dataDp/3575.jpeg

Futbol

Wrexham Chase Promotion - But Where Is Paul Mullin?

Arms outstretched, Paul Mullin stands looking out at a sea of Wrexham fans singing his name and celebrating promotion. It is April 2024 and the popular Liverpudlian is the side's leading goalscorer and leading man of the documentary series that catapulted the club owned by Ryan Reynolds and Rob McElhenney into the homes of a worldwide audience. It was a familiar scene. Just 12 months earlier, the striker had stood in the same place, the same pose, for the same reason. Now, as the Stok Racecourse readies itself for a potential - and unprecedented - third successive promotion, Mullin is conspicuous by his absence. He is no longer a guaranteed starter, having not played a league minute since January. In fact, he has not even made the bench for the past nine games. So whereas once, the question around the club's dramatic Hollywood rise was 'Why Wrexham?' it is now where is Paul Mullin - and what has happened? "He's inspired millions of people all over the world with what he does. The more games this man plays for this club, the bigger this club's going to continue to get." McElhenney was not holding back as he interrupted an interview with Mullin, first to congratulate the Liverpudlian on his March 2024 hat-trick against Accrington Stanley, and then to share the praise with the inevitable cameras. He may not be far wrong given the club's documentary-fuelled profile and resulting popularity in the US. And Mullin has been top billing throughout its run. Since signing in 2021, his 110 goals make him the club's seventh-highest scorer in its 160-year history. "He's a modern-day club legend, for obvious reasons, and a figurehead and talisman of what we have done on the pitch," says Wrexham fan and co-host of the Fearless in Devotion podcast Tim Edwards. "But it's not just the goals; it's the way he plays which makes it feel as though we are playing for the club through him. That working-class, street footballer who plays for the love of the game and everything else is a bonus, a bit like Wayne Rooney. "He gets the club and we get him - which only makes the current situation feel a little weird." Unusual has become the norm, though, for Wrexham - and for Mullin. His relationship with the club's celebrity owners led to him being invited to play a cameo role in Reynolds' recent Deadpool and Wolverine blockbuster. The 'Welshpool' costume he wore is on display in a glass cabinet in one of the hospitality areas of the ground. And when he suffered a punctured lung against Manchester United on a tour of the States, he convalesced at the Los Angeles home of McElhenney. His recovery from back surgery last summer has been more dosed in reality, though. Two major operations would take their toll on most. A delayed start after a second problematic pre-season - and then missed chances. There have been only nine starts as a result. All told, it is three goals this term - one for every 384 minutes played, three-times worse than his past two seasons in the English Football League (EFL). And for a proven finisher, his xG rate is also the poorest among Wrexham's strikers. "He's right up there with the best I played with and the best I've watched in my 30 years with the club," says Waynne Phillips, a member of the famed Wrexham side that beat Arsenal in the 1992 FA Cup. "But his season never really got going - and then, ultimately, players were brought in who have done better." Namely former Burnley and Southampton frontman Jay Rodriguez and 16-goal striker Sam Smith, a striker signed from Reading in the winter window in a deal thought to be close to £2m. Both have started every game since they arrived. With another ex-Premier League forward in Steven Fletcher, a leading scorer as substitute (with a division-best goal every 118 minutes), and one-time Derby County attacker Jack Marriott also in reserve, there has been no room on the bench - or for sentiment. "You're not going to spend big money on strikers in January and not start them," adds Phillips, now a weekly Wrexham watcher for BBC Wales, who does not put the omission down to any sudden change of style or set-up. "And you don't get a place - or even on the bench - because of what you've done in the past. Phil Parkinson is an experienced manager with the promotions to back it up; he's been ruthless with players in the past and he will do it again." None of that has stopped the wondering. The fall from star billing to understudy has prompted social media whispers of a fall-out with Parkinson. "Nonsense", external has been Mullin's only word on the matter as he replied to a suggestion on X that he had argued with the manager and had called the owners to complain. Sources at the club and close to the player himself maintain the same. There have been no issues with training, no bust-up beyond a feeling of disappointment at being left out, no storyline that only the cameras will reveal in the next series of the documentary. Instead of using his close relationship with the owners as some sort of leverage, Mullin is said to have put that respect for them and the club ahead of his natural frustrations. And he is not alone. Ollie Palmer - another hero of promotions past - has also been moved aside as Parkinson evolves his side. In the opening game of the season, more than half of the starting XI had appeared in the National League. In last week's win over Burton Albion, there were just two. Palmer could have left in January, but told officials he still felt he had a part to play and was prepared to wait for his chance, be it through injuries or a late attempt to inject something different. As one source put it, 'that's football - it's just with Wrexham, it's happening in a spotlight'. "Because it's become a chronicled story for the world to see, the players become characters - and there's an emotional connection," adds Edwards. "We still love them but, as time has gone on, we're less angry about it. "If we had stuck with them and the goals were still not flowing we'd be wondering why Phil Parkinson didn't buy players in January. "I guess it's a case of trusting the process." Parkinson, often the calm amid the cameras and organised chaos that has accompanied Wrexham's rise, has played it straight. "The lads out of the team like Mulls and Ollie, who have both made significant contributions for us, they're right with the group training hard every day and waiting for the moment because you never know when that moment is going to come," he said last month. With six wins in the past eight games, the supporter upset has eased and the Mullin questions have stopped coming in press conferences. Yet a scene-stealing return is not being discounted. Phillips says it would be "fitting" for Mullin, who has done more than most to bring the success to the storyline, to prove he can cut it at this level and have a late impact in the bid for the Championship. Whether Wrexham get there, and then whether Mullin remains to play in the second tier, is another matter. Still only 30, he has a - reportedly well-paid - contract until 2027 and has shown no agitation to leave. "This season has ultimately not gone the way that any of us thought it was going to, or that any of us would have wanted to go for Paul, but I think that there's still a huge future for him at the club," director Humphrey Ker told the Fearless in Devotion podcast, adding that his prior performances in the FA Cup against the likes of Coventry City and Sheffield United gave the club belief he has Championship pedigree. That question will have to wait given there is still a promotion to win and a season finale to script. "Everyone wants Mullin in the squad, but right now him not being there is being justified," sums up Edwards. "To be brutal about it, Phil Parkinson is a legend, Paul Mullin is a legend - but only one picks the side." Additional reporting by Nizaar Kinsella

