SDP falling to 120 seats and the Greens to 85. The pro-business Free Democrats, which triggered early elections by pulling out of the coalition, failed to reach the 5% of the vote required to win seats. The Left party got 64 seats, while the left-wing Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance came in just under the 5% hurdle. The AfD was jubilant on Sunday night, with leaders vowing to become the country’s main party in the next election as its appeal expands. The anti-immigrant, far-right party has established itself as a significant political force in the 12 years since it was founded, but it hasn’t yet been part of any state or national government. That’s the result of what is often called a “firewall” against Alternative for Germany. Other parties say they won’t work with the AfD, which is under observation by the domestic intelligence agency for suspected right-wing extremism, something that AfD objects to strongly. Its branches in three eastern states are designated “proven right-wing extremist” groups, which is particularly sensitive in view of Germany’s Nazi past. The election took place seven months earlier than originally planned after Scholz’s unpopular coalition collapsed in November, three years into a term that was increasingly marred by infighting. There was widespread discontent and not much enthusiasm for any of the candidates. Merz said Sunday night that his top priority is to unify Europe in the face of challenges coming from the U.S. and Russia. Both Vice President JD Vance and Trump ally Elon Musk openly supported the AfD. “I have no illusions at all about what is happening from America,” he told supporters. “Take a look at the recent interventions in the German election campaign by Mr. Elon Musk.” He added that “the interventions from Washington were no less dramatic and drastic and ultimately outrageous than the interventions we have seen from Moscow. So we are under such massive pressure from two sides that my absolute priority now is really to create unity in Europe.” Germany is the most populous country in the 27-nation European Union and a leading member of NATO. It has been Ukraine’s second-biggest weapons supplier, after the U.S., and will be central to shaping the continent’s response to the challenges of the coming years, including the Trump administration’s confrontational foreign and trade policy. The conservative leader said that “the most important thing is to reestablish a viable government in Germany as quickly as possible.” “I am aware of the responsibility,” Merz said. “I am also aware of the scale of the task that now lies ahead of us. I approach it with the utmost respect, and I know that it will not be easy.” “The world out there isn’t waiting for us, and it isn’t waiting for long-drawn-out coalition talks and negotiations,” he told cheering supporters.
The Republican-controlled U.S. Senate has confirmed Kash Patel, President Donald Trump’s pick for FBI director, putting a Trump loyalist atop the nation’s most prominent law enforcement agency at a time of growing upheaval. Patel was confirmed by a 51-49 vote. Two moderate Republicans, Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, joined all Democrats in opposing Patel, but it was not enough to overcome broad Republican support. Collins and Murkowski, in opposing Patel, expressed concern about his past political advocacy for Trump and its potential effect on the FBI’s law enforcement activities. Republican supporters argued he would reform an agency that has been hampered by a decline in public trust. Democrats had forcefully opposed Patel’s nomination, saying his past calls for retribution against Trump’s critics made him unfit to lead the FBI. “Mr. Patel will be a political and national security disaster,” Senator Dick Durbin, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement. Patel takes charge as Trump-backed officials seek to put their stamp on the FBI and its parent agency, the Justice Department, challenging decades-old traditions of independence and reorienting its mission toward Trump’s core priorities. Born to Ugandan immigrants of Indian descent, Patel’s family fled the country during the 1970s amid Idi Amin’s regime, seeking refuge in the US. At least 75 career Justice Department lawyers and FBI officials, who normally keep their roles from administration to administration, have either resigned, been fired or stripped of their posts in the first month of the Trump administration. Justice Department leadership has ordered broad policy changes, demanded loyalty to Trump’s agenda and sought to drop a corruption case against New York Mayor Eric Adams, a Democrat who courted Trump, citing his cooperation on immigration enforcement. “Donald Trump himself and those around him have been very clear that they do believe that the president should affect prosecutorial decisions and