GMP confirms police gunfire struck victim in Manchester attack

October 3, 2025

Manchester attack victim was hit by police gunfire - GMP

A city in shock: Manchester, a synagogue, and a day that should not have ended in blood

On a crisp autumn day in Manchester, a place that usually hums with the ordinary rhythms of northern life — school runs, market stalls, the distant clatter of trams — something terrible ruptured the calm. Families gathered for Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish year: a day of fasting, reflection and communal prayer. Instead, a church-bell silence was broken by the sound of chaos and gunfire outside the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation synagogue.

By the time the orange lights of ambulances faded into the drizzle, two local men lay dead: Adrian Daulby, 53, and Melvin Cravitz, 66. Another person was fighting for life in hospital. The man shot dead by armed police was later named by investigators as Jihad al-Shamie, a 35-year-old British citizen of Syrian descent. Greater Manchester Police have said that, as far as they can tell, the suspect was not carrying a firearm and that the only shots heard were fired by their Authorised Firearms Officer. They added that one of the fatalities appears to have been caused, tragically and unintentionally, by those very shots as officers acted to stop the attack.

What happened at the synagogue

Eyewitnesses describe a terrifying sequence: a vehicle striking pedestrians, then stabbing outside the synagogue doors, and then the exchange that closed a brutal act all too quickly.

“I came out to check on my neighbour after the service,” said Miriam Levin, who lives two streets away. “There was blood on the path and people were screaming. We were all in shock. It felt like the world had flipped.” Her voice, soft and tremulous, carried the exhausted disbelief of someone who had seen too much in too little time.

Police have confirmed that two people who received gunshot wounds were behind the synagogue doors during attempts to shelter and secure the space. One of those shot died, and another remains in hospital with serious injuries.

A community reeling and a nation asking why

Manchester’s Jewish community — one of the oldest and most tightly knit in Britain — is wrapped in grief and anger. On the streets near Heaton Park, small groups gather to leave candles and flowers, the petals sodden with rain. Religious leaders have urged calm, but the air is thick with questions: how could an attack happen on the holiest day? How safe are communal spaces now?

“We come here to pray, to atone, to be together,” said Rabbi Daniel Katz outside the synagogue, his coat pulled tight against the cold. “To be met with this violence on Yom Kippur — it is beyond comprehension. We will grieve our dead, and then we must demand answers. We must be protected.”

The political response has been swift. The British government has pledged to intensify efforts to tackle antisemitism and promised a heavier police presence at synagogues and community facilities. Shabana Mahmood, the interior minister, told Times Radio she understood the strength of feeling on both sides of the Gaza conflict but urged that it not spill into violence on British streets. “We will do whatever is required to keep our Jewish community safe,” she said, announcing plans for increased security measures.

Context and a worrying trend

To understand why a single attack has sent such shockwaves, look at the wider trends. Since the Hamas attacks of 7 October 2023 and the war in Gaza that followed, reported antisemitic incidents in Britain have surged. The Community Security Trust (CST), which records antisemitic incidents, reported a historic high of 2,255 incidents in 2023 — a record that has left many Jewish families feeling exposed in the public square and online. Pro-Palestine protests across UK cities, some large and loud, have heightened tensions; in the hours after this attack, policing saw clashes outside central government buildings that resulted in about 40 arrests.

“When a community feels under siege, normal life changes,” said Dr. Elise Harper, a sociologist at the University of Manchester who studies hate crime and social cohesion. “You see reduced attendance at communal events, increased investment in private security, and a profound psychological toll. That toll becomes a feedback loop: fear feeds fear, and political rhetoric can fan that into anger.”

Police use-of-force and the burden of split-second decisions

The revelation that a police bullet may have struck one of the victims complicates the story further. Officers say the shots they fired were intended to stop an immediate threat. For families and friends of the dead and injured, the possibility that a bullet meant to save life might have taken life is a bitter, almost impossible grief.

“They were trying to do their job,” said Inspector Rachel Morgan of Greater Manchester Police in a statement, careful and measured. “But this was a fast-moving, harrowing incident. Subject to further forensic results, we must acknowledge that one of the injuries may, tragically, have been caused by the necessary, urgent action taken to bring this attack to an end.”

That balance — between rapid intervention and the risk of error — sits at the heart of debates about armed policing. Experts note that British police rarely deploy firearms compared with some other countries, and when they do, decisions are made in seconds.

“There’s no rulebook for perfect outcomes in these situations,” said Dr. Martin Bellamy, a forensic specialist who has advised police on operations. “Every action can have unintended consequences. But that does not absolve agencies of accountability. Transparent investigations and clear communication are critical to maintaining public trust.”

Voices from the neighbourhood

Beyond statistics and statements, there are the small human details that linger: the empty chair at a weekly chess club, the shopkeeper who has run the kosher deli for thirty years and now worries about his morning customers, the teenagers muttering prayers instead of laughing in the park.

“We used to see each other at markets, at synagogue, at school events,” said Tariq Mohammed, who runs the corner cafe across from Heaton Park. “Now people ask me if it’s safe to walk down the road. It’s heavy. We need to talk to each other, not away from each other.”

Others have raised broader, uncomfortable questions: how we balance the right to protest and express political views with the responsibility to avoid incitement and hatred; how online rhetoric translates into real-world harm; what role schools, universities and community leaders play in shaping discourse.

What comes next?

There will be investigations: forensic examinations into the shots fired, inquests into the deaths, and inquiries into whether intelligence or prevention measures could have stopped what happened. There will also be a debate — in parliament, in neighbourhood halls, in online forums — about the long-term steps required to protect communities and defuse rising tensions.

But grief does not wait for bureaucracy. Funerals will be held, candles will burn, and people will gather to ask, quietly and urgently: how do we live together after today? What steps can local leaders and national government take to restore safety and trust? How do we ensure that the sanctity of worship and the sanctity of life coexist?

As you read this, perhaps you find yourself grappling with similar questions in your own city: How do we keep safe the most vulnerable among us when politics is loud and sometimes violent? How do we mourn without letting fear become the default of daily life?

Manchester has endured much through history — industrial upheaval, economic reinvention, communal resilience. This is another test. The answer may lie not only in police presence or parliamentary pledges, but in the quieter, harder work of neighbourly solidarity, honest conversation, and a commitment to the dignity of every person, regardless of faith or background.

