A settler accused of killing a Palestinian activist is to be freed. Israel still holds the bodyNew Foto - A settler accused of killing a Palestinian activist is to be freed. Israel still holds the body

TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) — An Israeli settler accused of killing a prominent Palestinian activist during a confrontationcaptured on video in the occupied West Bankwill be released from house arrest, an Israeli court ruled Friday. The video shot by a Palestinian witness shows Yinon Levi brandishing a pistol and tussling with a group of unarmed Palestinians. He can be seen firing two shots, but the video does not show where the bullets hit. Witnesses said one of the shots killed Awdah Hathaleen, an English teacher and father of three, who was uninvolved and was standing nearby. The Israeli military is still holding Hathaleen's body and says it will only be returned if the family agrees to bury him in a nearby city. It said the measure was being taken to "prevent public disorder." The confrontation occurred on Monday in the village of Umm al-Khair, in an area of the West Bank featured in"No Other Land," an Oscar-winning documentaryabout settler violence and life under Israeli military rule. In a court decision obtained by The Associated Press, Judge Havi Toker wrote that there was "no dispute" that Levi shot his gun in the village that day, but she said he may have been acting in self-defense and that the court could not establish that the shots killed Hathaleen. Israel's military and police did not respond to a request for comment on whether anyone else may have fired shots that day. Multiple calls placed to Levi and his lawyer have not been answered. The judge said Levi did not pose such a danger as to justify his continued house arrest but barred him from contact with the villagers for a month. Levi has been sanctioned by the United States and other Western countries over allegations of past violence toward Palestinians.President Donald Trumplifted the U.S. sanctionson Levi and other radical settlers shortly after returning to office. A total of 18 Palestinians from the village were arrested after the incident. Six remain in detention. Eitay Mack, an Israeli lawyer who has lobbied for sanctions against radical settlers, including Levi, said the court ruling did not come as a surprise. "Automatically, Palestinian victims are considered suspects, while Jewish suspects are considered victims," he said. Levi helped establish an settler outpost near Umm al-Khair that anti-settlement activists say is a bastion for violent settlers who have displaced hundreds since the start of the Israel-Hamas war. Palestinians and rights groups have long accused Israeli authorities of turning a blind eye to settler violence,which has surged since the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war, along with attacks by Palestinians. In a 2024 interview, Levi said he was protecting his own land and denied using violence. Some 70 women in Umm al-Khair said they were beginning a hunger strike on Friday to call for Hathaleen's body to be returned and for the right of his family to bury him in the village. Israel's military said in a statement to the AP that it would return the body if the family agrees to bury him in the "nearest authorized cemetery." Hathaleen, 31, had written and spoke out against settler violence, and had helped produce the Oscar-winning film. Supporters have erected murals in his honor in Rome, held vigils in New York and have held signs bearing his name at anti-war protests in Tel Aviv.

A settler accused of killing a Palestinian activist is to be freed. Israel still holds the body

A settler accused of killing a Palestinian activist is to be freed. Israel still holds the body TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) — An Israeli settler a...
Undocumented children will be barred from Head Start preschool under new Trump ruleNew Foto - Undocumented children will be barred from Head Start preschool under new Trump rule

