Connect with us

World News

Italian Crew Stopped Saudi Ship Carrying Arms to Israel

Published

on

Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : It was the kind of news I wanted desperately to dismiss as a fabrication — a malicious AI-generated smear designed to inflame anger against a Muslim nation. The claim seemed too outrageous to be true: an Italian dockworkers’ union had stopped a Saudi-owned ship carrying weapons to Israel, even as Gaza’s people were being starved, bombed, and hunted like wild animals by one of the most advanced militaries on Earth. As a trained analyst, my first instinct was to reject it outright. Surely, I thought, no Muslim country — least of all the custodian of the Two Holy Mosques — would supply arms to those slaughtering Palestinians, many of them children.
But deeper investigation left no room for doubt. On August 7, 2025, at the Port of Genoa, a Saudi-flagged vessel — the Bahri Yanbu — was stopped by some 40 dockworkers after they discovered its cargo: weapons, ammunition, explosives, armored vehicles, and at least one Italian-made Oto Melara naval cannon. According to port sources and union officials, the shipment was bound for Israel, even as it intensified its siege of Gaza.
This was no minor cargo ship. The Bahri Yanbu is owned by Bahri, the Saudi state shipping company, with a long record of transporting military cargo globally. The ship had sailed from Baltimore, USA, and was scheduled to collect more military equipment before heading toward Israel. The dockworkers — organized under the Unione Sindacale di Base (USB) and the Collettivo Autonomo Lavoratori Portuali (CALP) — refused to touch the cargo, declaring, “We do not work for war.” Their action was grounded in both Italian law (Law 185/90 prohibits arms exports to conflict zones) and in moral conviction.
In response, the Genoa port authority pledged to create a “permanent observatory on arms trafficking,” with formal discussions scheduled for September. This was not the first confrontation: in 2019, dockworkers in Genoa blocked the same Bahri Yanbu from loading arms bound for the war in Yemen. History, it seems, was repeating itself — only this time, the weapons were meant for Israel’s campaign in Gaza.
That the workers who took this stand were not Muslim but overwhelmingly Christian deepens the sting. For the love of humanity, they risked livelihoods, defied a powerful foreign state, and upheld the principle that complicity in war crimes is itself a crime. They acted while too many Muslim governments stood paralyzed, issuing hollow statements that echo like empty promises across a devastated Gaza.
The humiliation is bitter. This is the same Saudi Arabia that Donald Trump visited twice — once during his first term in 2017 and again in his second term — extracting trillions of dollars in investments, arms purchases, and trade deals for the United States. It is the same kingdom that spares no expense in projecting an image of power, prosperity, and religious leadership before the Muslim world. Yet, when the moment came to stand unequivocally with the Palestinians — not in words, but in decisive action — it was dockworkers in Italy who bore the moral burden.
This is not a new shame. In 1990, during another Middle Eastern crisis, reports emerged of Muslim-owned vessels transferring arms later used against other Muslims. The bitter lesson then, as now, was that political expediency, alliances with Western powers, and economic self-interest can override the Qur’anic injunction that Muslims are one body: “If one part suffers, the whole body feels the pain.”
Islamic history offers many examples of rulers who came to the aid of the oppressed without hesitation, regardless of religion. The standard was never sect or ethnicity, but justice. If a Christian community under Muslim protection was attacked, Muslim armies would defend them. Yet today, Gaza’s children — many too young to comprehend the politics dictating their fates — are being buried under rubble, not by weapons smuggled by criminal gangs, but by munitions carried aboard a vessel owned by the Muslim world’s wealthiest state.
Meanwhile, ordinary Americans are showing unexpected moral clarity. Across social media, independent outlets, and even segments of mainstream media, Israel’s siege is being condemned as genocide and ethnic cleansing. Prime Minister Netanyahu is increasingly depicted as a butcher and war criminal. The anger is fueled by the understanding that silence is complicity — an understanding apparently clearer to Christian dockworkers in Genoa than to many leaders in the Muslim world.
Saudi Arabia now faces a stark choice — one that will define its reputation and its claim to lead the Muslim ummah. If the government authorized this shipment, it must answer to the Muslim world. If it claims the transfer was conducted by a private contractor, then that party must be punished so severely that no one dares to repeat the offense. This is not mere public relations; it is about moral survival.
It is also a wake-up call for all Muslim nations. The defense of Palestinians cannot be left solely to Iran, which, despite crippling sanctions and isolation, has resisted U.S. and Israeli pressure and materially supported Palestinian armed resistance. The Qur’an and the Prophet’s example leave no room for inaction when oppression is visible. Even if every worldly power aligns against them, Muslims are commanded to stand for justice.
The events in Genoa strip away all excuses. They show that moral courage is not bound by religion, nationality, or language — it is a choice made regardless of personal or political cost. The dockworkers did not calculate their odds before boarding that ship; they saw a line that could not be crossed and refused to cross it.
Muslim leaders must now ask themselves a painful question: will history remember them as the custodians of holy places who stood idle while Gaza’s people starved and bled, or will they seize this moment to move beyond hollow declarations and take tangible action? The answer will not be written in speeches, but in whether arms shipments like those aboard the Bahri Yanbu are ever allowed to leave port again.
If they act, they may yet restore the unity, dignity, and purpose the ummah once embodied. If they fail, history’s judgment will be harsh — and it will not be written by allies in Washington, London, or Tel Aviv, but by the very people whose cries they ignored. In that record, the names of the Genoa dockworkers will stand as men and women of conscience, while those who turned away will find their titles and riches no shield from infamy.
The moral of this moment is unavoidable: justice does not wait for convenience, and righteousness does not bow to fear. If Christian dockworkers in Italy can risk everything to stop a Muslim nation’s complicity in genocide, then Muslim leaders have no excuse left. Either they act now for Palestine, or they forfeit forever the moral authority to speak in its name.