“We are wounded,” Rabbi Katz said. “But we are not broken. And we will remember the dead by how we protect the living.” In that resolve, a city and a nation will, for now, try to find its way forward.

Organisers: All Irish on Gaza flotilla believed detained

hanad

October 3, 2025

All Irish on Gaza flotilla believed detained - organisers — The crew of the Marinette - the last ship left as part of the flotilla - is seen continuing towards Gaza this morning (Image: Global Sumud Flotilla)

On the Open Sea: A Flotilla, a Chorus of Voices, and the Quiet Physics of Resistance

The horizon off the eastern Mediterranean is a long, indifferent line. On one side sits Gaza — battered, besieged, and searing in global headlines. On the other, a ragged collection of vessels cut through international waters with a single, stubborn purpose: to carry aid and attention where neither has been allowed in sufficient quantity. In recent days, that journey ended for many of the ships. For the Irish contingent aboard the Global Sumud Flotilla, it ended with detainment and a conveyor-belt movement into custody far inland.

“We believe all of our Irish citizens on the flotilla are now detained,” said Helen Lawlor, coordinating the Irish delegation, her voice carrying the weary certainty of someone who has watched a plan collide with hard power. “They’ve been moved to a prison in the Negev for processing. The only people able to speak to them so far are Palestinian lawyers.”

The numbers are stark and immediate: organisers say 42 vessels were intercepted by the Israeli navy, and around 22 Irish nationals were aboard the flotilla in total. An Israeli official described the action as preventing more than 400 people from reaching Gaza — a figure that underscores the scale of the effort and the scale of the response.

What Happened to the Irish Participants

Lawlor described a familiar, but painful, procedural choreography. When people are intercepted at sea and brought to shore, they are often offered forms to sign. One form, she explained, reads like a confession written in bureaucratic ink: it states the signee has entered Israel illegally. “None of these people entered Israel of their own accord,” she told RTÉ’s Morning Ireland. “They were intercepted in international waters and brought ashore against their will.”

Those who refuse the forms can ask for a hearing before a judge — a chance, in previous cases, to be deported after 72 to 96 hours. But Lawlor warned that this moment is unusual: “We’ve seen these processes before, but never with nearly 500 people at once. We don’t know what will happen.”

From the relatives’ end, anxiety and a strange, stubborn pride sit side by side. “We hope she is treated well,” Imelda, the mother of Catríona Graham — detained after the Aurora was intercepted — told reporters. “We are proud she is there as part of a humanitarian mission. They are a light on what is happening.”

Marinette: The Last Sister Standing

When the net formed, one ship kept pushing forward: the Marinette. The flotilla’s online trackers watched and reported, and activists shared footage of the vessel slicing through the blue as if refusing to believe that the arc of history could be clipped by a navy’s orders.

Organisers announced that the Marinette was intercepted at 10:29am local time — 8:29am for Irish families — roughly 42.5 nautical miles from Gaza. The flotilla’s statement on Telegram charged that Israeli naval forces had “illegally intercepted all 42 of our vessels — each carrying humanitarian aid, volunteers, and the determination to break Israel’s illegal siege on Gaza.”

“She knows the fate of her sisters on the water. She knows what awaits. And she refuses to turn back,” the flotilla wrote on Instagram, and the image of that one small vessel continuing onward has become, for many, a symbol rather than a strategy: resistance in miniature.

On the Shorelines of Opinion

The interception generated immediate, polarized responses. Israel’s prime minister praised the navy’s actions, framing them as necessary and professional: “I commend the soldiers and commanders of the navy who carried out their mission on Yom Kippur in the most professional and efficient manner,” Benjamin Netanyahu said, adding that the operation “prevented dozens of vessels from entering the war zone and repelled a campaign of delegitimisation against Israel.”

On the other side of Mediterranean plazas and city squares, tens of thousands took to the streets in a global chorus of protest. Organisers reported around 15,000 marching in Barcelona — the city from which the flotilla set sail — chanting “Gaza, you are not alone,” “Boycott Israel,” and “Freedom for Palestine.” Demonstrations took place from Dublin to Paris, Berlin to Brasilia, The Hague to Tunis and Buenos Aires.

Why the Sea Matters

At the heart of the dispute is a legal and moral question: can a country prevent aid ships in international waters from attempting to reach a territory it controls? Activists insist their actions are lawful and humanitarian; governments argue security and wartime prerogatives.

“Maritime law is etched in centuries of precedent, but it is stretched when the fog of conflict descends,” said Dr. Amina Haddad, a maritime law scholar based in the region. “There are provisions around safety and blockades, but when vessels are carrying purely humanitarian cargo and pose no evident threat, the international community tends to expect a higher bar for interception.”

Beyond law, there is the human ledger. Gaza is home to roughly 2.3 million people; humanitarian agencies, including the United Nations, have warned that famine-like conditions are taking hold. Hospitals are overrun, supply lines stutter, and civilian suffering swells in a way that turns statistics into lifetimes — children missing school, families forced from homes, long-term medical needs going unmet.

Voices from the Ground and Sea

At a protest outside Leinster House in Dublin, Miriam McNally held a photo and tried not to let grief become fury. “My daughter is sailing with them,” she said. “I’m worried sick, but I’m also so proud. They’re forcing the world to look.”

A volunteer medic who had sailed on a previous flotilla described the strange intimacy of the sea. “You get used to the rhythm — engines, wind, the tiny mess of human life on deck,” she said. “And then you watch navies appear on the horizon. It’s terrifying and surreal. But so is what we’re trying to prevent on shore.”

What Comes Next?

Organisers say additional flotillas are already planned or en route. “These flotillas will not stop until a humanitarian corridor is made on the sea to Gaza,” Lawlor declared. “Either humanity perseveres or governments step up and create this corridor.”

But the political realities are knotty. Blockades, security concerns, and diplomatic pressure interact in a messy dance. And yet, as images and voices circulate — a mother holding a picture of her detained daughter, a lone ship in blue water, thousands chanting in the streets — a simpler question emerges: when a population teeters on the edge of humanitarian collapse, who decides how help can get through?

Maybe ask yourself: if you had the chance to stand on the deck of one of those vessels, would you go? Would you sign a form admitting to an illegal entry you didn’t consent to, to speed your release? Or would you hold out, and risk a longer, unknown path through detention?