dataDp/1032.jpeg

Worldnews

How Common Is Israels Use Of Human Shields In Gaza And The West Bank?

Army under pressure to provide answers amid growing evidence that orders to use Palestinians as ‘fodder’ come from top. A recent report by The Associated Press that exposed the Israeli military’s “systematic” use of Palestinians as human shields has shone a light on an illegal practice that has become commonplace over the 19-month war in Gaza and parallel offensives in the West Bank. The report, published on Saturday, featured the testimonies of seven Palestinians who had been used as human shields in Gaza as well as the occupied West Bank, with two Israeli military officers confirming the ubiquity of the practice, which is considered a violation of international law. Responding to the allegations, Israel’s military told the news agency that using civilians as shields in its operations was strictly prohibited and that several cases were under investigation. So what are human shields? How widely have they been used by the Israeli military? And is Israel likely to launch a crackdown any time soon? Under international humanitarian law (IHL), the term “human shields” refers to the use of civilians or other protected persons, whether voluntary or involuntary, in order to shield military targets from attacks. The use of human shields in warfare is prohibited under IHL, but Israeli soldiers have allegedly employed it widely during the Gaza genocide. Earlier this year, Israeli newspaper Haaretz published the first-hand testimony of an Israeli soldier who said that the practice had been used “six times a day” in his unit and that it had effectively been “normalised” in military ranks. Back in August, the newspaper had revealed that Palestinians used as human shields in Gaza tended to be in their 20s and were used for periods of up to a week by units, which took pride in “locating” detainees to send into tunnel shafts and buildings. “It’s become part of [Israel’s] military culture,” said Nicola Perugini, co-author of Human Shields: A History of People in the Line of Fire, noting the “huge archive” of evidence provided, not only by human rights groups, but also by soldiers, who were until recently posting evidence of Palestinians being used as “fodder” on social media with an apparent sense of total impunity. “Israeli army investigations have proven throughout the decades to be non-investigations,” Perugini said, noting that documentation of the practice, forbidden by Protocol 1 to the Geneva Conventions, started during the second Intifada of the early 2000s. “What we have now in the live-streamed genocide is the most documented archive of human shielding in the history of the different wars between Israel and the Palestinians,” he said. “What we have discovered is precisely that it is a systematic practice.” Throughout the conflict, the Israeli military’s response to allegations has been to withhold comment, to point to a lack of details, or, when faced with undeniable proof, to announce a probe. Last year, Israel declined to respond to a range of allegations put to it by Al Jazeera’s Investigative Unit, which examined thousands of photos and videos – the bulk of them posted online by Israeli soldiers – and testimonies pointing to a number of potential war crimes, including the use of human shields. Among the atrocities revealed by the team in the resulting documentary was the case of Jamal Abu al-Ola, a detainee forced to act as a messenger by the Israelis. Footage showed the young man dressed in a white hazmat suit, with hands bound and head wrapped in a yellow cloth, telling displaced people at the Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis to evacuate. His mother followed him out, and witnessed him being shot dead by a sniper. Commenting on the case for the documentary, Rodney Dixon, an international law expert, said that al-Ola had been used as a “military asset”, which was “in many ways the definition of using persons as a human shield”. This year, the military pushed back on calls to investigate a report on an 80-year-old man forced to act as a human shield in Gaza City, saying that “additional details” were needed. The joint report from Israeli outlet The Hottest Place in Hell and +972 Magazine revealed a horrific new dimension of the so-called “mosquito procedure”, with anonymous Israeli soldiers recounting that a senior officer had placed an explosive cord around the