Undocumented children will no longer qualify for federally funded preschool through the Head Start program under a major policy shift the Trump administration announced Thursday. In a news release, the Department of Health and Human Services said it wasrescinding a nearly 30-year-old interpretation of federal lawissued under President Bill Clinton that allowed undocumented immigrants to access certain programs because they were not considered "federal public benefits." As President Donald Trump pursues his anti-immigrant agenda, this change may be the most direct and far-reaching effort to target children after hisattempts to end birthright citizenship. His administration has alsoramped up immigration enforcementanddeportations,withheld funding for English learners, andthreatened to punish states that offer in-state tuition to undocumented college students. Administration officials have said theyhope many immigrants will "self-deport" if the United States makes life here more uncomfortable. Health and Human Services leaders cast the change as a way to protect benefits for Americans. "For too long, the government has diverted hardworking Americans' tax dollars to incentivize illegal immigration," Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in a press release. "Today's action changes that — it restores integrity to federal social programs, enforces the rule of law, and protects vital resources for the American people." Early childhood education advocates, meanwhile, condemned the change as violating both the spirit and the letter of the 1965 law that authorized Head Start. They also warned the change could scare away eligible families,Chalkbeatreports. "This decision undermines the fundamental commitment that the country has made to children," Yasmina Vinci, the executive director of the National Head Start Association, a nonprofit that represents Head Start staff and families, saidin a written statement. "Head Start programs strive to make every child feel welcome, safe, and supported, and reject the characterization of any child as 'illegal.'" The change is also at odds with how the Supreme Court has treated K-12 education. In thelandmark Plyler v. Doe decisionfrom 1982, the justices ruled that children have a right to a free public education regardless of immigration status. However, the courts have upheld laws restricting immigrants' access to welfare benefits. Head Start provided preschool to over 544,000 children from low-income families,according to the latest federal datafrom the 2022-23 school year, while Early Head Start served more than 186,000 infants, toddlers, and expectant parents. The program, which is celebrating its 60th anniversary this year,has reached 40 million children but has recently faced a number of challenges, from federal staff layoffs to threats of eliminating the program. Head Start will now be considered a public benefit, the Trump administration said, because it offers services that are similar to welfare. Officials said the change aligns with Trump's executive orders, including aFebruary order titled "Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders." "While Head Start provides for school readiness, it also provides low-income children and their families with 'health, educational, nutritional, and social and other services, that are determined based on family needs assessment,'"federal officials wrote in a notice announcing the change. "Further, it may serve as child care for parents of young children." Classifying Head Start as welfare, rather than education, could be a Trump administration strategy to avoid having to address whether the protections extended to undocumented children in Plyler apply here, said Nate Ela, an assistant professor of law at Temple University, in an email. Reflecting Trump's America First agenda, Health and Human Services officials said in their press release that Head Start will be "reserved for American citizens from now on." But a spokesperson for the Administration for Children and Families clarified that U.S. citizen children and "qualified" immigrant children would be eligible for Head Start.Under federal law, that includes legal permanent residents, children who've been granted asylum, refugees, and children with humanitarian parole. In its statement, the National Head Start Association said providers were alarmed that programs would have to check the citizenship or immigration status of children before they could enroll. The law that governs Head Start has never required documentation of immigration status as a condition to enroll, the organization said, and "attempts to impose such a requirement threaten to create fear and confusion among all families." It is unclear exactly how the new rules will be enforced. Guidance based on the new legal interpretation is forthcoming, the Administration for Children and Families spokesperson said. "​​Are they going to monitor us when they come out for their federal review?" asked Lauri Morrison-Frichtl, the executive director of the Illinois Head Start Association. "Will there be something attached to our grant that we have to certify?" The latest version of the law governing who is eligible for Head Start says nothing about immigration status, but it does say that the program can use federal funds to train staff, counsel children, and provide other services that are "necessary to address the challenges of children from immigrant, refugee, and asylee families, homeless children, children in foster care, limited English proficient children, children of migrant or seasonal farmworker families, [and] children from families in crisis." The law says that children who are experiencing homelessness or whose families have incomes below the federal poverty line qualify. The Migrant Seasonal Head Start program also guarantees child care for the children of farm workers and seasonal workers. This is not the first attempt to roll back educational rights for immigrant children and families.A number of Republican state legislators have backed bills that would limit enrollmentfor immigrant children or track their immigration status in ways that could intimidate families. So far, none has been successful. Meanwhile, the author of a brief from the conservative Heritage Foundation thatcalled on states to charge undocumented children tuition to attend public schoolnowworks in the Education Department. Federal officials estimated that the Head Start change would free up $374 million a year for U.S. citizens and qualified immigrants to access Head Start, which represents about 3% of the program's annual budget in recent years. But keeping children out of Head Start could lead to more costs down the road for public schools, advocates warned. Kindergartners who don't go to preschool may need more help with basics like learning their ABCs, colors, and how to work with classmates. They also may have missed out on health screenings. "We're really shortchanging our community by cutting them off from strong early childhood programs that are going to put them on the right path to be successful in K-12 schools where they have a guaranteed right to attend," said Xilonin Cruz-Gonzalez, co-founder of the National Newcomer Network and deputy director of Californians Together, groups that advocate for immigrant rights in education. There are typically many more children in poverty who qualify for Head Start than the program has funding to serve.A 2024 Government Accountability Office report found, for example, that for every 100 young children in poverty, there were typically 28 Head Start seats, with much larger gaps in some states. Keeping out immigrant children wouldn't necessarily close those gaps. The main factor limiting Head Start seats is a lack of trained teachers, said Diane Schilder, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, a public policy think tank. "A lot of programs are having challenges hiring teachers in preschool and infant-toddler classrooms who meet the requirements because the wages are not adequate," Schilder said. Low-income families are less likely to have documents proving their children are citizens, Schilder said, andanti-immigrant sentimentcan scare away even eligible families from applying. Parents are less likely to work when they don't have access to child care. The effects of these changes would be felt most strongly in urban areas and in communities with a large agricultural workforce. Head Start providers worry that verifying children's immigration status will create more administrative work and could make it harder for all families to enroll. Federal officials estimated the cost of assembling documents and reviewing paperwork would be an additional $21 million a year. And there would be more transition costs to change Head Start protocols, the federal notice stated. Federal officials said the change would take effect as soon as it is published in the Federal Register. It has not been published, but has been submitted, the Trump administration said. The public will have 30 days to submit comments. For now, Heather Frenz, the executive director of the Colorado Head Start Association, said her organization is telling Head Start providers to wait for further instructions before un-enrolling any children. Reconsidering the eligibility or enrollment of children who are already attending Head Start would be expensive and time-consuming, Frenz said. The process involves everything from measuring children's height and weight to drawing up individual plans. And if undocumented children miss out on preschool and other services Head Start provides, Frenz said it could "put a lot of strain" on other public entities when those children get older. "They may not speak English or have never seen a dentist," Frenz said. "That's going to be a heavy load on the public school education system." Chalkbeat New York reporter Michael Elsen-Rooney, Chalkbeat Philadelphia bureau chief Carly Sitrin, Chalkbeat Chicago bureau chief Becky Vevea, and Colorado bureau chief Melanie Asmar contributed reporting. This storywas produced byChalkbeatand reviewed and distributed byStacker.

