Read the daily news to learn English

Yasser abu Shabab, leader of Israel-backed militia, killed in Gaza

The leader of a Israeli-backed militia in Gaza has been killed, dealing a major blow to Israel’s efforts to build up its own Palestinian proxies to confront Hamas. Yasser abu Shabab, a Bedouin tribal leader based in the Israeli-held zone of the devastated territory, is thought to have died from wounds sustained in a violent clash with powerful and well-armed local families, according to local media and sources in Gaza. Abu Shabab was the commander of the Popular Forces, the biggest and best-armed of several militia that emerged in Gaza during the later stages of the two-year conflict. All appear to have benefited from Israeli support as part of a strategy of arming proxies to degrade Hamas and control the population. The exact timing of Abu Shabab’s death is unknown, but it appears to have been in the last 48 hours. Sources in Gaza and reports on social media and in Israel suggest that Abu Shabab, who was in his 30s and had been expelled by his own clan, died in a clash after refusing to release a hostage taken by his men from a powerful and heavily armed local family. Relatives of the hostage mounted an attack on the Popular Forces base which led to casualties on both sides. Abu Shabab was reportedly badly injured and died of his wounds in Gaza. A spokesperson for Hamas, which had called Abu Shabab a collaborator and promised to hunt him down, denied any involvement in the killing. The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, acknowledged in June that Israel had armed anti-Hamas clans and factions in Gaza but there has been no official comment from his government on Abu Shabab’s death. Israel’s policy has drawn criticism from some experts who have said such groups can provide no real alternative to Hamas, which has controlled Gaza since 2007. “The writing was on the wall. Whether he was killed by Hamas or in some clan infighting, it was obvious that it would end this way,” said Dr Michael Milshtein, a former Israeli military intelligence officer and expert on Hamas at the Moshe Dayan Center at Tel Aviv University. Several other anti-Hamas groups have emerged in areas of Gaza held by Israel. The Palestinian political analyst Dr Reham Owda said Abu Shabab’s death would fuel doubts among them about their ability to challenge Hamas. Hossam al-Astal, the leader of another newly formed militia operating in the area of Khan Younis, said in September that he and Abu Shabab offered “an alternative force to Hamas”. Astal’s whereabouts is unknown. Abu Shabab’s hundred or so fighters continued to operate from areas of Gaza controlled by Israeli forces after a US-backed ceasefire between Hamas and Israel was agreed in October. On 18 November, Abu Shabab’s group posted a video showing dozens of fighters receiving orders from his deputy to launch a security sweep to “clear Rafah of terror”, an apparent reference to Hamas fighters believed to be trapped in tunnels there. A week later, the Popular Forces claimed to have captured Hamas members. Israel’s internal and military intelligence services turned to individuals such as Abu Shabab when it became clear that their efforts to build an anti-Hamas coalition of community leaders and family elders would not succeed in the face of fierce Hamas repression of any threat among Palestinians in Gaza. Many of those recruited into the new factions had been engaged in systematic looting of aid convoys, leading to allegations that Israel was allowing some theft of humanitarian assistance to bolster its new allies. In June, Abu Shabab – a member of the Tarabin Bedouin tribe – told the Guardian his activities were “humanitarian”, adding that he did not work “directly” with the Israeli military. The Israeli strategy of backing militia factions such as the Popular Forces was one consequence of Netanyahu’s refusal to allow the Palestinian Authority, which exercises partial control over parts of the Israel-occupied West Bank, to administer Gaza in any way. Abu Shabab’s Popular Forces coordinated closely with Israeli forces around controversial aid distribution sites run by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, an opaque US- and Israel-backed private organisation that has now been shut down. Donald Trump’s 20-point Gaza plan foresees Hamas disarming and the territory run by a transitional authority supported by a multinational stabilisation force. But progress has been slow, with Hamas so far refusing to disarm and no sign of agreement on the formation of the international force. The war in Gaza was triggered by a Hamas raid into Israel in 2023 that killed 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and led to the abduction of 250. The ensuing Israeli offensive and strikes since the ceasefire have killed more than 70,000 Palestinians, mostly civilians, and left the territory in ruins.