World News

Canada’s Carney welcomes MP who defected to the Liberals

Published

on

By

A Conservative MP’s decision to cross the floor and join the Liberal party is “exceptionally valuable”, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said on Wednesday, as he looks ahead to passing his first federal budget.

Chris d’Entremont from Nova Scotia defected to the Liberals on Tuesday shortly after Carney put forward his fiscal plan, inching the Liberal government closer to a majority.

Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, d’Entremont said he left because he no longer felt represented by Conservative opposition leader Pierre Poilievre.

Poilievre and his party have criticised Carney’s budget as doing little to address the cost of living while ballooning Canada’s deficit.

In a statement, the Conservative party accused d’Entremont of breaking his promises to the Canadians who elected him, and of defecting due to “personal grievances” with the party.

Nova Scotia’s d’Entremont resignation sent shockwaves through Ottawa on budget night.

In announcing his decision to leave, d’Entremont said he supported the Liberal budget and that it “hits the priorities” he has heard from people in his constituency.

“I came to a clear conclusion: there is a better path forward for our country,” he said.

At a news conference on Wednesday, he criticised Conservative leader Poilievre for what he said is his “negative” style of politics.

The MP won his riding narrowly last April in the riding of Acadie-Annapolis, coming ahead of the Liberal candidate by just one percentage point.

His decision to defect comes ahead of a scheduled leadership review for Poilievre in January and amid wider criticisms that his combative style of politics contributed to the Conservatives’ election loss earlier this year.

It also pushes Carney’s Liberals closer to a majority, as the prime minister looks to pass his government’s first budget through parliament. Failure to do so could risk another election.

On Wednesday, Carney appealed for more allies. “We’ll speak to anyone publicly or otherwise who can support us,” he said.

Carney later walked with the new Liberal MP into his first national caucus meeting, where they were greeted with applause.

A vote on the budget is expected to be held mid-November.

Carney’s government has called the fiscal plan as an “investment budget” meant to attract capital to Canada and shield it from the impact of US tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump.

It increases Canada’s deficit to C$78bn ($55.3bn; £42.47bn), the second largest in history, but also includes cuts like slashing the size of the federal workforce by 10% in the coming years.

The Conservatives and the Quebec sovereigntist party the Bloc Québécois have both indicated they will oppose it.

“This costly budget forces Canadians to spend more on debt interest than on healthcare transfers,” said Poilievre in the House of Commons on Tuesday evening.

The left-leaning New Democratic Party’s interim leader Don Davies said they still want time to study the budget before they decide. The party holds seven seats.

Mark Carney

Continue Reading

World News

Wife of abducted Malaysian pastor wins landmark lawsuit against state

Published

on

By

The wife of a Malaysian pastor abducted eight years ago has won a lawsuit against the police and the government, in a landmark case that has gripped the nation.

Raymond Koh was pulled out of his car by masked men in a suburb of the capital Kuala Lumpur in 2017. His whereabouts remain unknown – his family has long maintained he was taken by police.

On Wednesday, the high court ruled he had been forcibly disappeared, with the judge holding the government and police responsible for his abduction. It is Malaysia’s first such judgement.