History does not offer platitudes. But it offers moments — small, charged, and public — where choices are made and stories change. The Global Sumud Flotilla has become one of those moments: a series of decisions by ordinary people who asked to be vessels of aid and attention. Whether they change the course of policy or simply the course of public feeling, their voyage has already moved the conversation from headlines to harbors, and from statistics to faces.

For now, families wait. Lawyers negotiate. Ships are tracked. And the sea keeps its long, indifferent line — until people with purpose decide to cross it again.

Manchester attack leaves three dead, including one suspected assailant

hanad

October 3, 2025

Suspect among three dead following Manchester attack — Members of the public react as they gather near the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation Synagogue

They Came for Prayer: A Yom Kippur Morning That Changed a Manchester Community

It was supposed to be a day of fasting, reflection and quiet at the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation. Instead, a crisp autumn morning in Crumpsall tore open in a way no one could have imagined.

Worshippers gathered to mark Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish year — a day when synagogues are full, voices rise in solemn prayer, and communities come together to atone and renew. At 9:31am, Greater Manchester Police (GMP) received the call that would turn that sacred silence into chaos: a car had been driven towards people outside the synagogue, and at least one person had been stabbed.

Within seven minutes of that call, armed police had confronted the assailant. He was shot and later confirmed dead. Two men — both mourned now by family and friends — did not survive. Three others remain in hospital with serious injuries. The attacker has been identified by police as 35-year-old Jihad Al-Shamie, a British citizen of Syrian descent. Authorities said he did not appear in initial security records and was not known to be under investigation.

The Scene, and the Seconds That Mattered

Those initial seven minutes have become the focus of mourning and gratitude. Worshippers and security staff inside the synagogue barricaded doors and kept the assailant out — an action GMP Chief Constable Stephen Watson called an act of “immediate bravery.” “There were a large number of worshippers attending the synagogue at the time of this attack,” he said. “Thanks to the immediate bravery of security staff and the worshippers inside, as well as the fast response of the police, the attacker was prevented from gaining access.”

Bodies, blood, and fear were carried away in ambulances. A bomb disposal team conducted a controlled explosion at the suspect’s vehicle as a precaution after officers found what looked like an explosive vest. Police declared a major incident and invoked “Plato,” the national code-word used for marauding terror attacks — a grim procedural recognition of the scale and nature of what had happened.

Voices from the Ground

Outside the cordon, the neighborhood felt suspended between grief and disbelief. “We come here to pray and to be closer to God,” said Miriam, a regular worshipper who asked that her family name not be used. “Today was supposed to be about making amends. Now we have to make sense of this horror.”

A security guard who helped lock the doors, arms shaking as he spoke, told me, “I heard the screech of brakes and a thud. Then someone shouted. We moved in an instant — closed the door, slid the bolt. Maybe that’s why more people weren’t hurt.”

Community leaders expressed anger and sorrow in equal measure. The Board of Deputies and the Jewish Leadership Council said this was “something we feared was coming,” pointing to a climate of rising antisemitism that has made Jewish institutions more vulnerable across the UK. Dave Rich of the Community Security Trust explained the peculiar gravity of the timing: “Yom Kippur is the holiest day of the Jewish year. Synagogues will be full; tensions sadly can be exploited by those who wish to do harm.”

A National Promise of Protection

Prime Minister Keir Starmer visited a synagogue and used the gravity of the moment to promise a fortified response. Speaking after a Cobra meeting, he condemned the attack as “a terrorist attack that attacked Jews because they are Jews,” calling the act “vile.” He pledged more visible policing and promised, “I will do everything in my power to guarantee you the security that you deserve.”

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said she was “horrified” and urged the public to follow emergency services’ advice. International voices — from the Israeli embassy in London to Irish President Michael D. Higgins — expressed solidarity and condolences. King Charles said he and the queen were “deeply shocked and saddened.”

Hard Questions, Broader Patterns

How does a society protect its most vulnerable moments — holy days, festivals, places of worship — without turning those moments into fortresses? That is the question now being asked in Manchester, across the UK and beyond.

Experts warn that attacks like this do not occur in isolation. Patterns of hate on social media, international conflicts, and local tensions can combine to radicalize individuals. The Community Security Trust and other organizations tracking hate crimes have documented increases in antisemitic incidents in recent years, with sharp spikes whenever international tensions flare. Such data make community security a long-term endeavor, not a short-term fix.

“Security can reduce the risk, but it can’t heal the fear,” said Dr. Hannah Levine, a researcher who studies religious communities and safety. “Communities need both protection and nourishment — visible policing, yes, but also outreach, education, and mental health support for those living in chronic fear.”

What Happened to the Suspect’s Motive?

Authorities have arrested three people — two men in their 30s and a woman in her 60s — on suspicion of planning a terror attack. Police are treating the incident as terrorism, and inquiries are ongoing to uncover networks, motives and any prior indicators that could have prevented this day’s bloodshed. For now, the assailant’s presence did not trigger red flags in initial police or security service searches, raising uncomfortable questions about how isolated actors may fly under the radar.

Local Color: Manchester’s Response and Resilience

Manchester is no stranger to tragedy, but it is also a city that has learned to respond to shock with solidarity. Northern neighborhoods like Crumpsall are woven from many fabrics — families from long-established communities, newer arrivals, shops that know your order before you ask for it.

Outside a closed bakery, an elderly man who has lived in the area for decades said, “We look after one another. That’s what Manchester does. Today we hold the families in our hearts.”

Volunteer groups and charities mobilized quickly: the Community Security Trust offered immediate extra patrols and support for the synagogue; neighbors opened doors to those suddenly displaced by police cordons; and city officials coordinated trauma services for those who had witnessed the attack.

On Memory, Mourning and Moving Forward

There are practical steps to be taken: forensic investigations, court cases, and longer-term security reviews. But there are also quieter tasks — tending to grief, rebuilding a sense of safety, and refusing to let hate define how ordinary life unfolds.

“We will come back to the synagogue,” Miriam told me, voice steady and luminous with a kind of stubborn hope. “We will listen, we will pray, and we will remember the lives lost here. But we will not let fear write our story.”

As readers across the globe reflect on this attack, a few questions linger: How do we protect religious freedom in a world where violence can touch even the holiest of days? How do communities balance vigilance with openness? And how do nations respond to hate in ways that are immediate, effective and lasting?

Manchester’s morning was changed forever. But in the rows of the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation, in the steady hands that locked the doors, and in the city’s pledge to protect, there remains a clear, human answer: togetherness. That, perhaps, is the first defense against the darkness.