Putin and Modi meet amid politically treacherous times for Russia and India

When Vladimir Putin last set foot in India almost exactly four years ago, the world order looked materially different. At that visit – lasting just five hours due to the Covid pandemic – Putin and the Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, discussed economic and military cooperation and reaffirmed their special relationship. Three months later, Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine would turn him into a global pariah, isolating the Kremlin from the world and restricting Putin’s international travel. Since then, Donald Trump’s re-election has upended years of closely nurtured US-India relations with his inflammatory rhetoric and some of the world’s most punishing import tariffs, throwing Delhi into a tailspin. Against this turbulent geopolitical backdrop, analysts emphasised the significance of the Russian president travelling to India on Thursday to meet Modi, both as a symbol of the enduring relationship between the countries and as a message that neither would be cowed by US pressure. The summit comes at a critical juncture for both countries. Putin has arrived in Delhi after rejecting the latest US-proposed Ukraine peace plan, confident that recent advances by Russian forces on the battlefield have strengthened his hand. Petr Topychkanov, a Moscow-based senior researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, said that for Russia, “the importance of this visit lies primarily in the fact that it is happening at all”. “It will signal that Russia is returning to something resembling normal international relations,” said Topychkanov. “Russia is no longer anxious about the risks of political isolation.” For India, there are even greater stakes at play. As Aparna Pande, the director of the India and south Asia initiative at the Hudson Institute thinktank, put it, Delhi is grappling with its most unfavourable geopolitical climate in years thanks to “a semi-isolationist America, a weaker Russia and a very powerful China”. In a notable sign of the tightrope India has to walk, on the eve of Putin’s arrival a joint opinion piece by the French ambassador, the German high commissioner and the UK high commissioner to India was published in the Times of India, titled “Russia doesn’t seem serious about peace”. It prompted a stinging response from India’s foreign ministry, which said it was “not an acceptable diplomatic practice to give public advice on India’s relations with a third country”. ‘China remains the greatest threat to India’ India’s relationship with Russia goes back to the cold war and has remained deeply entrenched, with Russia India’s biggest defence supplier. It is an alliance that was long tolerated by western governments, even after Putin’s actions in Ukraine, but Trump’s return to the White House has signalled a markedly different approach. Over the past three years, the US and Europe turned a blind eye as India became one of the largest buyers of cheap Russian oil, despite sanctions in the west. But after the US president’s peacemaking efforts in Ukraine failed earlier this year, Trump began to accuse India of bankrolling Russia’s invasion. He publicly put pressure on Delhi to halt its Russian oil purchases, which culminated in a punishing additional 25% punitive US tariff on Indian imports. In Delhi, which has pursued a multi-alignment foreign policy since independence and reacts poorly to any outside interference, the perceived attempts by Trump to meddle and coerce were met with outrage, resulting in the worst decline in US-India relations in years. In response, Pande said, India had returned to its default mode of “hedging” in its unorthodox alliances, “signalling to the US it has multiple options and waiting to see where everything will fall”. The last meeting between Putin and Modi was just three months ago, alongside the Chinese premier, Xi Jinping, where the three leaders were pictured holding hands and sharing jokes – optics that prompted fury from Trump. Yet India has other pressing priorities in its engagement with Russia, namely the vast superpower that sits along its febrile north and north-eastern border. “From the Indian side – for all the talk of Russia being a great and loyal friend – the real reason that relationship is important is geography,” said Pande. “China remains the greatest threat to India for the foreseeable future and since the Soviet Union, India has always relied on Russia as a continental balancer against China.” The increasingly close, “no-limits partnership” between Moscow and Beijing has rattled India, said Pande, and left it hoping to find a way to “prevent Russia from ever getting too close to China and ensure it can count on Moscow to put some pressure on the Chinese”. It has also prompted India to try to move away from its dependence on Russia, particularly on defence. For decades, about 70% of Indian defence purchases came from Russia but in the past four years this has reduced to less than 40%. While the sale of weapons and planes – in particular Russian S-400 air defence systems and the Sukhoi Su-57 fighter aircraft – will probably be a key component of Modi and Putin’s talks on Friday, Pande said: “India will try to strike a balance; keep purchasing enough Russian weapons to retain the alliance, but not be so dependent that if Russia suddenly cut off supplies under China’s pressure, India would be left hanging.” For all the bear hugs and golf buggy rides that Modi and Putin have publicly enjoyed together in recent years, “this is a relationship based on pure realpolitik”, she added. The question of oil Growing economic cooperation and bilateral trade between the two countries is also likely to be on the table at the summit. At an event on Tuesday with leading Russian economists, Putin emphasised Russia’s plan to take its cooperation with China and India “to a qualitatively new level”, flying in the face of western sanctions. The question of oil also looms large. While Modi has insisted that India would continue to buy Russian oil, newly imposed sanctions by the US and EU which threaten companies that buy from Russia have led to a notable slowdown in purchases by the Indian private sector. Meanwhile, in a move seen as an attempt to appease Trump, India has agreed to import more US oil and gas. In a briefing this week, Dmitry Peskov, Putin’s press secretary, acknowledged “obstacles” in economic and energy cooperation between the two countries but said they would continue uninterrupted. Western sanctions would cause only “insignificant drops and decreases” in how much oil Russia exports to India, and only “for a very brief time”, said Peskov, adding that Moscow possessed the technology to circumvent sanctions in the long run. As Modi and Putin sit down, mention of Ukraine will probably be limited to India’s repeated calls for peace, said analysts, emphasising that the Indian prime minister was unlikely to be able to move the needle in the global push for a halt to the war. “Yes Modi can speak to both Putin and Zelenskyy, but aside from asking both countries to talk to each other, India doesn’t have the leverage to make a difference on either side,” said Pande.