The court also ruled that the state must pay more than 31m ringgit (£5.7m; $7.4m) to Mr Koh’s family, the largest sum for damages in Malaysian legal history.

In an emotional speech following the decision, his wife Susanna Liew told reporters: “We are overjoyed and thankful to God that we have a fair and honest judgement.

“Though this will not bring Pastor Raymond back, it is somewhat a vindication and closure for the family,” she said.

“We dedicate this struggle and judgement to Pastor Raymond Koh, a man of compassion and courage, and to all victims of enforced disappearances.”

The disappearance of Mr Koh, along with the abduction of activist Amri Che Mat, has long intrigued Malaysia.

Both cases took place within months of each other between the end of 2016 and early 2017, and led to heated public speculation.

Mr Koh’s case, in particular, dominated the headlines because his abduction took place in broad daylight and had been captured on a CCTV camera, and was witnessed by passers-by.

Both families had insisted that the men had been taken by the police, which the police consistently denied.

The men’s disappearances prompted two investigations, one conducted by Malaysia’s human rights commission, and another by the government.

Both investigations eventually concluded that the men had likely been abducted by the elite Special Branch of the police as they were perceived as threats to mainstream Islam in Muslim-majority Malaysia.

The government report – which was classified as secret until the families sued for access – said that “rogue cops” were responsible for the abductions, and the official who led the operation had “extreme views” against Christians and Shia Muslims.

Mr Koh had been targeted because he was suspected of proselytising to Muslims, which his family has denied. Apostasy is illegal in Malaysia.

Amri Che Mat had come under suspicion as he is a Shia Muslim. Malaysia practises a moderate form of Sunni Islam.

The wives of Raymond Koh and Amri Che Mat separately sued the state for damages and to force the authorities to reveal their husbands’ whereabouts.

BBC / Tessa Wong Susanna Liew wears a blue blazer, white shirt and pink neck scarf while Norhayati wears a pink patterned hijab. Both women are smiling and Norhayati's arm is around Susanna's shoulders
Susanna Liew (left) and Norhayati (right) had separately sued the state over the abductions of their husbands

On Wednesday, the high court ruled that police officials, the Royal Malaysian Police, and the Malaysian government were liable for the abduction of Mr Koh.

Besides awarding several million ringgit to Ms Liew for emotional distress, the judge ruled that 10,000 ringgit (£1,830; $2,385) in general damages be paid for each day of Mr Koh’s disappearance, starting from when he was abducted and ending on the day his whereabouts are disclosed by the state.

The judge also ordered the state to reopen the investigation and ascertain Mr Koh’s whereabouts.

As of Wednesday, the rolling sum of the general damages works out to be more than 31.8 million ringgit. The final figure is expected to become the largest payout in Malaysian history, according to lawyers acting for Ms Liew.

The money will be deposited into a trust, to which Ms Liew and her children will likely be named as beneficiaries.

The high court judge also found the government and police liable for Amri Che Mat’s abduction. His wife Norhayati, who sued for lesser offences compared to Ms Liew’s lawsuit, was awarded about three million ringgit.

“The feeling of sadness remains because questions about Amri’s whereabouts, whether he is alive, dead, or in good health, are all still unanswered,” Norhayati told reporters.

“We sincerely hope that those responsible will be held accountable for what they have done.”

Continue Reading

World News

How Kentucky UPS plane crash unfolded and what could have caused it

Published

on

By

At least nine people have died and 11 left injured after a UPS cargo plane crashed while taking off from an international airport in Louisville, Kentucky, on Tuesday evening.

Aviation experts who spoke to BBC Verify believe the plane crashed after one engine failed and another appeared to be damaged during take-off.

It is unclear what caused the plane to crash, prompting a massive fireball to erupt after it failed to take-off from the runway. Footage showed fire had already engulfed one wing of the aircraft while it was attempting to take off, which may have spread through the plane and caused the explosion, or the jet could have caught fire after colliding with an object on the ground.

What is apparent is that the 38,000 gallons (144,000 litres) of fuel on board the MD-11 jet needed for the flight likely escalated the blaze, which quickly spread to several buildings beyond the runway and burned for hours.

BBC Verify has been analysing footage that emerged overnight to piece together how the crash unfolded.

How did it start?

UPS uses Louisville Muhammad Ali International Airport as a distribution hub for its global operations and its Flight 2976 was at the start of a 4,300 mile journey to Honolulu in Hawaii when the cargo plane attempted to take off.