man’s neck, threatening to blow his head off if he made any false moves. Ordered afterwards to flee his home in Gaza City’s Zeitoun neighbourhood, the man was shot dead with his wife by another battalion. However, the military will acknowledge violations when confronted with undeniable evidence provoking widespread outrage, such as last year’s video of wounded Palestinian man Mujahed Azmi, strapped to the hood of an army jeep during a raid on the West Bank city of Jenin. That particular case was described as “human shielding in action” by Francesca Albanese, the United Nations’ special rapporteur to the occupied Palestinian territory. In a statement, Israel’s military said its forces were fired at and exchanged fire, wounding a suspect and apprehending him. It added that the “conduct of the forces in the video” did not “conform to the values” of the military and that the incident would be investigated. However, as Perugini observes, the very reason why the International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes in Gaza is because legal experts doubt Israel’s ability to investigate itself. Despite vast evidence, the question of whether the military will be launching a crackdown aimed at banishing the apparently systematic practice is moot. Even so, pressure for accountability is growing. Rights groups say the practice of using human shields has been going on in the occupied Palestinian territories for decades. Breaking the Silence, a whistle-blower group gathering testimonies of former Israeli soldiers, cites evidence of what one high-ranking officer posted to Bethlehem in the occupied West Bank back in 2002 called “neighbour procedure”. “You order a Palestinian to accompany you and to open the door of the house you want to enter, to knock on the door and ask to enter, with a very simple objective: if the door blows up, a Palestinian will be blown up, and soldiers won’t be blown up,” said the officer, ranked as a major. In 2005, an Israeli Supreme Court ruling explicitly barred the practice. Five years later, two soldiers were convicted of using a nine-year-old boy as a human shield to check suspected booby traps in the Gaza City suburb of Tal al-Hawa. It was reportedly the first such conviction in Israel. But the military’s use of human shields appears to have been normalised since then, particularly over the past 19 months of war in Gaza. Indeed, there are indications that orders may be coming from the very top. Haaretz’s investigation from last August cited sources as saying that former Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi was among the senior officers aware of the use of Palestinians in Gaza as human shields. And this week’s report by the AP cited an anonymous Israeli officer as saying that the practice had become ubiquitous by mid-2004 in Gaza, with every infantry unit using a Palestinian to clear houses by the time he finished his service, and with orders “to bring a mosquito” often being issued via radio. The report also cited an anonymous Israeli sergeant as saying that his unit had tried to refuse to use human shields in Gaza in 2024, but was told they had no choice, a high-ranking officer telling them they shouldn’t worry about international humanitarian law. Responding to claims in the AP report, the Israeli military told The Jerusalem Post on Sunday that it would investigate the claims “if further details are provided”. “In several cases, investigations by the Military Police Criminal Investigation Division were opened following suspicions that the military was involving Palestinians in military missions. These investigations are ongoing, and naturally, no further details can be provided at this time,” it said. In March, Haaretz reported that Israel’s military police were investigating six cases in which Israeli soldiers were alleged to have used Palestinians as human shields after the publication of a Red Cross report earlier in the year that highlighted the abuses. In the face of growing evidence that Palestinians are systematically being used as fodder for the Israeli military machine, in a war that has already killed more than 54,000 people, the military may find it increasingly difficult to kick the biggest can of all down the road. Said Perugini: “When you are in a genocide, then human shielding becomes a tool for something else. It becomes part of a different kind of crime, of the crime of crimes.” Follow Al Jazeera English:...