Federica Mogherini resigns from College of Europe amid corruption inquiry

The EU’s former foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, has resigned from her role as head of the elite College of Europe after being indicted in a corruption investigation. In a statement sent to college staff on Thursday, Mogherini announced that “in line with the utmost rigour and fairness with which I always carried out my duties, today I decided to resign as rector of the College of Europe”. She also announced she would stand down as director of the EU Diplomatic Academy, the school for junior diplomats at the centre of an inquiry into alleged fraud and corruption. Prosecutors say they have “strong suspicions” that confidential information was shared with one of the candidates taking part in the tender to set up the academy. It was launched in 2023 at the College of Europe with a budget of nearly €1m. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office, the EU prosecuting agency that issued formal changes against Mogherini and two others this week, said the accusations involved “procurement fraud and corruption, conflict of interest and violation of professional secrecy”. It added: “All persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty by the competent Belgian courts of law.” Mogherini’s lawyer, Mariapaola Cherchi, told the Associated Press that her client was “transparent, clear and serene” during her 10-hour questioning, and she was confident Mogherini would be cleared. Mogherini served as the EU’s high representative for foreign policy from 2014-19 before being appointed rector of the College of Europe, the prestigious postgraduate school for EU studies with campuses in Bruges, Natolin and Tirana. She began a second five-year term in September. A press release about her reappointment lauded her role in establishing the EU Diplomatic Academy “to train a future generation of European-minded diplomats”. The case is examining whether the College of Europe had inside information that allowed it to secure the tender. The contract was awarded by the EU’s foreign service in 2021-22. Stefano Sannino, the top civil servant at the European External Action Service (EEAS) from 2021-24, has also been formally accused. Sannino went on to lead the European Commission’s department for the Middle East, north Africa and the Gulf. The commission said on Thursday he was “no longer active in his function”. “In light of the allegations brought forward by the EPPO … [he] has offered to take leave until the end of the year, when he will retire as planned,” the commission said, noting the presumption of innocence. Sannino, in a letter to staff announcing his departure, first reported by the Euractiv website, said he was “confident in the work of the magistrates and confident that everything will be clarified”. The investigation, which included raids on the EEAS headquarters in Brussels and on Mogherini’s home, is likely to be seized on by critics of EU policies at home and abroad. The US deputy secretary of state, Christopher Landau, retweeted an article about the case, noting that Mogherini was “the same person, incidentally, who characterised communist Cuba as a ‘one-party democracy’ and fostered European investment, tourism and trade that propped up the island’s repressive and stridently anti-American regime”. He was referring to the 2016 edition of the EEAS’s annual report on human rights and democracy, released during Mogherini’s tenure, which described Cuba as a “one-party democracy”, where elections took place at municipal, regional and national level. The report also noted the increased harassment and jailing of political opponents and restrictions on freedom of speech.

