A former Vice Chancellor of the Obafemi Awolowo University and Awise Agbaye, Prof Wande Abimbola, in this interview with TUNDE ODESOLA, sheds light on the controversy surrounding the burial of the Awujale of Ijebu, Oba Sikiru Adetona, among many other issues. Excerpts: What’s your view on the burial of the Awujale of Ijebuland, Oba Sikiru Adetona, and the controversy surrounding it? The controversy surrounding the burial of the late Awujale is not surprising because he had shown his preference for Islam from day one, even though he performed some of his traditional duties. From day one, he had shown that he was not ready to abide by our traditions. The Agemo, which is a major orisa of the Ijebu, was virtually non-existent during his reign. He didn’t hide his preference for Islam over and above our indigenous ways of life. His burial does not portray us as a people with culture and tradition. When the Queen of England died, she was buried according to the rites of passage of the English. When the Pope dies, he is buried according to the rites of passage of Christianity; the same thing goes for the kings of the Arab world, who are buried in line with the Islamic tradition. The same should apply to departed Yoruba kings. How should a Yoruba king be buried? It varies from one place to another, but the corpse of a departed king is treated with the utmost reverence; Ifa would be consulted, the people who are supposed to bury the king already know their responsibilities, and they would perform the burial ceremony according to the laid down customs of the people. It is usually an elaborate ceremony, during which so many orisas will be propitiated, the community will go into mourning, markets will be shut, and there will be a curfew in the kingdom. It is usually a time for everybody to mourn. It is a pity the late Awujale deprived himself of all the burial ceremonies, a situation which is not befitting of a king of his stature. It is doubtful if the late Oba Sikiru Adetona, the Awujale of Ijebuland, would be welcomed with open arms when he reunites with his ancestors in heaven. His ancestors are likely to point the index finger at him and say, “Sikiru, why did you betray us?” But the Chief Imam of Ijebu-Ode said the Awujale was buried according to Islamic rites to prevent ritual killings… Is there anybody so stupid to believe that in this day and age, ritual killing will occur and the police would not intervene, or the people would not revolt? It is in their Islam that killings and beheadings are practised – if not in Yorubaland, at least we see it elsewhere, where people are beheaded in the name of Allah. I have witnessed the burial of three kings in Oyo. In Oyo, for example, there used to be an abóbakú, but that ended in colonial times. I don’t know why a chief imam would be making such an allegation when his fellow Fulani Muslims are killing the innocent all over Nigeria. It’s the height of ignorance and disrespect for anyone to ascribe that to our indigenous religion. As a babalawo, does Ifa support ritual killing after the demise of a traditional ruler? I think people need to show some respect to the people practising indigenous religion. In the distant past, it was not only the Yoruba who had people who accompanied their dead kings to the afterlife. Things like that were practised in some other parts of the world. Why allege without facts? I’m not surprised, anyway; during the spread of Christianity in Europe and the Americas, it was customary for Christian communities to burn people alive, claiming that their victims were witches and wizards – that was one way of discouraging young people from practising indigenous religion. I’m old enough and I’ve been in the depths of Yoruba culture all my life, and I’ve not seen anywhere in modern times where people were killed during the burial of kings. These are the same lies they tell when somebody is brutally murdered anywhere in Nigeria; they would say it is ritual killing, that it must be from those who practise indigenous religion. The point everyone needs to know is that our society in Nigeria today is in turmoil, and wherever there are crises such as war or epidemic or accidents, international human scavengers will descend on such a place so that they can harvest hearts, livers, and other body parts. It is a multi-billion-dollar universal trade. Not long ago, it was reported that a ship was arrested on the high seas near China, carrying human penises from Africa. In the USA, where I live, every day, many people need heart or kidney transplants, and some are smuggled from places where there are troubles like war. Nigerians should know that human organ harvesting is a serious syndicate, and it’s global. So when they catch anyone with human parts, it is easy for them to say one babalawo or the other sent them. When people who erroneously believe in money ritual are also caught, they lie that they are taking the organs to one babalawo, but the question to ask is, ‘Are the people they are taking the organs to real babalawos?’ Anyone can ask any fool to go bring human parts. Those pinning ritual killings on traditional religion practitioners should look elsewhere and stop maligning indigenous religion. I have told them on many occasions to call the Araba of Ife, who is the president of all babalawos worldwide, to find out if the person the police have arrested is a bona fide babalawo. No babalawo will ever engage in ritual killing. Never. There is a growing fad among Yoruba kings to condemn traditional burial. What’s the reason for this fad? The fad arises from their stupidity. They are stupid enough to think that Islam or Christianity is more valuable or that if they associate themselves with those two religions, they are more respected or they are more civilised. Fortunately for us in recent times, young people are coming out in large numbers to associate themselves with our indigenous practices. With the growing fad, do you approve of Christian or Muslim clerics becoming traditional rulers in Yorubaland? Well, anybody who is born and bred a Yoruba person and who is from a royal family is entitled to become an oba, but he has to be briefed, and the kingmakers should let him know what is required of the office, what is expected of a monarch when he’s on the throne. Anybody who cannot measure up to that expectation should never be installed as king… How would the kingmakers know if someone measures up to standard or not? They (kingmakers) would know. There is a traditional way to know. It is to ask Ifa. They should also question princes vying for kingship. When he is on the throne and he deviates from traditional ethics, they should remove him. There are ways of removing a king. In the old Oyo Empire, for instance, a king must not set his eyes on the parrot eggs. As a check, kingmakers could put parrot eggs in a closed calabash and ask the king to open it. If he sets his eyes on the parrot eggs inside the calabash, he must immediately commit suicide. Nowadays, what has complicated the whole issue is bribery and corruption, which are the order of the day in Nigeria. Today, the kingmakers wouldn’t even ask any question about whether the would-be king would practise the religion of his ancestors or whether he would use his powers to favour Christianity or Islam. They wouldn’t even ask those questions once they had received money. Money is the problem. The kingmakers don’t mind as long as they get the highest bidder. Before I cut in, you were saying you don’t see anything wrong with Christian or Muslim clerics becoming traditional rulers in Yorubaland… I don’t see anything wrong with it. If you are a prince and it’s your family’s turn, it’s okay inasmuch as you’re going to respect indigenous practices. For example, in Oyo town, you can hardly find anyone who is not nominally a Muslim or Christian in the royal family. The present oba is Akeem, even though he is a Christian. It’s very difficult to say that it’s only people who practise indigenous religion who should be kings. Christians and Muslims are part of the community. As long as the king would not be partial by trying to lord over other religions in the community. The late Alaafin of Oyo, Oba Lamidi Adeyemi, was a Muslim, but he openly practised Ifa, Sango, Ogun, etc. If we take the narrow view that it’s only the practitioners of indigenous religions who should be kings, that won’t be good. We can all coexist without rancour if we respect ourselves. We should not seek to obliterate indigenous practices. Indigenous religion welcomes other religions; it’s the imported religions that are intolerant. A king has to be tolerant. Nobody is asking that the king should not go to church or mosque if that is his religion. The example of the current Alaafin is important. Immediately he ascended the throne, he went to a church and worshipped with them, then he went to a mosque and worshipped with them, too. He later went to the Ile Ijuba of Babalawos and worshipped with them. The Yoruba say ‘aro meta kii da obe nu’ – the tripod does not spill the soup. I hope that if the reawakening that is ongoing among our young people in embracing our indigenous ways of life continues, there will be a larger pool of princes who are practising the traditional ways of life to pick from when there is a kingship vacancy. It is not the kings alone that we should be talking about, however. In the Yoruba community as a whole, there should be respect. Religion is a question of choice; there’s no way you can lord it over somebody else, and there won’t be rancour. If we want peace in Yorubaland, let all religions be. I don’t mind if a Muslim or a Christian is king as long as they would practise and respect our indigenous ways of life. He could practise his Islam or Christianity privately. The Olowo of Owo, Oba Ajibade Ogunoye, has cautioned that anyone who cannot stand traditional burial should stay away from obaship. Do you agree with Olowo’s position? A Yoruba king should be buried in the Yoruba way. The identity of a person walks on two legs like a human being, and the two legs are language and belief – that is, religion. Both are being very badly threatened in Nigeria today. Many people don’t speak our languages anymore, they don’t write the language that gave birth to them, and they don’t practise the religion of their forebears. It’s sacrilege. It’s like something that our ancestors would frown upon. A king should be a shining example of someone who is above board. We cannot tolerate a situation where our indigenous ways of life and our autochthonous practices are