Undocumented children will be barred from Head Start preschool under new Trump rule

Undocumented children will be barred from Head Start preschool under new Trump rule Undocumented children will no longer qualify for federal...
Colombia ex-president Uribe sentenced to 12 years of house arrest, document showsNew Foto - Colombia ex-president Uribe sentenced to 12 years of house arrest, document shows

By Luis Jaime Acosta BOGOTA (Reuters) -Former Colombian President Alvaro Uribe was sentenced on Friday to 12 years of house arrest for abuse of process and bribery of a public official, according to a sentencing document seen by Reuters and a source with knowledge of the matter. Uribe was convicted of the two charges on Monday by Judge Sandra Liliana Heredia in a witness-tampering case that has run for about 13 years. He has always maintained his innocence. The sentencing document, also published by local media, came hours ahead of the hearing where Heredia will read the sentence in court. Uribe will also be fined $578,000, the document showed, and barred from public office for more than eight years. Uribe, whose legal team has said he will appeal the ruling, is to report to authorities in Rionegro, in Antioquia province, where he resides, and then "proceed immediately to his residence where he will comply with house arrest," the document said. The conviction made him the country's first ex-president to ever be found guilty at trial and came less than a year before Colombia's 2026 presidential election, in which several of Uribe's allies and proteges are competing for top office. It could also have implications for Colombia's relationship with the United States. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said this week that Uribe's conviction was a "weaponization of Colombia's judicial branch by radical judges" and analysts have said there could be cuts to U.S. aid in response. Uribe, 73, and his supporters have always said the process is a persecution, while his detractors have celebrated it as deserved comeuppance for a man who has been accused for decades of close ties with violent right-wing paramilitaries but never convicted of any crime until now. TESTIMONIES FROM FORMER PARAMILITARIES Uribe, who was president from 2002 to 2010 and oversaw a military offensive against leftist guerrillas, was charged over allegations he ordered a lawyer to bribe jailed paramilitaries to discredit claims he had ties to their organizations. Those claims stemmed from leftist Senator Ivan Cepeda, who collected testimonies from former paramilitaries who said Uribe had supported their organizations in Antioquia, where he once served as governor. Uribe alleged in 2012 that Cepeda orchestrated the testimonies in a plot to tie him to the paramilitaries, but the Supreme Court ruled six years later that Cepeda had not paid or pressured the ex-paramilitaries. Instead, the court said it was Uribe and his allies who pressured the witnesses. Cepeda has been classed as a victim in the case and attended Monday's hearing. Two jailed former paramilitaries testified that Diego Cadena, the lawyer formerly representing Uribe, offered them money to testify in Uribe's favor. Cadena, who is also facing charges, has denied the accusations and testified, along with several other ex-paramilitaries, on Uribe's behalf. Each charge carried a potential sentence of six to 12 years. Uribe, who was placed under house arrest for two months in 2020, is head of the powerful Democratic Center party and was a senator for years both before and after his presidency. He has repeatedly emphasized that he extradited paramilitary leaders to the United States. Colombia's truth commission says paramilitary groups, which demobilized under deals with Uribe's government, killed more than 205,000 people, nearly half of the 450,000 deaths recorded during the ongoing civil conflict. Paramilitaries, along with guerrilla groups and members of the armed forces, also committed forced disappearances, sexual violence, displacement and other crimes. Uribe joins a list of Latin American leaders who have been convicted and sometimes jailed, including Peru's Alberto Fujimori, Brazil's Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Ecuador's Rafael Correa, Argentina's Cristina Fernandez and Panama's Ricardo Martinelli. (Reporting by Carlos Vargas and Luis Jaime Acosta, additional reporting by Nelson BocanegraWriting by Julia Symmes CobbEditing by Rosalba O'Brien)