Wheelchair worry for young disabled people | Letters

Paul Sagar writes eloquently about his experience of the wheelchair service as a well-educated adult, with some access to funds (‘I wish I could say I kept my cool’: my maddening experience with the NHS wheelchair service, 2 December). My 38-year-old daughter was born with a similar level of spinal injury. A wheelchair that is used all day, every day disintegrates after about five years, so she has had to reapply for one seven times. Imagine trying to attend school while negotiating to obtain this essential equipment. Statistics that support a high level of satisfaction with the wheelchair service do not reflect the experiences of younger disabled people who cannot walk or stand. Disability increases with age, and the typical wheelchair user is an elderly person, often a part-time user who can walk indoors. This may account for the satisfaction with the wheelchair service by older users, who are less dependent on a wheelchair than younger users. Chris Burgess Stockport, Greater Manchester • I was taken with Paul Sagar’s sorry ordeal with the NHS’s wheelchair services and his belief that it made no sense for it to be privatised. He wanted his particular needs to be met by an accountable public service. It was disappointing then to read that he thinks it makes sense for other services, such as cleaning, to be privatised. The internet is littered with reports about the failures of hospital cleaning contracts and private contractors over the past 40 years. Perhaps he should have considered the old and vulnerable people whose lives were affected by dirty hospitals and superbugs before rushing to such a judgment. Those people probably would also have wanted their needs – including for many simply the need to stay alive – met by an accountable public service. Charlie Hislop Netley Abbey, Hampshire • Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.

Here’s why we can’t get rid of ‘mansplaining’ | Letters

Zoe Williams’ articles are often insightful, but her suggestion that the word “mansplaining” is no longer relevant is a disappointment (‘Mansplaining’ was once a contender for word of the year. Here’s why we should stop using it, 1 December). The foundation of her argument appears to be in the last paragraph, in which she notes that occasionally the term is unfairly applied to men who know what they are talking about. No one is arguing that there are not many men who do indeed know what they are talking about. That is not sufficient justification to attempt to essentially gaslight women generally into believing that the phenomenon does not exist. Indeed, after Rachel Reeves used it, The Conversation published an excellent research-based article by two professors at Queen Mary University of London, who documented why mansplaining is a genuine phenomenon and why Reeves was right to use the term. As Louise Ashley and Elena Doldor state: “Men and women can be both perpetrators and targets of mansplaining. However, the term has particular force because it reflects deeper cultural patterns in which authority is still coded as male and, more specifically, white and middle or upper class.” My own research shows that implicit bias in the way we judge other people’s authority or expertise is so common that it can be demonstrated with even very small sample sizes. “Mansplaining” reflects a real phenomenon, and the term will remain relevant so long as humans in general continue to see authority as the domain of men. Dr Amanda Nimon Peters Professor of leadership, Hult International Business School • Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.

Macron reportedly warned Zelenskyy US may ‘betray Ukraine on territory’