abused or obliterated. What roles does the government have to protect culture and tradition? That’s why I said it would be parochial to say Muslims or Christians should be excluded from kingship, because the people to give government approval to a king could be a Christian or a Muslim. Such a scenario will eventually lead to religious tension in our society when government officials fail to approve a king based on religious antagonism. I think the government should provide a level playing field for all religions. They should promote our languages and culture, and also ensure that Nigerian languages become the language of instruction at all levels – from primary to university – and for conducting legislative sessions within our communities. The people of a country who cannot use their language to teach their children, those people are slaves; slaves of the foreign country whose language they speak and with which they teach their children, even though they may not know it. They wouldn’t know it because of their slave mentality. Somewhere in London or the USA, some people are laughing at us silently or loudly, saying, “Look at my Nigerian slaves.” I think the way Yorubaland is today is good in one respect, and that is – the fact that there’s religious tolerance, I think that should continue, but it shouldn’t continue with the eradication of traditional religion. The Ifa Council is poised to sue the Ogun State Government over alleged meddling in traditional matters. Is that the way to go? It’s one way to go; let’s see what the court would say. There is religious tolerance enshrined in the Nigerian constitution. So, let’s see what the judicial interpretation would be, in the light of the constitution. What is the way out of the animosity among Nigerian religions? The way out of the situation is that we should not forget we are one people – brothers and sisters who speak the same language. We have so many things in common. The way out is for the extremists in the ranks of the Christians and Muslims not to think they can eradicate the religion of their forefathers. If, God forbid, our autochthonous way of life is eradicated, it’s we, all of us, the Yoruba, who are eradicated. History is full of examples of people all over the world who have been eradicated. Can you give examples? Yes, they include the indigenous people of Australia, the indigenous people of America; the indigenous people of the US are probably two million today, their land has been taken, and their culture is near extinction. That’s what Nigerian Christians and Muslims should remember. I’m sure most of our Christian and Muslim friends in Yorubaland would not be happy if our culture and tradition become extinct to the extent that it obliterates our identity. On a recent visit to my home in Oyo, I charged Christians and Muslims to stop saying that worshippers of Ogun, Sango, Oya, babalawo or any orisa would go to hell. I asked them if they would be happy if I went to hell, and they all said no. So, let’s all find a common ground on which to tread. The point I’m making is this: you’ll never hear it from my mouth, that Christianity is not good or Islam is not good; it’s not any of my business. And that’s why those of us who practise our indigenous way of life don’t proselytise; you don’t find a babalawo going about saying Islam is bad or Christianity is bad. Christians and Muslims say that their expansionist injunction is in their holy books. The Islamic religion doesn’t mind killing people they term as infidels. We should let them know in unmistakable terms that that would not be tolerated in our Yoruba country. That’s why, since time immemorial, the Yoruba have been worshipping 400 plus one divinities. The plus one on top of the 400 represents the principle of possible accretion or increase (in the number of the divinities). This means that if a Yoruba man marries an Efik woman, in those days and up till now, that woman would learn the religious practices of her husband. One day, the husband’s family members would ask her, ‘What is the religion or orisa of your people in Calabar?’ If she says she worships Anansa, they would ask her to teach them about her orisa so they could worship it as well. There are at least 20 divinities that the Yoruba and the Fon people of Benin Republic have in common. That’s the best way to go; millions of people practise Yoruba religion all over the world today. Some of them are white and mulattos folks, who live in Cuba, Brazil, Trinidad and Tobago, Europe, the United States, etc, where Yoruba religion is spreading like wildfire today. At the risk of sounding immodest, I think I can safely say that I’m one of the agents of that worldwide spread of the Yoruba way of life, but you can never hear from my mouth any utterance that condemns anybody else’s belief or way of life. You won’t see an Oya worshipper fighting with a Sango worshipper or babalawo because there’s religious tolerance among traditional religious worshippers. This lesson should be imbibed by Christians and Muslims. Religious intolerance is not the way to peace. Whenever I get to Nigeria, you will see Christians and Muslims coming to visit me. They know I’m a babalawo, they know I’m the Awise, but they still come to me because they know I symbolise peace and tolerance.

