内容摘要：He said out of 900 aid trucks that were approved to enter from the Israeli side of the Karem Abu Salem crossing, known as Kerem Shalom in Israel, fewer than 600 have been offloaded in Gaza, adding that a

He said out of 900 aid trucks that were approved to enter from the Israeli side of the Karem Abu Salem crossing, known as Kerem Shalom in Israel, fewer than 600 have been offloaded in Gaza, adding that a

, Marc Lamont Hill discusses these questions with the chair of the department of religious studies at the University of Pennsylvania and author, Anthea Butler.Biden and Trump’s clemency decisions reveal a justice system shaped by nepotism and spectacle, not fairness

The United States pardon system has been developing a bad name in recent months. It is an area where Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution gives the president essentially boundless authority: “The President shall … have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” Normally, though, aware of the controversial nature of unilaterally declaring that someone facing criminal charges should be freed, the president exercises this authority in the waning days of a term – there are 10 weeks after a November presidential election and the new president’s inauguration in January, when the incumbent has either been voted out, or is headed into retirement. Either way, there are no re-election concerns. This is significant because victims are often upset when a lengthy legal process is erased by a stroke of the White House pen.President Joe Biden followed this pattern, issuing more commutations in his final days than any other chief executive in history. Consistent with his Catholic faith, he almost cleared federal death row, commuting the sentences of 37 of the 40 condemned prisoners. But he courted the most dissent when he annulled the convictions of his son Hunter, before preemptively pardoning other family members for imagined offences for which they would likely never have faced trial. It was all tinged with nepotism, using his constitutional power for those close to him.On his heels came President Donald Trump. As with so many of his actions in his first 100 days, Trump was acting as if he were already running out of time. He had barely taken the oath of office before he issued 1,600 pardons to those said to be guilty of insurrection in the often-violent storming of the Capitol in 2021. Sure enough, this provoked outrage among some and was characterised by the chief of the Capitol Police as a “slap in the face” to all his officers.

Trump has since continued his spate of pardons. Some are fairly predictable: 21 of his recent grants concerned the FACE (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances) Act, a law that prohibits violence, intimidation, and interference with individuals seeking or providing reproductive health services – generally, then, people picketing abortion clinics. Here, he was courting the anti-abortion rights wing of MAGA.White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in a statement that Trump is “always pleased to give well-deserving Americans a second chance, especially those who have been unfairly targeted and overly prosecuted by an unjust justice system”.

As a principle, this is fair enough, but normally there must be some evidence of remorse and rehabilitation. This week, in contrast, he pardoned Scott Jenkins, a longtime supporter and former Sheriff who had been found guilty in 2024 of accepting more than $75,000 in bribes in exchange for making several businessmen into official law enforcement agents. “Sheriff Scott Jenkins, his wife Patricia, and their family have been dragged through HELL,” Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social network. Yet Jenkins had merely been dragged through the US trial system, like millions of others, and he had not even turned himself in to start his sentence.

Then there was the Reality TV couple, Todd and Julie Chrisley, convicted in 2022 for defrauding banks of more than $36m by submitting false bank statements and other records. They spent their ill-gotten gains on luxury cars and travel, and it is difficult to see what they did to merit special treatment.The support of governments such as the United States, United Kingdom and Germany has provided Israel the means to continue its genocide.

“When you start acting in a conflict to a level that the people on the ground who are doing the fighting are using your information as they fight”, you may become “a party to the conflict”, Van Esveld explained.Israel did not provide answers to any of the allegations put to it by Al Jazeera's Investigative Unit.

The UK government stated: "The UK is not a participant in the conflict between Israel and Hamas. As a matter of principle, we only provide intelligence to our allies where we are satisfied that it will be used in accordance with International Humanitarian Law. Only information relating to hostage rescue is passed to the Israeli authorities."Al Jazeera's Investigative Unit approached everyone else who featured in the documentary but received no response.