����ֱ��

LONDON: Writer’s group PEN International on Monday urged the international community to impose an arms embargo on all parties involved in the war in Gaza, calling specifically for a ban on weapons used by Israel in attacks that have targeted Palestinian civilians across the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

In an open letter, the London-based association expressed outrage at what it described as the global community’s failure to hold Israel accountable for the “ongoing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.”

The letter condemned the daily killing of civilians and the prolonged blockade, calling for immediate action to halt the assault.

“PEN International has documented harrowing testimonies of Palestinian writers across the OPT, all of whom have reported and corroborated the growing body of evidence demonstrating concerted and systematic efforts by Israel to erase the Palestinian people and their cultural heritage, particularly in Gaza,” the open letter said.

The group said it shared the view of other international organizations that “genocide is being perpetrated against Palestinians in Gaza through various means,” and reported that at least 23 writers — excluding artists and other cultural workers — have been killed in Israeli bombardments since Oct. 7, 2023.

Describing the current period as “the deadliest for writers since the Second World War,” PEN International said the assault on Palestinian culture — through the destruction of heritage sites, cultural spaces, and the targeting of writers and journalists — was “a deliberate strategy to silence and erase the Palestinian people.”

The NGO joins a growing number of organizations, experts and legal scholars that have concluded Israel’s conduct in Gaza meets the threshold of genocide.

The International Court of Justice ruled last year that Palestinians face a “plausible risk of genocide,” and UN experts, aid agencies, and hundreds of legal specialists and genocide scholars have echoed that assessment.

Even former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert, writing in Haaretz, recently described the offensive as a “war of extermination,” though he stopped short of using the term “genocide.”

PEN International’s letter also detailed the “irreversible loss of much of Gaza’s tangible and intangible cultural heritage,” including independent cultural institutions, personal libraries and literary work, many of which were created under extreme restrictions and later destroyed in the war.

As of the end of May, UNESCO confirmed damage to 110 cultural sites in Gaza since the war began, including religious landmarks, historic buildings, museums and archaeological sites.

Testimonies gathered by PEN International also described the conditions faced by Palestinian writers amid the persistent threat to their lives.

“The relentless Israeli military operations, the indiscriminate bombardment of so-called ‘safe zones’ with high explosives, unexploded ordnance, sniper attacks targeting civilians, and the ongoing arbitrary restrictions and ban on humanitarian aid — are a grim, daily reality,” the letter read.

“All writers who spoke to PEN International have consistently stressed that: ‘There is no place safe in Gaza’.”

Founded in London in 1921, PEN International has grown into a global cultural institution. It has not remained untouched by the rippling political effects of the Gaza war.

In September 2024, the group passed a resolution condemning the rise in targeted killings, arbitrary detentions, and restrictions on access to information in both Palestine and Israel following the Oct. 7 attacks. The resolution placed primary responsibility for these violations on Israeli authorities.

In April 2025, PEN America, the group’s US branch, was forced to cancel its annual literary awards after several authors boycotted the event over what they viewed as the organization’s failure to take a clear stance against Israel’s war on Gaza.

The decision followed an open letter signed by dozens of authors and translators who withdrew their work from the awards in protest.

WASHINGTON: A federal judge in Washington suggested on Friday he is considering making Alphabet’s Google take less aggressive measures to restore competition in online search than the 10-year regime proposed by antitrust enforcers.
US District Judge Amit Mehta heard closing arguments on Friday at a trial on proposals to address Google’s illegal monopoly in online search and related advertising.
“Ten years may seem like a short period, but in this space, a lot can change in weeks,” he said, citing recent developments such as ChatGPT maker OpenAI buying a device startup.
The DOJ and a coalition of states want Google to share search data and cease multibillion-dollar payments to Apple and other smartphone makers to be the default search engine on new devices.
At the hearing, the judge floated the possibility of limited data sharing and ending the payments only if other measures do not increase competition. He also grappled with the rise of artificial intelligence products that could replace traditional search engines.
An alternate default search engine in Apple’s Safari browser is unlikely to come from existing rival search engines like DuckDuckGo or Bing, the judge said.
“If anything it’s going to be one of these AI companies that can do more than just search. And why? Because maybe people don’t want 10 blue links anymore,” he said, referring to earlier iterations of Google’s search engine.
The case has already rattled Google’s share price by exposing Apple’s plans to offer AI-based search options.
The trial began in April and Judge Mehta has said he aims to rule by August.
AI “rivals”?
Antitrust enforcers are concerned about how Google’s search monopoly gives it an advantage in AI products like Gemini and vice versa.
Nick Turley, OpenAI’s product head for ChatGPT, testified that the ChatGPT creator is years away from its goal of being able to use its own search technology to answer 80 percent of queries and that having access to Google search data would help it focus on improving ChatGPT. Turley also said OpenAI would be interested in buying Chrome if Google is forced to sell it.
But Mehta questioned whether companies like OpenAI or Perplexity should be considered Google competitors who would be given access to any data Google is required to share, given that the case focused on search engine competitors.
“It seems to me you now want to kind of bring this other technology into the definition of general search engine markets that I am not sure quite fits,” the judge said to DOJ attorney Adam Severt.
Severt replied that while the first part of the case focused on the past, the remedies must be forward-looking.
John Schmidtlein, an attorney for Google, said at the hearing that while generative AI is influencing how search looks, Google has addressed any concerns about competition in AI by no longer entering exclusive agreements with wireless carriers and smartphone makers including Samsung Electronics , leaving them free to load rival search and AI apps on new devices.
Schmidtlein argued it would be inappropriate to give successful AI companies like OpenAI technology that Google has spent 20 years perfecting.
“Coming to Google and asking Google for a handout when they are the market leader seems completely disproportionate to what this case is about,” he said.