Time of call to police: 9:31am
Armed police engagement: within seven minutes
Declared major incident: 9:37am; suspect shot at 9:38am
Fatalities: two men
Injured: three men in hospital with serious injuries
Arrests: three people arrested on suspicion of planning a terror attack

If you live near places of worship, or care about communities that feel under threat, consider reaching out to local groups doing security and mental health work. Ask your local representatives what they will do beyond immediate policing to guard against hate. And ask yourself: how would you show up if it were your neighbor’s synagogue, mosque, church, temple or community center under threat?

EU leaders endorse drone-shield plan to deter Russian aggression

hanad

October 3, 2025

EU leaders back plan for 'drone wall' to counter Russia — A Danish vessel patrols the water and airspace at Copenhagen Airport after recent drone incursions

Copenhagen at the Edge: Drones, Diplomacy and the Shape of European Defence

The light over Copenhagen that morning had a brittle clarity—pale sun sliding off the Baltic, gulls arguing above the harbour, and a low hum of conversation as leaders poured into the glass-and-steel conference venue. Beneath the ritual of handshakes and translators, something else was stirring: a palpable unease about how Europe’s wars are changing, and who will pick up the bill.

France’s seizure of a Benin-flagged oil tanker in French waters a few hours before the summit felt like a scene from a spy thriller. French troops, acting at sea, boarded the vessel suspected of being a launch point for the small, winged machines that had recently forced the closure of airports—including Copenhagen’s—and sent ripples of alarm from the Baltic to the Black Sea.

“We arrested two crew members,” France’s Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu told journalists later, his voice dry with the kind of understatement that belies urgency. “They failed to provide proof of nationality and did not comply with orders.” On the quay, a dockworker who had watched the boarding unfold all morning shook his head. “You never think you’ll see soldiers on a tanker here,” he said. “It makes the world feel smaller and meaner at the same time.”

A new kind of wall

Out of those tensions came a single phrase that dominated the conversations: “drone wall.” The idea is as straightforward as it is ambitious—an EU-wide network for sensing, tracking and, if necessary, neutralising hostile drones that cross European airspace. Detection nodes, shared radar data, common rules of engagement: think of it as an aerial neighborhood watch, but one with teeth.

Leaders at the summit expressed support for the blueprint in principle. But as with every complex defence initiative, support leaves room for squabbles, budgets and legal knotwork. The proposal will be debated further in the coming weeks, and diplomats cautioned it would face tough negotiations before any formal adoption.

“They’re threatening us, and they are testing us, and they will not stop,” Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said bluntly, capturing the mood. Her words echoed around the chamber and outside it: a police drone hovered above the venue like a mechanical gull, recording the assembly below.

What would a “drone wall” look like?

Experts sketch a layered system.

Distributed sensors around borders and key infrastructure (radar, radio-frequency detectors, optical systems).
A centralised data-sharing hub to merge streams in real time, so one country’s sensors protect many.
Rules and mechanisms for identifying and neutralising threats—jamming, capture, or kinetic removal—while respecting civil liberties and international law.

“Technically it’s feasible. Politically it’s the hard part,” said Anna Petrovic, a security analyst who has worked on airspace integration projects. “You need interoperability, shared intelligence, and a common legal framework that lets one country act in another’s airspace without turning every incident into a diplomatic crisis.”

From hybrid skirmishes to headline arrests

These drone incidents are not isolated curiosities. Estonia and Poland have reported high-profile aerial incursions. There is a growing narrative—one voiced repeatedly in Copenhagen—that Russia’s assault on Ukraine is bleeding into neighbouring skies, ports and communications networks in a form of hybrid warfare. Sabotage, disinformation, and these aerial probes together blur the line between battlefield and everyday life.

In the marketplace near Christianshavn, a teacher named Lukas tapped his phone and said, “We used to worry about big things—tanks, sanctions. Now it’s the little things that keep you up: a drone at night, an airport closed on a whim. It’s subtle and it’s terrifying.” His neighbour, a pastry chef, added wryly, “We never thought our croissants would be delivered with air-defence advisories.”

Money on the table—and the politics that block it

Beyond the immediate threat of drones, the summit also wrestled with one of the trickier questions of the moment: how to sustain Ukraine financially in a long war. A plan floated openly in Copenhagen would transform frozen Russian assets into a €140 billion loan to underwrite Kyiv’s defence and budget shortfalls.

“It is only fair that Russia pays for its violation and destruction,” Prime Minister Frederiksen told the room. “Our support to Ukraine is a direct investment in our own security, and therefore we have to deliver long term financing of Ukraine’s armed forces.”

That sounds tidy on paper, but the plan bumps against two major realities. First, the legal architecture of asset freezes is complex; the majority of these frozen assets—large swathes of which are housed in Belgian banks and registries—are subject to national and EU rules. Second, political appetite is uneven. Belgium, which holds a substantial portion of the freeze, has been hesitant; other capitals worry about the precedent of repurposing seized assets into loans.

“We can’t let any single country carry the political or legal risk alone,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen warned, promising intensified talks. Observers note that even if the numbers add up, the optics will be delicate: is Europe seizing assets, or genuinely making Russia incur the costs of its aggression? Both positions have powerful emotional resonance for voters across the continent.

The elephant in the room: enlargement and energy

At the heart of the summit’s friction was a persistent thorn: Hungary. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, a long-time skeptic of rapid enlargement, reiterated his opposition to changing the EU’s accession rules, a move Kyiv says is necessary to prevent a single state from vetoing progress at every step.

“It would mean, first, that war would come into the European Union,” Mr Orbán said. “Second, money from the European Union would go to Ukraine.” His blunt “no” to the prospect of a near-term EU membership was a reminder that solidarity is often a feeling rather than a policy—easy in rhetoric, much harder in practice.

Energy politics hovered over these debates. Hungary—and to a lesser extent Slovakia—still receives Russian oil via pipeline, a fact that complicates any push to cut ties. Former US President Donald Trump has publicly urged NATO allies to stop buying Moscow’s fossil fuels, aligning with a strand of Western policy that sees economic pressure as central. But for landlocked countries with constrained choices, disentanglement is not a simple flip of a switch.

What this all adds up to

There is no neat resolution coming out of Copenhagen. The leaders agreed on principles: better protection of airspace, more support for Ukraine, and grimmer appreciation that Europe’s security patchwork needs mending. But agreement on principles is not the same as agreement on price, legal tools, or the timeline for action.