The visit comes at a sensitive time for the UK, which plans to lay on a display of royal pageantry for the US president. By Alex Kozul-Wright Share Save The United Kingdom is set to roll out the red carpet for Donald Trump this week, honouring the president of the United States with something no other US leader has ever received: a second state visit. Trump is set to arrive in London late on Tuesday for a visit that coincides with tough trade negotiations between the US and many of its key trading partners, including the United Kingdom. During his stay, both countries plan to announce several deals on technology and civil nuclear energy, and British leaders hope to finalise an agreement on metal tariffs. Trump and his wife, Melania, will be treated to royal pageantry throughout their two-day stay, including a ceremonial welcome from King Charles at Windsor Castle. The British government is confident that royal soft power will appeal to Trump’s sense of flamboyance. Before setting off on Tuesday, Trump said he was looking forward to meeting with his friend, King Charles III, whom he described as an “elegant gentleman”. The president said being welcomed for a second state visit was a first, and noted how it was planned for Windsor Castle, rather than Buckingham Palace. “I don’t want to say one is better than the other, but they say Windsor Castle is the ultimate,” the president added, noting that much of his trip will be focused on trade. The state visit will include a glittering banquet and a procession in a horse-drawn carriage. For his part, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer hopes Trump’s visit will offer a measure of distraction from simmering speculation about his leadership amid plummeting approval ratings and high-profile resignations. Lord Peter Mandelson’s recent sacking as UK ambassador to the US, following new revelations concerning his friendship with child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, has already cast a diplomatic pall over Trump’s visit. The president’s own links to Epstein have also generated plenty of headlines in recent weeks. Trump will officially be welcomed to the UK on Tuesday evening by US Ambassador Warren Stephens, British Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper and Viscount Hood, the king’s lord-in-waiting. On Wednesday morning, the royal activities will begin, with a formal greeting by the king and Queen Camilla, along with Prince William and Princess Catherine, at Windsor Castle. Later that day, he will enjoy a royal salute at the castle and a flypast from the Red Arrows and the carriage procession. The president will then be treated to lunch with the extended royal family before laying a wreath at Queen Elizabeth II’s tomb in St George’s Chapel. On Wednesday night, Trump will be the guest of honour at a formal state banquet at the castle. The president will bid farewell to the royals on Thursday morning before he meets Starmer. Starmer will host Trump at Chequers, his country residence, on Thursday to discuss various matters, including security in Ukraine. Starmer’s ultimate aim, however, is to ensure that Trump makes good on his promise to lower tariffs on steel and aluminium. The UK was the first country to sign a bilateral trade agreement with the Trump administration in May. Under that deal, the US planned to reduce tariffs on aluminium and steel from 25 percent to zero, but that has not happened yet. “When it comes to steel, we will make sure that we have an announcement as soon as possible,” Business Secretary Peter Kyle told the BBC on Sunday. Other ministers have expressed optimism that a deal on base metals can be secured during Trump’s visit. The two countries are also expected to sign a multibillion-dollar deal to develop small nuclear projects, which could, in some cases, help to power new artificial intelligence data centres. On Monday, Starmer announced a joint US-UK project to build a fleet of small modular reactors. “The UK-US relationship is the strongest in the world,” a representative from Starmer’s office told reporters. “This week, we are delivering a step change in that relationship.” A major talking point will be a new potential technology partnership, involving enhanced US investment in the UK and greater British cooperation with Silicon Valley on artificial intelligence (AI) and quantum computing. That had been Lord Mandelson’s priority and something he described in his outgoing letter to embassy staff last week as his “personal pride and joy” that he claimed would “help write the next chapter of the special relationship” between the US and the UK. Mandelson’s permanent replacement has yet to be named, but James Roscoe is serving as interim ambassador to the US. Nvidia, OpenAI and Google are expected to announce investment deals as part of the partnership, according to the Reuters news agency. Meanwhile, the British government recently secured 1.25 billion pounds ($1.7bn) in private investment pledges from PayPal and Bank of America. Elsewhere, private equity firm Blackstone plans to invest 100 billion pounds ($136bn) into British assets over the next decade, with a focus on physical infrastructure. The investment will be part of a previously announced $500bn package of investment into Europe. This is Trump’s second visit to the UK in the last two months, following his trip to Scotland in July, but this week marks his second state visit, which no other US president has ever enjoyed. In 2019, Trump was hosted for a state visit by Queen Elizabeth II. The timing is not ideal. Mandelson was sacked as the UK’s ambassador to the US on September 11, after emails were published that revealed he urged Epstein to fight for early release from prison in 2008. Trump’s friendship with Epstein has also exposed him to damaging scrutiny, including from his support base. Democrats in the US House of Representatives recently released a birthday letter he allegedly wrote to Epstein in 2003, which Trump has denied writing. For his part, Starmer hopes the pomp of a state visit will offer cover for his own domestic challenges, including criticism about him proscribing the Palestine Action group as a “terror organisation”. Following missteps on welfare reform, a slapdash cabinet reshuffle and poor economic growth, several lawmakers are increasingly questioning Starmer’s judgement, especially with Nigel Farage’s populist Reform UK party surging ahead in the polls. Starmer’s main goal will be to champion any wins secured during Trump’s visit. But the president’s stay will also face challenges as local protests are expected in opposition to Trump’s stay at Windsor Castle. The prime minister will also try to convince Trump that Russia’s incursion of 20 drones into Polish airspace last Wednesday was not an accident, as Trump has suggested. Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski rejected that theory on September 12 during a news conference in Kyiv. “We don’t believe in 20 mistakes at the same time,” he said. Finally, Starmer’s spokesperson said there would also be announcements on deepening cultural ties, including promoting basketball in the UK and developing partnerships between heritage and art institutions. Follow Al Jazeera English:...