prosecutorial outcomes,” said Noah Bookbinder, a former federal prosecutor and head of the ethics group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “They were offended by the efforts to prosecute Donald Trump and those close to him, and they see it as part of their mission to exact vengeance.” Trump-appointed officials have said many early moves are aimed at pursuing the administration’s policy goals and ending what they have described as abuses against Trump and his supporters. Trump and his allies planned during his campaign to install loyalists in the department and weaken the autonomy of a career workforce that they have long viewed with suspicion. Trump has been ensnared in Justice Department investigations dating back to his first campaign in 2016 and faced two federal criminal cases during his years out of power which were dropped after he won the election before reaching trials. “This DOJ will return to its core function of prosecuting dangerous criminals, not pursuing politically motivated witch hunts,” a senior official, Chad Mizelle, said in a statement last week. Department officials did not respond to a request for comment. Prosecutors working on Trump cases repeatedly denied any political influence over those prosecutions. TRADITION OF INDEPENDENCE The Trump administration’s efforts have collided with a deeply ingrained tradition of independence in federal criminal investigations, dating back to reforms that followed the Watergate scandal that toppled President Richard Nixon in 1974. The move by the acting deputy attorney general, Emil Bove, to drop the Adams case caused particular tumult. The top federal prosecutor in Manhattan, where the case was brought, and at least seven other prosecutors in New York and Washington resigned in protest, with some accusing the Trump administration of improper motives. A top Justice Department official accused the prosecutors of having disordered priorities. Trump-appointed officials also fired more than a dozen lawyers who were involved in the two criminal cases against Trump and about 18 prosecutors who handled cases arising from the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters. The FBI faced internal strife even before Patel’s arrival. Bove demanded a list from the bureau of all employees who worked on the sprawling investigation into the attack on the Capitol for an internal review. Its acting director, Brian Driscoll, a career FBI agent, initially resisted and law enforcement groups condemned what they viewed as an unfair attack on career agents who worked on investigations assigned to them. Two groups of FBI agents sued over fears agent names would be publicly released. The Trump administration has said agents who only followed orders would not be disciplined and has committed, for now, not to identify FBI agents who worked on the January 6 probe. PATEL’S AGENDA Patel has vowed that politics will play no role in his leadership of the FBI, but his closeness to Trump has prompted concerns from Democrats and many legal experts. The top Democrat on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Dick Durbin, last week accused Patel of orchestrating the removal of FBI officials from the outside, citing information from whistleblowers. Patel has said he will increase the FBI’s role in countering illegal immigration and violent crime, top Trump priorities, by “letting good cops be cops.” He has said he will scale back investigative work at the FBI’s Washington headquarters where many counterintelligence, national security and public corruption probes are housed. Patel has been among the biggest boosters of claims that a “deep state” within the government has pursued Trump in an attempt to sink his political prospects. “The erosion of trust is evident,” Patel wrote in a Wall Street Journal essay last month, referring to the FBI. Patel’s nomination is itself evidence of Trump’s attempts to exert greater control over federal law enforcement. The FBI director, who serves a 10-year term, is not typically a role that turns over with the change to a new presidential administration. Trump nominated Patel after winning the November election, effectively forcing former Director Christopher Wray, who Trump had appointed to the role in 2017, to resign. Trump fired Wray’s predecessor, James Comey.