So we are left with a few hard questions: What level of intrusion will a continent accept before it acts decisively? Who pays when politics and war collide? And how do democracies build the technical, legal and moral infrastructure to repel threats that don’t announce themselves at the borders?

Walking back from the summit hall as dusk thickened, a Slovak journalist summed it up: “We can paper over differences for a day. But these are tests, and tests reveal your wiring. The real job is to fix the circuits so the lights don’t go out when the next storm hits.”

Whether Europe’s new “drone wall” becomes reality will depend on that wiring—on whether leaders can translate urgency into solidarity, and whether the EU can turn a brittle consensus into durable defense. For now, Copenhagen was less an ending than a waypoint: a charged reminder that the rules of the game have changed, and that every corner of the continent—harbours, airports, parliamentary chambers—may soon feel the consequences.

Drone sightings prompt 17 flight cancellations at Munich Airport

hanad

October 3, 2025

Drone sightings lead to 17 flight cancellations in Munich — Passengers at Munich International Airport (file image)

A city in limbo: drones, beer tents and the night Munich’s airport paused

Munich at night is a city of lights and motion: trams humming, beer tents spilling laughter, and the steady pulse of flights taking off toward a thousand small private emergencies and grand adventures. Last night that pulse stuttered.

Shortly after 8.30pm Irish time, multiple people around the airport reported bluish pinpricks moving across the sky. Within an hour both runways at Munich Airport were closed, 17 departing flights were cancelled and nearly 3,000 passengers were left waiting in the terminal. Fifteen incoming flights were rerouted to Stuttgart, Nuremberg, Vienna and Frankfurt while police helicopters—part of a rapidly mobilised search—swept the perimeter. By morning the airport had reopened, but what happened in those empty hours left the city asking questions it hasn’t fully answered.

Inside the terminal: small kindnesses amid confusion

Inside the terminal, the scene was oddly domestic. Rows of camp beds were rolled out under the neon signage. Blankets and bottled water were handed around. “I wasn’t upset—just tired and hungry,” said Anna Mayer, a teacher bound for Vienna whose flight was cancelled. “But the staff were kind. They gave out blankets, and a man who sells pretzels at the kiosk shared his stock.” Her voice threaded relief and fatigue, the kind that comes from missing sleep rather than being stranded.

Another passenger, Elias Moreau, spoke with a different edge. “We were told there were drones. No one could tell us how many, or whether they were a threat or just kids testing toys. That’s the worst part—uncertainty.” He folded his arms and watched airport workers reset departure boards.

What officials said — and what still isn’t clear

The airport issued a calm statement: 17 departures cancelled, about 3,000 affected, 15 diversions, and facilities opened to care for passengers. A police spokesperson confirmed that drones had been sighted at roughly 8.30pm and again about an hour later. “Both runways were temporarily closed,” the spokesperson said, but added that information on the type and number of drones was not yet available.

Helicopters were deployed; search teams swept fields and nearby industrial areas. Investigators say they are trying to determine the origin of the devices. For the passengers and residents who watched those helicopters circle, the not-knowing felt more alarming than the presence itself.

A festival in the shadow

The drone sightings came at a sensitive moment: Munich is entering the final weekend of Oktoberfest, an event that historically draws millions—roughly 6 million visitors over its 16-day run in typical years—with hundreds of thousands flooding the city every day. The festival lights make the sky a patchwork; the crowds, dense and jubilant, make any security misstep riskier.

“You have thousands of people in bright dirndls and lederhosen, steins clinking, and a sky that suddenly feels unsafe,” said Dieter Schilling, who runs a sausage stand near Theresienwiese. “We don’t want panic—just to keep our guests safe while they enjoy the festival.” His hands kept moving, forming the familiar gestures that sell comfort food to wide-eyed visitors.

Not an isolated incident: a Europe-wide pattern

Last night’s disruption joins a worrying string of similar events across Europe. Airports in Copenhagen, Oslo and Warsaw have been forced to halt operations in recent weeks after drone sightings—an increasingly familiar headline that has pushed governments to ask whether something more organised is afoot. Poland and Denmark have publicly suggested that Russian actors may be linked to these disruptions, a claim that has fed political anxieties already swelling across the continent.

In Copenhagen, EU member states convened to discuss a coordinated response, floating the idea of a “drone wall”—a layered defence system combining detection, jamming and, in extreme cases, kinetic neutralisation. “We are dealing with a hybrid threat,” said Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt in public remarks. “We must find new responses, including options that some consider drastic, like shooting down drones in certain circumstances.”

What a ‘drone wall’ might look like

Talk of walls—digital and physical—brings technical and ethical questions into sharp relief. Detection systems can be effective at identifying foreign objects up to several kilometres out; jamming technologies can disrupt control signals; interceptor drones and even trained birds have been trialled as means of neutralisation. But each tool has trade-offs: jamming can interfere with legitimate communications; shooting down a drone risks debris falling on inhabited areas; interceptor drones require split-second decisions and advanced logistics.

“No single solution will do,” said Dr. Lena Fischer, a security analyst who has studied counter-drone systems. “We need layered defences, better airspace coordination, and investment in non-kinetic measures. But we also need legal clarity: who is allowed to respond, and how do we protect civil liberties while keeping people safe?”

Beyond borders: drones and a shifting security landscape

The concerns go beyond airport delays. Drones are cheap, increasingly sophisticated, and dual-use by nature: the same technology that allows farmers to monitor fields or filmmakers to capture stunning panoramas can be weaponised or used to disrupt. In recent months, Germany reported drones flying over military sites and industrial facilities—a trend that underlines the potential for asymmetric tactics to disrupt critical infrastructure.

That tension—between innovation and vulnerability—is part of a broader global story. Cities and airports have long been nodes of connection and commerce; now they are frontlines in an arms race of accessibility versus security. How do we preserve the openness that makes air travel possible while preventing a few small, hard-to-trace devices from wreaking outsized havoc?

Human stories, policy puzzles

Back in Munich, a band of travellers compared notes and traded snacks on a long, plastic bench. An older woman from Bavaria joked about how Oktoberfest will be a little quieter now. A student from Spain checked the status of a delayed flight on his phone but kept glancing at the sky.

“I keep thinking about how fragile our systems are,” said Henrik, a cargo pilot who volunteers with a local emergency response team. “It takes so little—a small quadcopter, a cheap radio—to freeze a massive hub. The response needs to be proportionate, fast, and above all, coordinated.”