Colombia ex-president Uribe sentenced to 12 years of house arrest, document shows

Colombia ex-president Uribe sentenced to 12 years of house arrest, document shows By Luis Jaime Acosta BOGOTA (Reuters) -Former Colombian P...
King Charles cried the night before marrying Princess Diana, knowing he loved Camilla: expertNew Foto - King Charles cried the night before marrying Princess Diana, knowing he loved Camilla: expert

King Charles reportedly wept the night before marrying Princess Diana, knowing he was still in love with his ex, Camilla. But he wasn't the only one to shed tears. "They both [cried]," royal expert Ian Pelham Turner told Fox News Digital, referring to doomed couple Charles and Diana. "Diana was reluctant about marrying Charles but was told by her sister it was too late. The tea towels with their joint images were already being sold. Charles was given cufflinks with a Camilla insignia, which he wore on his wedding day so that she could be included, which allegedly made him emotional." Kate Middleton Channels Princess Diana In Striking Blue Outfit At Trooping The Colour Turner's claims came shortly afterPeople magazinelooked back at Charles and Diana's royal wedding July 29, 1981. "According to the biography 'Prince Charles: The Passions and Paradoxes of an Improbable Life,' Charles felt pressured into his marriage to Diana and was still torn about his love for the then-married Camilla," the outlet shared. "He even cried over it the night before his nuptials." Read On The Fox News App British royals expert Hilary Fordwichtold Fox News Digital the book's author, Sally Bedell Smith, told her that Charles did cry the night before marrying Diana. "In covering the king's coronation [in 2023], I was live on set with Sally Bedell Smith," she said. "I asked her about himcrying the night before his wedding, which she confirmed." While the explosive marriage of Charles and Diana is well documented, Fordwich said the younger royals of today should be grateful that they won't have to ever endure similar heartache. "The tumultuous love triangle of Charles, Diana and Camilla is an infamously sad study of the clash between traditional royal duty versus personal fulfillment and happiness at the heart of Britain's monarchy," Fordwich explained. "Then-Prince Charles reportedly told his friends he felt compelled by his father, Prince Philip, to marry Diana not due to deep love, but rather to comply with royal convention. Click Here To Sign Up For The Entertainment Newsletter "He had to marry a virginal, suitable bride who would meet public expectations of a future queen," she shared. "Camilla was regarded as completely 'unsuitable' due to her many previous relationships and marital status. Certainly, the Church of England wouldn't permit the heir to the throne to marry a divorcee. "His godmother, Patricia Mountbatten, said he realized he was 'too committed' to back out of marrying Diana," Fordwich continued. "Still, she knew he was making a mistake given his love for Camilla, who remained his soulmate despite being married to another man." Charles met Camilla in 1970 through mutual friend Lucia Santa Cruz. According to reports, Charles was instantly smitten. Despite a blossoming romance, Charles joined the Navy in 1971. While Charles was serving, Camilla married Andrew Parker Bowles, an ex-boyfriend of the royal's younger sister, Princess Anne, in 1973. According to reports, a devastated Charles tried to stop Camilla from marrying Parker Bowles, but the pair remained friends. As the former lovers stayed close,Charles began courting Lady Diana Spencerin 1980. "By the time Charles married Diana, supposedly, Camilla's physical relationship with him had ceased," said Fordwich. "However, their emotional bond continued, for which both were derided. The tabloids termed her 'the other woman.'" And it was easy for Diana to see that Camilla continued to play an important role in the life of the man she was going to marry. Like What You're Reading? Click Here For More Entertainment News "At first, Diana professed to be very much in love with Charles but expressed to many she felt foolish and jealous once she fully grasped his emotional attachment to Camilla," Fordwich explained. "The press, both sides of the family and even her Spencer sisters made it clear to her that she simply couldn't back out of the wedding once her face was 'on the tea towels.' … The entire nation and the world were giddy with excitement regarding their imminent wedding. "On her wedding day … the public speculated her sleepless look was due to wedding nerves. No one was aware of her knowing of Camilla's place in Charles' heart, which rendered her distraught. "Diana later described feeling she was 'the luckiest girl in the world,' but she also knew Charles' true affections lay elsewhere," Fordwich continued. "Her emotional turmoil would damage not only the rest of their marriage but, to this day, it hasramifications in Prince Harry's behavior, given his deep-rooted resentment of Camilla as well as his mistrust of the media." Camilla made the royal wedding's guest list, likely due to her husband's role as the Commanding Officer of the Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment, People magazine reported. While several reports claimed Camilla wore white during the ceremony, catching Diana's eye, royal expert Richard Fitzwilliams clarified to Fox News Digital that she wore a "pale gray dress with a veiled pillbox hat." WATCH: PRINCESS DIANA TOLD QUEEN ELIZABETH KING CHARLES WAS A NIGHTMARE: AUTHOR Problems only worsened during Charles and Diana's honeymoon. "From the start, the public preferred the princess, though privately she was angst-ridden and bulimic," said Fitzwilliams. "It does seem that fate almost inexorably decreed that, once it had been set in motion, it was impossible to call the wedding off. Diana's discovery of a bracelet Charles had bought for Camilla before the wedding worsened her suspicions that she had a dangerous rival." "The divide between Charles and Diana was exacerbated by the gulf between their respective ages, their completely different interests, as well as their worldviews," added Fordwich. "Even on their honeymoon, they reportedly had some rather major personality clashes. Later, there was the lurid scandal of 1989 that exposed Charles and Camilla's ongoing affair. It shocked the public and irreparably damaged Charles' reputation." "The British public hasn't forgotten," Fordwich added. Charles and Diana separated in 1992. In 1995, Diana gave a bombshell interview to BBC's Panorama during which she declared, "Well, there were three of us in this marriage, so it was a bit crowded." Their divorce was finalized in 1996. Charles and Camilla rekindled their romance after Diana died in 1997. They married in 2005. The couplewere crowned king and queenin 2023. Original article source:King Charles cried the night before marrying Princess Diana, knowing he loved Camilla: expert