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said at a press conference in Kyiv on Sunday he would be willing to resign from his post in exchange for peace in Ukraine or NATO membership. “If it is peace for Ukraine, and if you really want me to leave my post, I’m ready,” Zelenskyy said in Ukrainian. “Alternatively, I can trade this for NATO membership, if such conditions exist, immediately, so we don’t have lengthy discussions. I’m focusing on Ukraine’s security today, not in 20 years. And I don’t intend to stay in power for decades.” Zelenskyy’s offer is a major concession amid an ongoing public dispute with President Donald Trump, which escalated last week when Trump suggested that the Ukrainian president was responsible for starting the war. In reality, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, initiating the current land war. In response, the Ukrainian president accused Trump of living in a “disinformation bubble” and pushing Kremlin talking points. The U.S. president then went on to call Zelenskyy a “dictator” and a “modestly successful comedian.” When asked about Trump on Sunday, Zelenskyy told reporters in Ukrainian, “We are partners and I want him on our side.” Asked directly about some of the things Trump has said about him over the past week, Zelenskyy said, “There is no space for emotions. I have pragmatic position. I can’t name these words a compliment, but what can I do?” “I am the elected president by 73% of Ukrainian people. After the martial law, there will be elections. Perhaps he will say something good about me. It is more important what Ukrainians think about me,” the Ukrainian president added. The feud comes as the U.S. and Russia have resumed high-level talks and several senior Trump administration officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, met with Russian officials in Saudi Arabia. Trump has pledged to begin peace talks to end the war in Ukraine, saying on Friday that it’s not important for Zelenskyy to attend peace negotiations because “he’s been at meetings for three years and nothing got done.” “I don’t think he’s very important to be at meetings, to be honest with you,” Trump told Fox News Radio’s Brian Kilmeade. “He’s been there for three years. He makes it very hard to make deals. But look what’s happened to his country, it’s been demolished.” Earlier this month, during an interview with NBC News’ “Meet the Press” on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference, Zelenskyy told moderator Kristen Welker that he would not accept a peace deal without Ukraine at the negotiating table. “I will never accept any decisions between the United States and Russia about Ukraine, never,” he said in English in that interview. “This is the war in Ukraine, against us, and it’s our human losses.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Sunday that freeing Palestinian prisoners under the Gaza ceasefire deal will be delayed until Hamas ends its “humiliating ceremonies” while releasing Israeli hostages. Since the ceasefire came into effect on January 19, Hamas has released 25 Israeli hostages in well-rehearsed handovers, with masked militants parading the captives on stage and forcing them to wave at Gazans gathered to watch. In their seventh scheduled prisoner-hostage swap, Hamas released six Israeli captives on Saturday while Israel delayed releasing Palestinian prisoners. The Palestinian militant group called the move a “blatant violation” of the truce deal. Israel was expected to release more than 600 Palestinian prisoners. “In light of Hamas’ repeated violations — including the disgraceful ceremonies that dishonour our hostages and the cynical use of hostages for propaganda — it has been decided to delay the release of terrorists that was planned for yesterday (Saturday) until the release of the next hostages is ensured, without the humiliating ceremonies”, Netanyahu’s office said in a statement on Sunday. From Washington, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned that Hamas would be “destroyed” if it did not release all the remaining hostages. In the Israeli-occupied West Bank and in the Gaza Strip, families had waited for hours on Saturday for their loved ones to be released from Israeli custody in exchange for the six Israelis returned home. “Waiting is very difficult,” said Shireen al-Hamamreh, whose brother was due for release. “We are patient and we will remain stronger than the occupier, God willing,” she told AFP in the West Bank city of Ramallah. A ‘blatant violation’ The Palestinian Prisoners’ Club advocacy group had said Israel would free 620 inmates on Saturday, most of them Gazans taken into custody during the war. Before Netanyahu’s announcement, Hamas spokesperson Abdel Latif al-Qanou said Israel’s “failure to comply with the release… at the agreed-upon time constitutes a blatant violation of the agreement”. Qanou called on the truce mediators to pressure Israel to “implement its provisions without delay or obstruction”. The delayed release comes after an emotional few days in Israel, where the remains of hostage Shiri Bibas were identified after the initial handover of a different body. Netanyahu has said Hamas will pay “the full price” for what he termed a violation of the truce deal over Bibas’s return. Bibas and her two young sons, among dozens taken captive during Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attack on Israel that triggered the war, had