Twenty years after leaving Gaza, it’s Israel’s far right and settler groups who are driving policy, analysts say By Simon Speakman Cordall Share Save Twenty years ago this week, driven by a sense of curiosity, Yossi Mekelberg, now a senior consulting fellow with Chatham House, talked his way into a restricted Gaza to see firsthand the impact of Israel’s decision to disengage from the enclave. “I joined a bus carrying settlers to one of the cemeteries in Gaza on the day of Tisha B’av,” he told Al Jazeera, referring to a day of mourning and fasting when Jews commemorate the destruction of their First and Second Temples and other historical tragedies. “They were in a trance. They were wailing,” he said of the added poignancy of the disengagement falling on a traditional day of mourning. “It was almost transcendental for them, like an out-of-body experience. The impact of former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s decision to dismantle the 21 illegal settlements in Gaza extended beyond the enclave. Massive protests erupted across Israel as the demolitions approached, and tens of thousands of settlers and far-right supporters took to the streets. Roads were blocked, sit-ins staged and government offices occupied. Clashes with police and soldiers escalated, leading to mass arrests. “I spoke to one of the settler leaders. He said it wasn’t over by a long stretch,” Mekelberg continued. “Giving up Gaza wasn’t like giving up southern Lebanon or Sinai [in Egypt]. “[For them,] giving up Gaza was the first step towards giving up the West Bank and the entire project of Greater Israel. He told me that the next time the government tried this, they’d be ready. He was essentially talking about civil war.” However, Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza settlements raised hopes among optimists that it was genuinely committed to a long-term settlement with the Palestinians – and to the two-state solution it had formally endorsed a decade earlier. Today, the reality could hardly be more different. Israel, under the most far-right government in its history, now faces accusations of genocide at the International Court of Justice. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant are wanted on war crimes charges by the International Criminal Court. In Gaza, Israel has killed more than 64,000 people and imposed conditions that have caused famine. In the occupied West Bank, which it has occupied since 1967, annexation looms as a campaign of state-sanctioned displacement and violence is waged on the Palestinians who live there. For many analysts, one of the key drivers for this shift in Israeli society is the far right’s and settler community’s response to the 2005 Gaza disengagement. Fuelled by grievance and weaponised by Netanyahu, Israel’s settlers and far right have pursued state capture – gaining influence in government and across the country’s institutions from education to the bureaucracy and security services. “It’s quite extraordinary,” said Robert Geist Pinfold, lecturer in international security at King’s College London. “The settlers have gone from the political wilderness to the very heart of power.” Israel’s 2005 disengagement was presented to the United States, the United Nations and backers of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative as a step back from occupation. Yet many observers argued its true purpose was to preserve as much occupied land as possible while avoiding renewed negotiations over a two-state solution. Principally, in the eyes of many academics, by disengaging unilaterally, Sharon was able to present Israel as the only credible diplomatic power within the region as well as preserving his hold on the West Bank. Moreover, within two years of its disengagement, Israel had imposed a blockade on Gaza that remains to this day. It controls the passage of all people and goods, reducing Gaza to “the largest open-air prison in the world”, according to many rights groups, including Amnesty International. Domestic pressures also played a role: The mounting political and economic costs of military campaigns in the West Bank and Gaza, where Israel had already killed thousands of Palestinians, as well as a desire to increase the Jewish majority within Israel’s borders all contributed to Sharon’s decision to give the appearance of taking one step back to take two forward. “The disengagement arose from the political leadership’s recognition that the legitimacy for using military force had been exhausted,” Yagil Levy of Israel’s Open University Institute for the Study of Civil-Military Relations explained. “This was compounded by growing resistance within the army’s ranks against remaining in Gaza when military operations were no longer achieving meaningful results, making an alternative approach necessary. “Simultaneously, Israeli leadership concluded that abandoning Gaza would appease the United States while preserving freedom of action in the West Bank, a region of greater strategic importance to Israel.” “The significance of Sharon’s plan is the freezing of the peace process,” his chief adviser Dov Weinglass said at the time. “The disengagement plan actually supplies the formaldehyde into which all