King Charles cried the night before marrying Princess Diana, knowing he loved Camilla: expert

King Charles cried the night before marrying Princess Diana, knowing he loved Camilla: expert King Charles reportedly wept the night before ...
Why William and Harry Won't Inherit Princess Diana's Childhood HomeNew Foto - Why William and Harry Won't Inherit Princess Diana's Childhood Home

Prince William and Prince Harry are reportedlynotset to inherit Princess Diana's childhood home—perThe Post. Princess Diana grew up in Althorp House and spent much of her childhood there. The estate has actually belonged to the Spencer family since 1508, and is the official seat of Earl Spencer—which would be Diana's brother Charles, who currently owns the property. Charles has four kids, and despite the fact that all three of his daughters (Lady Kitty, Lady Eliza, and Lady Amelia) are older, his son, Louis, Viscount Althorp, will inherit the estate due to primogeniture—a feudal rule the feudal rule that dictates that the rights to an estate pass to the eldest son. In other words, Prince William and Prince Harry aren't even in the line-up of possibilities—despite the home being their mother's final resting place. Lady Kitty actually spoke out about being skipped over, saying she's "totally pro-gender equality," but is "quite happy" with Althorp being passed to her little brother. "I just think it's the correct way," she explained toTatler. "I like that the house stays within the same family, with the same surname. I wouldn't want it any other way for the Spencers. And I just know my brother is going to do an impeccable job." Charles Spencer also spoke about the outdated tradition, telling theDaily Mail"It's just the way it is. I get the problems with it as a concept. I also get the strengths of it, having worked to date." You Might Also Like Here's What NOT to Wear to a Wedding Meet the Laziest, Easiest Acne Routine You'll Ever Try

Why William and Harry Won't Inherit Princess Diana's Childhood Home

Why William and Harry Won't Inherit Princess Diana's Childhood Home Prince William and Prince Harry are reportedlynotset to inherit ...

 

LEX MAG © 2015 | Distributed By My Blogger Themes | Designed By Templateism.com