dataDp/1032.jpeg

Worldnews

Betrayal Or Win-win?: Britains EU Deal Reopens Old Wounds

Polls suggest most Britons want closer ties with the EU, but some believe the new deal violates Brexit’s mandate. London, United Kingdom — British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has proudly described a new deal with the European Union spanning defence, security, and trade as a “win-win” pact that puts the nation “back on the world stage”. But nine years after Britain narrowly voted in favour of leaving the EU, the deal announced on May 19 has prompted a sigh of relief for some and stinging criticism from others, underscoring just how divisive the legacy of Brexit remains in the country. While many sections of British society have welcomed the agreement, Richard Tice, an MP for the anti-immigration party Reform UK, responded to the deal with a single-word post on social media: “Betrayal.” The deal offers concessions on European visas for British citizens, shorter queues at European airports, and possibly cheaper food in the UK. But on the flip side, the UK has agreed to allow European fishing fleets access to British waters for an extra 12 years. Phil Rusted, who runs a firm called Practical Plants in Suffolk that imports plants from Europe, is among those who are delighted. “My instinct is it is the best news we have got in nine years,” he said. “It almost gets us back to where were before Brexit. It helps me to take on more staff, to develop my business. The last few years have been very unpredictable; I will be more assured about what my costs are going to be.” The business sector, more broadly, has also largely responded positively to the agreement. “In a world where higher US tariffs are threatening to throw globalisation into reverse, trade deals, even if relatively minor, are generally good news,” said Philip Shaw, chief economist at Investec Bank. “The obvious gainer is the food sector, which will benefit from a reduction in checks at the EU border, which could make a material difference to exporters’ and importers’ costs.” The Federation of Small Businesses, a group that represents small- and medium-sized firms in the UK, described the EU deal as “genuine progress”, crediting it for “untangling the rules for small exporters of plant and animal products”. “For too long, small businesses have shouldered the burden of unpredictable customs rules and red tape that sap confidence and ambition,” it said. And popular opinion in the UK appears to be behind the agreement. Polling by YouGov shows that 66 percent want to have a closer relationship with the EU, compared with just 14 percent who do not. To be sure, experts say the UK has to compromise too. “The devil in a trade deal is of course always in the detail,” said Paul Dales, chief economist at Capital Economics. In addition to accepting EU access to British waters for fishing, the UK has also agreed to pay an unspecified “appropriate financial contribution” to join the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, Dales pointed out. But the deal has also faced strong pushback. The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, in a statement on May 19, said the agreement “surrenders the best prospect that the fishing industry and coastal communities had for growth over the coming decade”. Three days later, it issued a more biting statement, saying the deal “drags UK fishing back into a past we thought had been left behind”. Shaw conceded that if the food industry had benefitted from the deal, the fishing sector stood “at the other end of the scale”. And it is not just fishers. The deal has also revived a broader debate over whether the UK, in seeking to realign itself with elements of the EU’s rules and regulations, is violating the mandate of Brexit. Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, under whom Britain formally withdrew from the EU in 2020, described the deal as an “appalling sell out” in a post on X. Tony Gabana, a web developer from London who was too young to vote in 2016, holds that view. “Whether it’s a good deal or not, it does seem an attempt to reverse what a lot of people voted for,” Gabana said. “It doesn’t sit right with me. It feels like a step to further concessions, which, again, no one voted for. “Are we a democracy or not?” Follow Al Jazeera English:...

dataDp/1032.jpeg

Worldnews

Why Are The US And EU Struggling To Reach A Trade Deal?