other [peace] plans can be put.” For many, disengagement changed how Israel’s trajectory was perceived internally – especially by settlers and the messianic right. After all, from its founding in 1948 to the Gaza pullout, Israel had waged wars in 1956, 1967 and 1973; occupied the West Bank, Gaza, the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights; invaded Lebanon in 1978 and again in 1982; and launched repeated assaults on Palestinian camps and uprisings. However, for many observers, it was in 2005 that the far right and settler movements came to suspect that they and the state may not be on the same side. “The disengagement fractured relations between religious Zionism and state institutions,” Levy said, pointing out that ultra-Orthodox communities were particularly affected. “Rather than continuing cooperation with secular military elites, this community adopted a strategy of institutional influence and an agenda to reshape the [Israeli army’s] identity.” During the protests of 2005, Israeli police arrested a man suspected of planning to blow up traffic in opposition to the Gaza disengagement. Despite evidence sufficient to hold him for three weeks, he was released. That suspect was Bezalel Smotrich, today Israel’s finance minister and one of the settler movement’s most powerful figures. Running against him for parliament in 2019, one of his former interrogators, Yitzhak Ilan, told viewers of Channel 13: “I interrogated Smotrich, and if they [Smotrich’s Religious Zionist Party] come to power, he will probably educate your children.” Geist Pinfold, whose book Understanding Territorial Withdrawal examines Israeli policy across its occupied territories, said this influence now extends far beyond education. Since 2005, Israel’s far right and settler groups have weaponised public anger over the Gaza disengagement to underpin their political and public ascent, analysts said. Framing events like Hamas’s 2007 election win in Gaza, Israel’s wars on Gaza in 2008 and 2014, and the 2018 Great March of Return by Palestinians to return to villages they had been ethnically cleansed from as negative, inevitable outcomes of Sharon’s decision, Israel’s settlers and hard right cast themselves as the ones who warned of the perils of disengagement and the danger of “returning” territory to Palestinians. Today, both Smotrich and his hard-right compatriot, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, exercise near-veto power over Israeli policy, including the war on Gaza. In his 2022 coalition deal with Netanyahu, Smotrich secured expanded authority over the West Bank as finance minister. Ben-Gvir, for his part, gained control over Israel’s prison system and police force, both of which activists have accused of brutalisation to reflect his own messianic worldview. Both men have invoked the “betrayal” of 2005 as motivation, not merely to prevent a repeat but to go further. Recorded covertly in June 2024, Smotrich assured an audience of settlers that the West Bank would never be part of a Palestinian state and Israel’s system had been structurally altered to make that impossible. Two months later, he announced plans for a settlement expansion of more than 3,000 homes that would cut off occupied East Jerusalem, which Palestinians see as their future capital, from the West Bank and render a Palestinian state unviable. “There’s a museum in Jerusalem commemorating the disengagement,” Geist Pinfold noted. “It’s always cast the withdrawal as a historical loss, such as those in World War II, but since the Gaza campaign, it’s taken on a much more defiant tone. “In 2023, the museum donated one of the menorahs from one of the settlements’ original synagogues to a group of soldiers,” he said. “The idea was they were going to return it to its rightful place in Gaza. “Throughout much of Israel, there’s this sense of ‘We’re coming back, and we’re going further.’” Follow Al Jazeera English:...

The Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board has named PEFTI the “Best Innovation Enterprise Institution in Nigeria”, for both the 2023/2024 and 2024/2025 academic sessions, at the prestigious National Tertiary Admissions Performance-Merit Awards on July 8, 2025, which took place at the Bola Ahmed Tinubu International Conference Centre in Abuja. PEFTI noted that the national recognition underscores its unwavering commitment to delivering world-class higher education and driving innovation. Known for its practical, industry-driven approach, the institution has consistently produced some of the most talented professionals in film, television, music, media, and creative arts across Africa. Reacting to the win, PEFTI Registrar, Abiola Adenuga, said, “This award honours our commitment to excellence, innovation, and creative empowerment. The JAMB annual awards motivates PEFTI, and other institutions, to excel in education, and industry impact.” She added that the institution offers National Diploma programmes in Film and Television Production, Performing and Media Arts, and Music Technology. Commencing from 2025, PEFTI offers National Diploma programs in Business Administration, Mass Communication, Fashion Design and Clothing Technology, and Multimedia Technology.