become symbols of the ordeal suffered by the Israeli hostages. Forensics expert Chen Kugel said an autopsy conducted on their remains found “no evidence of injuries caused by a bombing”. Hamas militants had claimed that all three were killed in an Israeli air strike. Read Also: Arab nations plotting alternative to Trump’s Gaza plan Read Also: Arab nations plotting alternative to Trump’s Gaza plan ‘Coming back home’ The six Israelis released Saturday were the last group of living hostages set to be freed under the truce’s first phase. The deal, which has so far enabled the release of 30 captives, is due to expire in early March. Negotiations for a second phase, which is meant to lead to a permanent end to the war, have yet to begin. At a ceremony in Nuseirat, central Gaza, Eliya Cohen, 27, Omer Shem Tov, 22, and Israeli-Argentine Omer Wenkert, 23, waved from a stage, flanked by masked Hamas militants, before their handover to the Red Cross. “I saw the look on his face, he’s calm, he knows he’s coming back home… He’s a real hero,” said Wenkert’s friend Rory Grosz. Under the cold winter rain in Rafah, southern Gaza, militants handed over Tal Shoham, 40, and Avera Mengistu, 38, who both appeared dazed. A sixth hostage, Hisham al-Sayed, 37, was later released in private and taken back to Israeli territory, the military said. Sayed, a Bedouin Muslim, and Mengistu, an Ethiopian Jew, had been held in Gaza for about a decade after they entered the territory individually. Sayed’s family called it “a long-awaited moment”. ‘Mix-up’ On Thursday, the first transfer of dead hostages under the truce sparked anger in Israel after analysis concluded that Shiri Bibas’s remains were not among the four bodies returned. Hamas admitted a possible “mix-up of bodies”, and late Friday handed over more human remains which the Bibas family said had been identified as Shiri’s. The family said in a statement she “was murdered in captivity and has now returned home… to rest.”
Just a week after regaining his freedom, Nael Salama Obeid’s life came to a sudden and tragic end when he fell from the rooftop of his home in Issawiya, East Jerusalem, on Saturday. Obeid, 46, had spent 21 years behind Israeli prison walls, serving seven life sentences plus 30 additional years for his involvement with Hamas’s military wing, the Qassam Brigades, and his alleged role in planning militant operations. His release was part of the sixth round of a prisoner exchange tied to the Gaza ceasefire — a moment of joy now overshadowed by loss. According to witnesses, Obeid suffered critical injuries from the fall and was rushed to Hadassah Hospital, where doctors were unable to save him. His sudden death has left family and friends in shock, turning his brief taste of freedom into heartbreak. For over two decades, Obeid endured harsh prison conditions, periods of solitary confinement, and hunger strikes in protest. His dream of returning home was finally realised, only to be tragically cut short. Adding to the family’s grief, Obeid’s death coincided with the scheduled release of his cousin, Ahmad Obeid, who was set to be freed in a separate phase of the prisoner exchange.
…Authorities fear there may be more victims A Brooklyn man allegedly raped a 7-year-old boy he was babysitting, filmed the vile abuse and posted it on the dark web — and authorities fear there may be other victims. Ramel “Menah” Warner lived with the victim’s family in Brooklyn for two years and frequently babysat the 7-year-old victim, federal prosecutors said in court papers. Warner, 23, allegedly made six different videos of the abuse, investigators said. He was charged Jan. 29 in federal court with acting in a manner injurious to a child, forcible touching, and sexual abuse of an individual under the age of 11. Warner’s distinct tattoos are visible in the recordings, which he’s accused of uploading to the dark web, authorities said. Both the FBI and the NYPD asked other possible victims to come forward with their claims against Warner. The victim told his mother about the alleged abuse in November 2022. At that time, Warner was arrested by the NYPD and charged in an 11-count indictment soon after — a still pending criminal case. “Not only did the defendant have access to children before his arrest, but even after his arrest for raping a child, he continued to participate in a children’s dance group that met at a middle school,” authorities said in the indictment. “The defendant’s relentless efforts to associate with children even after his arrest for a serious crime against a child show that he cannot be trusted to stay away from children if released.” The filings fail to mention the schools Warner had an association with. Federal and city officials refused to disclose the names of the schools. Warner remains in custody, and it was unclear Friday if he has an attorney, and who that might be.