Emmanuel Macron has reportedly warned Volodymyr Zelenskyy that “there is a chance that the US will betray Ukraine on territory, without clarity on security guarantees”, the German magazine Der Spiegel reported, quoting a leaked note from a recent call with several European leaders. Der Spiegel said it had obtained an English summary of Monday’s call, featuring what it said were direct quotations from European heads of government in which they expressed fundamental doubts about Washington’s approach to the talks. The French president described the current tense phase of the negotiations as harbouring “a big danger” for Ukraine’s embattled president, according to the summary. Germany’s chancellor, Friedrich Merz, reportedly added that the Ukrainian leader needed to be “very careful”. “They are playing games with both you and us,” Merz was reported as telling him – a remark the magazine concluded was a reference to a diplomatic mission to Moscow this week by President Donald Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner. The magazine said other leaders also voiced their concerns, with Finland’s Alexander Stubb, who has bonded with Trump over golf, reportedly warning “we must not leave Ukraine and Volodymyr alone with these guys”. Even the Nato secretary general, Mark Rutte – who in public is very complimentary of Trump – reportedly said he agreed with Stubb “that we need to protect Volodymyr”. Der Spiegel said it spoke with “several” participants of the call, who confirmed it took place, and two of them reportedly said the remarks were “accurately reproduced”. A spokesperson for Zelenskyy declined to comment, as did Merz’s office, while the Élysée Palace contested the quotes attributed to Macron. Der Spiegel said Rutte’s office had declined to comment. The magazine produced a report in German and separately published an English version, saying it contained original quotes from the summary note. Last month, Washington presented a 28-point proposal to halt the war in Ukraine, drafted without input from Ukraine’s European allies and criticised as too close a reflection of Moscow’s maximalist demands. A flurry of diplomacy has followed, with US and Ukrainian negotiators holding talks in Geneva and Florida before Witkoff and Kushner headed to Moscow on Tuesday. The pair spent five hours in talks with Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin and Witkoff is due to meet Ukraine’s national security council chief, Rustem Umerov, in Miami on Thursday. The German defence minister, Boris Pistorius, said in parliament on Thursday that an imposed peace would be “disastrous” not only for Kyiv but also Europe’s security. He called on European nations not to let up in their support for Ukraine. “A dictated peace would be disastrous for Europe … because a Ukraine which is militarily beaten or potentially even defeated at the negotiating table (or) destabilised domestically through Russian influence, would put Europe’s security at risk,” Pistorius said. In a guest column for the daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Merz argued for the use of frozen Russian state assets to support Ukraine, and said Europe appeared to be largely on its own in protecting its interests. “The question of European independence is being decided today, when our security interests are under threat. And it will be decided by whether we rise to this challenge,” he said. “We are sending a signal of European independence, a signal that we Europeans decide and shape what happens on our continent.” Merz stressed that “we cannot leave it to other, non-European countries to decide what happens to the financial resources of an aggressor that have been lawfully frozen within the jurisdiction of our constitutional state and in our own currency. “What we decide now will determine the future of Europe.”

Macron reportedly warned European leaders ‘there is a chance that the US will betray Ukraine’ – as it happened

… and on that note, it’s a wrap for today! German chancellor Friedrich Merz will travel to Brussels tomorrow for critical talks on the use of Russian frozen assets to fund Ukraine with European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen and Belgian prime minister Bart de Wever (12:40). Merz has cancelled his planned visit to Norway to attend the dinner, as he warned that the leaders’s decisions will “decide the future of Europe,” amid the growing threat from “imperialist Russia” (9:44) But Belgium’s de Wever remains not convinced, warning that it would be an “illusion” to think that Russia could lose the war decisively enough to ever accept the use of its funds, and raising numerous concerns about legal situation and potential backlash from Moscow (13:43). Separately, French president Emmanuel Macron has reportedly warned European leaders that “there is a chance that the US will betray Ukraine on territory without clarity on security guarantees,” German magazine Der Spiegel reported, quoting a leaked note from a recent call between the European leaders (13:11). The call appears to be the second high-level leak in recent days, after Bloomberg published transcripts of two intercepted conversations involving US negotiator, Steve Witkoff (13:24) Elsewhere, The EU’s former foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, has resigned from her post as rector of the College of Europe amid a fraud probe alleging irregularities at the institution (13:49). And that’s all from me, Jakub Krupa, for today. If you have any tips, comments or suggestions, email me at jakub.krupa@theguardian.com. I am also on Bluesky at @jakubkrupa.bsky.social and on X at @jakubkrupa.