Questions to carry with you

As flights resume and festival-goers return to their tents, the night’s events leave us with stubborn questions. How should democracies defend themselves against tools that are widely available and versatile? What balances should we strike between civil liberties and public safety? And how do local communities—vendors, commuters, families—cope when global tensions ripple into their streets?

These are not just airport problems. They are questions about governance, technology, and trust. They ask us to imagine a future where the sky above a city can be both theatre and threat—and to choose how we will respond.

As you read this, consider the small, ordinary details: a blanket handed to a stranger, the whirr of a helicopter, the way a tent fills with song. Those moments are where policy meets people. They are why the answers we seek must be practical, humane, and honest.

Rescuers find no signs of life after Indonesian school collapse

hanad

October 3, 2025

'No more signs of life' after Indonesia school collapse — The rescue operation is complex as vibrations happening in one place can impact other areas

When a School Became a Rubble of Questions: Sidoarjo’s Silent Afternoon

The afternoon felt ordinary in Sidoarjo — a town of clogged motorways, steaming street food stalls, and the steady hum of Java life — until a sound that no one expects from a place of learning tore the afternoon apart.

Students had gathered for prayers when part of a multi-storey boarding school suddenly folded inward. Concrete groaned, pillars gave way, dust billowed like a gray wave. In the hours that followed, the schoolyard was transformed into a labyrinth of tarpaulins, orange-uniformed rescuers, and the low, persistent keening of people who had rushed here with nothing but hope and the names of their children on their lips.

“We used thermal drones and other high-tech equipment,” Suharyanto, head of the national disaster mitigation agency, told reporters. “Scientifically, there are no more signs of life.” The words landed like another strike: officials now say 59 people remain unaccounted for and at least five bodies have been recovered.

Faces at the Edge of the Site: Waiting, Worry, and Small Mercies

Right at the perimeter of the wreckage, makeshift corners were carved out for families — fold-out mats by neighbors’ houses, flasks of tea, and people offering spare rooms for those who could not go home. The scene felt both intimate and unbearably public.

“I’ve been here since day one,” said Maulana Bayu Rizky Pratama, eyes raw, clutching a crumpled photograph. “I keep thinking my brother will be called out. I cannot stop hoping.” His brother is 17, a shadow among the names, a voice that might be found beneath the concrete.

“They were crying for help when the rescue teams first arrived,” said Abdul Hanan, whose 14-year-old son is missing. “The rescuers must move faster.”

People passed bowls of rice and cups of water to the hands that needed them. Local charities set up hot meals and prayer areas; an elderly stall owner named Ani told me she had run from her grocery when she heard the “strange vibration.” “I thought it was an earthquake at first,” she said. “When I saw the dust, I ran.”

Survivors, the Golden Hour, and the Slow Work of Rescue

In the first frantic days rescuers pulled five people from the rubble — miracles amid chaos. But the clock that rescuers always know about — the 72-hour “golden period” — was slipping away, and with it, the physics of hope.

Search teams deployed thermal-sensing drones and snaked tiny cameras into crevices. “We have to be careful,” Mohammad Syafii, head of the National Search and Rescue Agency, told journalists. “Vibrations in one place can destabilize another. To reach those we believe to be trapped, we will have to dig tunnels under the debris.”

Those tunnels, he explained, will be narrow — maybe 60cm wide in places — and slow to make. Every centimetre of effort is fraught with the risk of collapse; every minute is heavy with the possibility of lives found, or lives not found.

Engineering Failure, or Something Worse?

Preliminary investigations point to a structural failure: foundation pillars buckled under the weight of added construction on the fourth floor, officials say. For many in Indonesia, this reads as an all-too-familiar script.

Lax enforcement of building standards and a cultural practice of “build-as-you-go” contribute to a patchwork of structures across the archipelago, where houses — and sometimes public buildings — are left partially finished so owners can add floors later when money permits. The result: buildings that look complete but are, under the skin, vulnerable.

“We have codes, but enforcement is uneven,” said Dr. Lina Putri, a structural engineer who studies construction safety across Java. “When foundations and load-bearing columns are under-engineered, any addition — another floor, heavier roofing — changes the whole balance. In a worst-case scenario, that’s what we saw here.”

Technology, Tradition, and the Human Cost

Thermal drones, fiber-optic cameras, sniffer dogs — these are now standard tools in big rescue efforts, and their presence here is testament to the high stakes. Yet technology can only do so much where buildings have become tombs of concrete and human error.

“There’s a difference between cutting-edge tools and cutting corners in construction,” Rizal Hamdi, a volunteer with a Jakarta-based safety NGO, told me. “Technology helps us locate people, but the underlying problem is older: systemic underinvestment in oversight, training, and materials.”

Other complications have driven the rescue timeline even longer. An offshore earthquake briefly paused operations; vibrations that might otherwise be routine can be lethal against unstable debris. Families have agreed to allow heavy machinery in, but officials say they will proceed with “extreme caution.”

What This Means Beyond Sidoarjo

Indonesia sits on the Pacific “Ring of Fire,” a volatile seam of tectonic plates that already makes it prone to earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Add to that rapid urban growth, uneven regulation, and financial incentives to expand vertically rather than laterally, and you get an environment where tragedy can unfold with breath-stopping speed.

How many more Sidoarjos must there be before policy shifts from reactive rescue to preventive care? How many more times will communities knit themselves back together with charity meals and neighborly beds while the systemic causes remain unaddressed?

59 people remain missing, officials say;
At least 5 confirmed dead and 5 survivors rescued so far;
Thermal drones and cameras are in use; searches may continue beyond seven days if people remain unaccounted for;
Authorities indicate initial signs point to substandard construction and overloading of the building’s structure.

Voices — and a Call to Action

At the edge of the site, between the tents and the twisting metal, a teacher in a faded batik shirt told me, “Every school should be a safe place. We teach children to dream but sometimes we forget to make the ground safe for those dreams.”

Where do responsibility and accountability lie? With contractors, with local permitting officers, with budgets stretched thin by growth and austerity? All of the above, it seems — and each has a role to play if we want fewer afternoons like this one.

For the families waiting in Sidoarjo, statistics are cold comfort. They want names. They want hands to pull out their children. For the nation, there is a quieter, longer-term grief: the knowledge that in a place so alive with human enterprise, structures meant to protect can sometimes do the opposite.