Data from tracking website FlightRadar24 shows the plane began to taxi along the 17R runway at around 17:15 local time (22:15 GMT) and managed to reach a top speed of 214mph (344km/h).

But verified footage shows that by the time the plane reached this speed a fire had completely engulfed its left wing and the aircraft struggled to climb away from the runway before the explosion.

Officials issued a shelter-in-place order to local residents and scrambled hundreds of firefighters to the scene.

Governor Andy Beshear confirmed details seen in CCTV footage that shows the aircraft flying just metres off the ground before a bright flash engulfed the plane. It is then seen slamming into the ground as a huge fireball erupts around it about a minute into its journey.

A verified clip taken by a motorists on a nearby highway showed the flames erupting into the skyline while later videos showed smoke billowing from the scene.

Aerial images broadcast by local media showed debris showering the runway and landing on the roofs of at least two local businesses.

What could have caused the crash?

Air traffic control communications reviewed by BBC Verify are largely garbled and full of interference so no meaningful conversation can be heard about the crash as it unfolded.

But analysts who spoke to BBC Verify suggested that a dramatic failure of two of the engines may have been responsible for the disaster.

The MD-11 transport plane uses three engines. Two are mounted under the wings, and a third is built into the tail at the base of the vertical stabilizer.

A BBC graphic showing the locations of the engines on an MD-11 jet.

Footage confirmed by BBC Verify showed a blaze engulfing the left wing of the plane, which then tilted to the left as it attempted to gain lift and take-off.

Two experts independently suggested the left engine may have detached from the plane after suffering from a mechanical or structural failure.

Separate images taken after the crash showed a charred engine sitting on the grass next to the runway at Louisville International Airport.

Terry Tozer, a retired airline pilot and aviation safety expert, told BBC Verify that it was “almost unheard of” for an engine to detach in flight.

The smoking remains of an engine sitting on the grass next to the runway at Louisville International Airport.

He referenced the 1979 American Airlines Flight 191 disaster, in which 273 people were killed after the plane’s engine detached as it took off at O’Hare International Airport in Chicago. Parts of the engine had been damaged when it was replaced on the plane, but Mr Tozer said it was too early to say whether a similar fault caused the engine to detach on the MD-11.

Mr Tozer said the cargo plane would have been able to fly with just two engines but the damage caused by the fire on the left wing was likely so great it caused the plane’s engine built into the tail to lose thrust.

“With such a catastrophic event we cannot know what other damage was done when the engine came adrift,” he said.

Marco Chan, a senior lecturer in aviation operations at Buckinghamshire New University, said the footage appeared to show the third engine had been damaged because it expelled a burst of smoke. The damage could have happened while it was pelted with debris from the fire and the engine detaching.

“The upper engine that expelled a puff of smoke appears to wind down almost immediately afterwards,” Mr Chan said. “That left only the right engine producing thrust, creating a severe power imbalance and leaving the aircraft unable to gain height.

“Losing two engines during take-off leaves the aircraft with only a third of its power and little chance of maintaining flight, especially at maximum take-off weight,” Mr Chan added.

Why did the crash cause such damage?

Footage from the aftermath of the crash showed a scene of complete chaos with multiple fires blazing across a large swathe of the site and smoke billowing into the sky.

The plane, which was 34 years old and had been used as a passenger plane until 2006, had already completed one return journey from Louisville on Tuesday to Baltimore in Maryland.

It has not been confirmed what cargo was on board the flight bound for Hawaii, though officials said the plane was not carrying anything that would create a heightened risk of contamination.

“This was a long-haul cargo flight from Louisville to Honolulu, so the MD-11 was carrying a lot of jet fuel,” Mr Chan said. “That heavy fuel load not only reduced performance but also explains the large fireball seen after the crash.”

Officials told reporters that the aircraft was carrying 38,000 gallons (144,000 litres) of fuel for the long journey when it crashed. The blaze was likely amplified on the ground because the aircraft slammed into a fuel recycling business next to the airport.

Mr Chan said investigators will now focus on how the initial fire began, and “whether debris struck the centre engine, and whether earlier maintenance on the left engine played a role”. He added: “Weather conditions were calm and clear, so environmental factors are unlikely.”

The National Transportation Safety Board (NSTB) has sent a team to the site and will now lead the investigation into the causes of the crash, though this can take up to two years to complete.

Additional reporting by Emma Pengelly, Kayleen Devlin and Paul Brown.

Continue Reading

Trending