Donald Trump’s U-turn sees European leaders call for the ‘lowest possible’ tariffs after levies are postponed from June 1 to July 9. But is that enough to satisfy the US president? US President Donald Trump has backed away — for now — from imposing steep levies on the European Union, two days after he threatened the bloc with 50 percent tariffs. On Sunday, Trump agreed to extend his deadline for trade talks until July 9, from the June 1 deadline he set on Friday, after European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the bloc needed more time to “reach a good deal”. Von der Leyen reportedly told Trump during a phone call that the EU needed more time to come to an agreement and asked him to delay the trade duties until July, the deadline he had originally set when he announced his “reciprocal” tariffs on almost all countries around the world in April. Trump said that he had granted the request, and that von der Leyen told him, “We will rapidly get together to see if we can work something out.” Von der Leyen said in a social media post that the EU was ready to move quickly in trade talks. During a trip to Vietnam on Monday, French President Emmanuel Macron said that he hoped Washington and Brussels could achieve a deal with the lowest tariffs possible. “The discussions are advancing,” he told reporters. The US president’s latest salvo comes amid Washington’s stop-and-start global trade war that kicked off in April. Trump’s moves have unnerved markets, businesses and consumers and raised fears of a global economic downturn. But while his approach has yielded a trade deal with the United Kingdom, and negotiations are believed to be progressing with a range of other nations — from India to Vietnam to Japan — key sticking points complicate the prospects of an agreement with the EU. Here’s what the tiff is about, and why the US and EU are struggling to reach a trade deal: Trump’s recent broadside against the EU was prompted by the White House’s belief that negotiations with the bloc are not progressing fast enough. “Our discussions with them are going nowhere!” Trump posted on Truth Social. “Therefore, I am recommending a straight 50% Tariff on the European Union, starting on June 1, 2025. There is no Tariff if the product is built or manufactured in the United States,” he wrote last Friday. By Sunday, however, Trump had changed course. He welcomed von der Leyen’s assertion that the bloc was willing to negotiate but that it needed more time. He added that it was his “privilege” to delay the increased tariffs. Trump said, “[von der Leyen] said she wants to get down to serious negotiation. We had a very nice call … she said we will rapidly get together and see if we can work something out,” he told reporters. Trump is thought to be opposed to the idea of mutually cutting tariffs to zero – an EU proposal. The US president has insisted on preserving a baseline 10 percent tax on most imports from America’s trading partners. On May 8, the UK agreed to a trade deal that kept Trump’s 10 percent reciprocal tariff rate in place. EU trade chief Maros Sefcovic said the European Commission – the EU’s executive arm – remains committed to securing a deal that works for both sides. But he warned that EU-US trade “must be guided by mutual respect, not threats.” In 2024, EU exports to the US totalled about 532 billion euros ($603bn). Pharmaceuticals, cars and auto parts, chemicals and aircraft were among the largest exports, according to EU data. Last week, the US rejected a proposal sent by the European Commission. The EU had offered to remove tariffs on industrial goods, boost access for some US agricultural products and co-develop AI data centres, Bloomberg reported. It also proposed enhancing economic cooperation in areas like shipbuilding and port infrastructure, as well as by establishing an EU-US energy partnership covering gas, nuclear power and oil. In exchange, Brussels wants the Trump administration to have more flexibility on lowering the 10 percent baseline tariff — including by potentially lowering it in phases over time. While the EU has said it wants to find a negotiated solution, it has also been preparing to retaliate if necessary. Member states have approved a 50 percent tariff on a batch of US products worth 21 billion euros ($23.8bn), including maize, wheat and clothing, which will kick in on July 14 without a deal. The bloc is also preparing tariffs on other imported products totalling 95 billion euros ($107.8bn), targeting industrial goods like Boeing aircraft and cars, as well as bourbon. Trump has long accused the European Union of “ripping off” the US, and is determined that Brussels will adopt measures to lower its 198.2-billion-euro ($225bn) goods trade surplus with the US. Washington has repeatedly raised concerns over Europe’s value-added tax, as well as its regulations on IT and food exports. Trump contends that these controls act as de facto trade barriers to the EU. For his part, Sefcovic recently told the Financial Times that he wants to slash the US-EU trade deficit by buying more US gas, weapons and agricultural products. In addition, the bloc is reportedly open to reducing its dependence on Chinese exports and on erecting tariffs against subsidised Chinese exports, which Trump is keen on. Sefcovic and his US counterpart, Jamieson Greer, are scheduled to meet in Paris next month to discuss ways of de-escalating the ongoing US-EU trade dispute. In 2024, the EU exported 531.6 billion euros ($603bn) in goods to the US and imported products worth 333 billion euros ($377.8bn), resulting in a trade surplus of almost 200 billion euros ($227bn). On the flip side, the US runs a surplus of more than 109 billion euros ($124bn) in services as of 2023, with notable IT exports, led by large American tech companies, charges for intellectual property and financial services. Trump’s tariffs would, in turn, hit both economies hard. According to a 2019 study by the International Monetary Fund, a full-scale US-EU trade war could cost 0.3-to-0.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) on both sides. Follow Al Jazeera English:...