So I ask you, reader: when we hear of collapses like this, do we only feel shock for a day? Or do we let the feeling harden into policy, into inspections, into community funds for safer construction? Grief can be a catalyst — if we allow it to be.

The recovery here will take days, possibly weeks. It will take machines and delicacy, science and prayer. For now, families wait, neighbors give what they can, and rescuers move with the terrible patience of those who must balance hope against reality.

In the dust and murmurs of Sidoarjo, the city remembers that buildings are more than concrete and steel. They are promises — of shelter, education, and safety. And when those promises break, it reveals the work that remains undone.

Patterson seeks to overturn murder conviction in mushroom-linked case

hanad

October 3, 2025

Patterson to appeal murder conviction in mushroom case — Erin Patterson was sentenced to life in prison

A quiet Gippsland town, a sumptuous lunch and a lethal secret

On a late summer afternoon in Leongatha, a small town in Victoria’s lush Gippsland region, the scent of butter and pastry once filled a family home. A beef Wellington — glossy pastry, pink centre, a rich mushroom duxelles tucked beneath the crust — sat on a polished table as if it were any other Sunday roast. The meal should have been ordinary, familiar, safe.

Instead it became the centrepiece of an Australian courtroom drama that captured global attention: three people dead, a fourth grievously ill, and a 51-year-old woman, Erin Patterson, convicted of deliberately lacing that dish with poisonous fungi. Last month a judge handed Patterson a life sentence with parole eligibility after 33 years, and now her lawyer has told Victoria’s Supreme Court she will seek to appeal the guilty verdict.

From grief to legal manoeuvres

“We will be filing an appeal,” Richard Edney, Patterson’s barrister, told an administrative hearing, according to court reports. He did not expand on grounds for the challenge. Under court rules, Patterson’s legal team has 28 days to lodge formal papers asking a higher court to reconsider the conviction — a familiar legal pause that both reassures and prolongs pain for those left behind.

For the families and friends of the victims, there is no neat ending. Don and Gail Patterson and Heather Wilkinson — members of the same extended family — were the dead. Ian Wilkinson, Heather’s husband, survived but carried the aftermath like a physical wound. “I feel half alive,” he told the court during victim-impact statements. “The silence in our home is a daily reminder.”

A jury’s verdict, an accused woman’s claim

Across a trial that ran for more than two months, a 12-person jury returned guilty verdicts: three counts of murder and one count of attempted murder. Patterson maintained throughout that the death was an accident — that her beef Wellington had been contaminated unknowingly by death cap mushrooms (Amanita phalloides), toxic fungi long feared by foragers and health officials alike.

Death caps are not an obscure curiosity. They are notorious among mycologists and emergency physicians because their amatoxins target the liver and kidneys, inhibiting RNA polymerase II and causing progressive organ failure. A small bite can be catastrophic. The mushrooms are easily mistaken for edible species and can deceptively taste sweet, luring the unwary.

The science of a quiet killer

“Amatoxin poisoning is a slow-burning disaster,” says Dr. Miriam Santos, a forensic toxicologist who has advised hospital teams on severe mushroom poisonings. “Symptoms may begin with nausea and abdominal pain, then a deceptive period of apparent recovery, and finally fulminant liver failure. In severe cases, a liver transplant is the only lifesaving option.”

Worldwide, death caps are responsible for a majority of fatal mushroom poisonings. Historically, untreated amatoxin ingestion carried mortality rates measured in the tens of percent, though modern intensive care and transplant surgery have reduced those figures in many centres. Still, individual outcomes vary and a single meal can change lives forever.

Leongatha — dairy country, community shaken

Leongatha is a place defined by green fields, dairy trucks and the slow rhythms of country life. Neighbours say the case has been a ripple through the community, leaving people who once gathered in pubs and at footy clubs whispering in doorways.

“You never think something like this would happen here,” said Cathy Reeves, who runs a bakery two blocks from the courthouse. “People come here to get away from the city. We bake scones, we talk about the footy. Now when I slice beef Wellington it feels different.”

Local historians note that the Gippsland hinterland has long been a place where families forage, garden and put up preserves. Wild mushrooms are a seasonal curiosity and a culinary temptation — which is precisely what makes misidentification so dangerous. The death cap’s global spread — introduced into many temperate regions via nursery stock in the 19th and 20th centuries — means that even experienced foragers can be caught out.

Practical realities and broader implications

Death cap (Amanita phalloides): responsible for the majority of fatal mushroom poisonings worldwide; contains amatoxins that can cause liver and kidney failure.
Symptoms: initial gastroenteritis followed by a deceptive remission and late hepatic failure; may require transplant in severe cases.
Legal process: convicted defendants generally have a statutory window (28 days in this case) to file appeals after sentencing; an appeal can challenge trial directions, admissibility of evidence, or legal errors.

Voices from inside and outside the courtroom

The trial featured testimony from medical experts, family members and friends whose lives were shredded by the events of one lunch. “I keep seeing her smile at the table,” said a relative of one of the victims during victim-impact statements. “That plate, that fork — everything becomes a memory.”

Patterson’s defence attorneys argued the notorious nature of the case meant she would likely spend most of any future imprisonment in protective isolation, and asked the judge to consider a slightly shorter non-parole period. The judge ultimately settled on 33 years before parole, a sentence that sits at the intersection of retribution, deterrence and public protection.

“The court must balance the harm caused with principles of fairness,” a legal analyst commented after the hearing. “An appeal is a normal part of that balance, though it does little to speed healing for the bereaved.”

Trust, food and the fractures of domestic life

At a deeper level, the case stirs questions about trust inside our most intimate spaces. A family meal is supposed to be a ritual of belonging; when that ritual turns deadly, it ruptures not just individuals but communal faith in the ordinary. Are we safe in our kitchens? Can the familiar be weaponised?

“We invite others into our homes to share a piece of ourselves,” said social researcher Dr. Leila Hammond. “When something so intimate becomes a forum for alleged violence, the sense of betrayal is profound and long-lasting.”

What happens next — law, healing, community

With an appeal on the horizon, the legal story is not yet complete. But for many in Leongatha and beyond, the human story — of grieving families, a survivor’s daily struggle, and a community trying to find normalcy — will endure long after court transcripts gather dust.

As the town turns toward routine — dairy trucks rumbling at dawn, children weaving to school through gum trees — the question lingers: how do we rebuild trust in the spaces that feel most sacred? It’s a question for families, for the criminal justice system, and for all of us who sit down to share a meal.