US and EU critical minerals project could displace thousands in DRC – report

Up to 6,500 people are at risk of being displaced in the Democratic Republic of the Congo by a multi-billion-dollar infrastructure project funded by the EU and the US, amid a global race to secure supplies of copper, cobalt and other “critical minerals”, according to a report by campaign group Global Witness. The project, labelled the Lobito Corridor, aims to upgrade the colonial-era Benguela railway from the DRC to Lobito on Angola’s coast and improve port infrastructure, as well as building a railway line to Zambia and supporting agriculture and solar power installations along the route. Angola has said it needs $4.5bn (£3.4bn) for its stretch of the line. The project is designed to facilitate the export of minerals used in green energy technologies, such as electric car batteries. It comes as western countries, China and Gulf states vie to control the critical minerals trade. Up to 1,200 buildings are at risk of demolition due to the planned rehabilitation of the stretch of railway from the Congolese mining city of Kolwezi to the Angolan border, most in Kolwezi itself, Global Witness estimated, based on analysis of satellite data. Many poorer residents of the Kolwezi neighbourhood Bel Air have built houses and businesses close to the railway line. A buffer zone where construction is not allowed was previously rarely enforced, according to Global Witness. The line has mostly been out of use since the 1980s, until recently when the line started to be rehabilitated. Lobito Atlantic Railway (LAR) – a consortium of companies including Portuguese construction company Mota-Engil, Singapore-headquartered commodity trader Trafigura and Belgian railway operator Vecturis – won a 30-year concession to operate the Angola section of the Benguela Railway in 2023. Some residents had bought land from vendors who may not have owned it, a community leader named only as Emmanuel told Global Witness. Others said they had bought plots from workers who had been given land by their employer, Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer du Congo (SNCC), the DRC state railway company. SNCC is still operating the railway line, although LAR is now using it. Jean-Pierre Kalenga, the minister for land affairs in Lualaba province, where Kolwezi is located, said people living inside the buffer zone were “illegals”, according to Global Witness. The Guardian has approached the DRC national communications ministry for comment. “You can’t say [the residents] are ‘illegal’. No one has prevented them from building. They’ve been left to live there for 10, 20, 30 years,” Donat Kambola, the president of a local non-profit organisation, Initiative pour la Bonne Gouvernance et les Droits Humains (IBGDH), told Global Witness. The current buffer zone for the railway, for which emergency works are under way, is 10 metres either size of the track, according to LAR. For the expected future rehabilitation of the line, which has not been confirmed yet, Congolese officials and a member of the SNCC union told Global Witness the buffer zone would be 25 metres either side. It is this larger buffer zone that could displace up to 6,500 people, the campaign group estimated. A LAR spokesperson said: “Lobito Atlantic Railway consortium is providing financing for the existing railway in the DRC, in exchange for use of the line. SNCC retains full responsibility for the line’s maintenance and operation within the DRC. “LAR Consortium is not aware of, and has not been presented with, any evidence to support the claim that 6,500 people residing in the informal settlement of Bel Air in Kolwezi could be displaced by the ongoing project to rehabilitate the existing railway in the DRC.” Kolwezi residents interviewed by Global Witness said they feared being forcibly evicted without compensation, claiming they knew of houses that had been demolished without payment to make way for new roads and mines. When it secured the concession, LAR committed to spending $455m on the 835-mile Angola section of the railway and $100m on the 249-mile DRC segment. Western financing pledges include a $553m loan from the US government’s development finance corporation for Lobito port and the Angola railway and €50m (£44m) from the EU to upgrade Zambian rail infrastructure. An EU commission spokesperson said: “The project is still at an early stage. Any possible impacts linked to the planned rehabilitation of the Lobito railway line in the DRC will be assessed through a full feasibility study and detailed technical design, which also includes an independent environmental and social impact assessment study. These are still under way. “What we can confirm is that the EU applies the highest social and environmental standards in all the projects it finances. “These foresee, among others, thorough consultations with relevant communities and, where needed, a resettlement action plan to ensure fair compensation and support. “The EU is not involved in the rehabilitation works currently carried out by SNCC or the LAR consortium. We therefore have no additional information to provide at this stage.” • This article was amended on 4 December 2025 to clarify some details from the Global Witness report.