What would you do if the food on your table suddenly became the centre of the worst possible suspicion? How does a small town survive the shock of a headline that changes faces and streets forever?

Israel Plans to Expel Flotilla Activists Following Naval Interception

hanad

October 2, 2025

Israel to deport flotilla activists after interception

On the Deck as the Navy Came Into View: A Mediterranean Story of Defiance, Law, and the Human Cost

The sun was a hard, white coin above the water. Salt spray braided the air, gulls cried like an indifferent chorus, and on the deck of a modest ship crammed with banners and people, a kettle boiled as activists argued about the route. Somewhere behind the banners—hand-painted, multilingual, stubborn—sat a cargo of canned food, school supplies, and cameras. Cameras to record what the participants called a test of a blockade they say has made life in Gaza a daily negotiation with scarcity.

That scene was interrupted by the low, authoritative hum of engines: an Israeli navy vessel had cut across the horizon and was closing fast. Within hours, officials announced that the flotilla had been intercepted and that those aboard would be deported. For the people on deck, for the families in Gaza who watch such actions on their phones, and for diplomats watching from capitals, the moment felt like a replay of an older, raw grievance—and like a fresh, urgent question about humanitarian access in the 21st century.

The Interception: What Happened at Sea

According to Israeli officials, naval forces boarded the vessels in international waters, inspected cargo and identities, and detained a number of activists before moving to deport them to their countries of origin. “We enforce a maritime blockade that is essential to our security,” an Israeli naval spokesperson said in a brief statement. “Individuals seeking to breach that blockade will be prevented from doing so and will be returned to their points of departure.”

On the flotilla, people described a different tone. “They came quietly, then the deck felt very small,” said one activist who asked to be identified only as Amir, a teacher from Athens. “The officers were professional, but their presence said clearly: you are not going through. We made noise, we sang, we lit candles—this is what witnesses do.” A Turkish organizer, Leyla, later added, “We carry medicine and children’s books. We came to remind people that there are lives at the other end of this blockade.”

Why This Matters: The Context You Need

The Israeli naval blockade of Gaza was implemented in 2007 and has been a flashpoint ever since. For critics, it has strangled Gaza’s economy and civilian life. For Israel, the blockade is a security measure meant to prevent the smuggling of weapons to militants. Each attempt to challenge that sea barrier—most notoriously the 2010 Mavi Marmara—has produced international uproar. In that incident, clashes on board led to nine deaths and a decades-long diplomatic crisis between Israel and Turkey.

Numbers help make the stakes real. Gaza is home to roughly 2.2–2.4 million people packed into a coastal strip about 40 kilometers long and 6–12 kilometers wide. For years, humanitarian agencies have warned that Gaza faces severe constraints: high unemployment—often reported above 40%—limited electricity, and an economy curtailed by restrictions on imports, exports, and movement. More than a million people in Gaza regularly rely on humanitarian assistance, according to UN agencies’ assessments over recent years.

Quick Facts

Gaza population: roughly 2.2–2.4 million.
Blockade in place since 2007, enforced by sea and regulated at land crossings.
Mavi Marmara (2010): nine activists were killed in an Israeli raid, a landmark and controversial episode.

Voices from the Water and the Shore

Voices on both sides carry the weight of story and grievance. “We are not seeking confrontation,” said Dr. Miriam Ben-Yosef, a policy analyst in Tel Aviv. “This is about balancing humanitarian norms with national security. We do not allow the uncontrolled flow of goods into a territory where weapons could be smuggled.” Her words reflect a widely held view in Israel that security concerns cannot be unmoored from maritime policy.

In Gaza, the reaction was quieter but no less potent. “When boats like this are stopped, it feels like another door closing,” said Khaled, a fisherman from Gaza City. He spoke seated on the edge of a rickety pier, his hands maps of old work. “Every time we hear about aid that could have come by sea, we think of our children and the schoolbooks they need.”

A UN humanitarian official, speaking on background, framed the moment in legal and ethical terms. “International law allows blockades in certain contexts, but it also obliges states to ensure that civilians have access to essential supplies,” the official said. “When activists attempt to deliver aid, they force a spotlight on whether those obligations are being met.”

Beyond the Headlines: What This Flotilla Tells Us

This is larger than a single ship. It is part protest, part humanitarian effort, part performance art—and entirely symbolic of ongoing global tensions between state security and transnational activism. The flotilla is both a literal attempt to deliver goods and a messaging device: a way to make the world look at Gaza’s people and say, in voice and image, we did not forget you.

But symbolism is slippery. Critics ask whether such missions actually help those they claim to assist. “The quantities sent by these boats are tiny compared with the need,” said Professor Elias Haddad, a scholar of humanitarian logistics. “What they do, however, is force conversation. They push questions about policy into public consciousness and make governments explain their choices.”

What Next? Deportation, Diplomacy, or Dialogue?

Israeli authorities say the activists will be deported. That is a routine outcome in many such interceptions—the activists are returned to their countries rather than prosecuted, the ships are released, and the diplomatic ripples—sometimes waves—spread outward. But each episode adds a notch to the ledger of mistrust between publics and states, between citizens and international institutions.

Will another flotilla come? Probably. These missions recur in part because the underlying conditions—restricted access, humanitarian needs, political stalemate—remain. Will they change policy? Sometimes, by forcing scrutiny, they do. Sometimes they harden positions.

Questions for the Reader

What would you do if you were on the deck, looking at a shore you can’t reach? Is it better to stage acts of civil disobedience on the world stage, or to work through diplomatic channels and aid organizations? Can symbolic acts and formal negotiations find a way to reinforce one another, rather than talk past each other?

There are no neat answers. But there is a constant reminder: behind every headline are human lives—families, teachers, fishermen, soldiers, aid workers—making decisions in constrained spaces. The Mediterranean, wide and blue, keeps swallowing headlines and whispering them back as salt-stained stories. This latest interception is another line in that long, uneasy conversation between security, law, morality, and the stubborn human impulse to reach out to people who are far away yet astonishingly near.

As the ships made their way back to port and the activists were processed for deportation, a woman on the flotilla put her hand on a stack of brightly colored schoolbooks and said, simply, “We sailed to remember them. That is everything.” The sea kept its steady rhythm. Somewhere in Gaza, a child turned a page.

1...232425...117 Page 24 of 117