A group of some 600 retired Israeli security officials, including former heads of intelligence agencies, have written to US President Donald Trump to pressure Israel to immediately end the war in Gaza.

“It is our professional judgement that Hamas no longer poses a strategic threat to Israel,” the officials said.

“Your credibility with the vast majority of Israelis augments your ability to steer Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu and his government in the right direction: End the war, return the hostages, stop the suffering,” they wrote.

Their appeal comes amid reports that Netanyahu is pushing to expand military operations in Gaza as indirect ceasefire talks with Hamas have stalled.

Israel launched a devastating war in Gaza following Hamas’s attack in southern Israel on 7 October 2023 in which about 1,200 people were killed and 251 taken into Gaza as hostages.

More than 60,000 people have been killed as a result of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza since then, the Hamas-run health ministry says.

On Monday, the ministry reported that at least 94 people had been killed in Gaza in the past day, including dozens it said had died in Israeli strikes.

At least 24 people had been killed while seeking aid, it added. Such reports have become almost daily in recent months but are hard to verify as international journalists, including the BBC, are blocked by Israel from entering Gaza independently.

The territory is also experiencing mass deprivation as a result of heavy restrictions imposed by Israel on what is allowed into Gaza. The ministry says 180 people, including 93 children, have died from malnutrition since the start of the war.

UN-backed agencies have said the “worst-case scenario of famine is currently playing out” in Gaza.

The latest intervention by the top former Israeli officials came after videos of two emaciated Israeli hostages were released by Hamas and Islamic Jihad militants.

The videos were widely condemned by Israeli and Western leaders.

After the videos were released, Netanyahu spoke with the two hostage families, telling them that efforts to return all the hostages “will continue constantly and relentlessly”.

But an Israeli official – widely quoted by local media – said Netanyahu was working to free the hostages through “the military defeat of Hamas”.

The possibility of a new escalation in Gaza may further anger Israel’s allies which have been pushing for an immediate ceasefire as reports of Palestinians dying from starvation or malnutrition cause shock around the world.

The main group supporting hostages’ families condemned the idea of a new military offensive saying: “Netanyahu is leading Israel and the hostages to doom.”

That view was pointedly made in the letter to Trump by former Mossad chief Tamir Pardo, Ami Ayalon, former chief of Shin Bet – Israel’s domestic secret service agency – former Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and former Defence Minister Moshe Yaalon among others.

“At first this war was a just war, a defensive war, but when we achieved all military objectives, this war ceased to be a just war,” said Ayalon.

The former top leaders head the Commanders for Israel’s Security (CIS) group, which has urged the government in the past to focus on securing the return of the hostages.

“Stop the Gaza War! On behalf of CIS, Israel’s largest group of former IDF generals and Mossad, Shin Bet, Police, and Diplomatic Corps equivalents, we urge you to end the Gaza war. You did it in Lebanon. Time to do it in Gaza as well,” they wrote to the US president.

Israel has faced growing international isolation, as the widespread destruction in Gaza and the suffering of Palestinians spark outrage.

Polls around the world suggest that public opinion is increasingly negative about Israel, which is putting pressure on Western leaders to act.

But it is not clear what pressure, if any, Trump will choose to exert on the Israeli prime minister.

The US president has consistently backed his ally, even though he publicly acknowledged last week that there was “real starvation” in Gaza after Netanyahu insisted there was no such thing.

The Kremlin has played down Donald Trump’s orders to move two nuclear submarines closer to Russia, saying Moscow did not want to be involved in polemics.

In the first official reaction since the US president’s comments last Friday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said American submarines were on combat duty anyway and dismissed the idea that there had been an escalation.

“Very complex, very sensitive issues are being discussed, which, of course, many perceive very emotionally,” Peskov said – though he added that everyone should be “very cautious” with nuclear rhetoric.

US envoy Steve Witkoff is due to visit Russia on Wednesday, according to Russian media.

Last week President Trump ordered two nuclear submarines to “be positioned in the appropriate regions” in response to what he called “highly provocative” comments by former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.

Trump did not say whether they were nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed submarines.

Medvedev – who in recent years has espoused increasingly extreme rhetoric online – had accused Trump of “playing the ultimatum game” with Russia after the US president set a new deadline for Vladimir Putin to end the war with Ukraine.

Without referencing the Medvedev spat directly, Peskov said on Monday that while “in every country members of the leadership… have different points of view”, Russian foreign policy was dictated by Putin alone.

Medvedev did not react to Trump’s response and has not been active on X since sending the offending post.

Relations between the US and Russia improved significantly after Trump took office in January – although in recent months the US president has signalled he suspects Putin may not be truly committed to ending the war in Ukraine, which began when Moscow launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022.

Now Trump has brought forward a deadline for Russia to reach a peace deal, threatening Moscow with severe tariffs targeting its oil and other exports if a ceasefire is not agreed by Friday 8 August.

Still, Washington and Moscow remain in contact and Peskov welcomed Witkoff’s trip later this week.

“We are always happy to see Mr Witkoff in Moscow… We consider such contact important, meaningful and useful,” he said, adding that Witkoff and Putin may meet.

Should a ceasefire not be reached by Friday, Trump has said he would impose sanctions and secondary tariffs on Moscow to discourage other countries from trading with it.

But he has also admitted Russia – now the most sanctioned country in the world – was “pretty good at avoiding sanctions”.

Three rounds of talks between Russian and Ukraine since the spring have failed to bring an end to the conflict any closer.

Only last week Putin reiterated that Russia’s main goal in the war was to “eradicate the reasons for the crisis in Ukraine and ensure Russia’s security”.

Moscow’s maximalist military and political preconditions for peace – including Ukraine becoming a neutral state, dramatically reducing its military and abandoning its Nato aspirations – remain unacceptable to Kyiv and to its Western partners.

Listen to Damian read this article.

The sheet of paper says “Wanted Person” at the top. Below is a photo of a young woman, a headshot that might have been taken in a studio. She looks directly at the camera, smiling with her teeth showing, and her dark, shoulder-length hair is neatly brushed.

At the bottom, in red, are the words: “A reward of one million Hong Kong dollars,” together with a UK phone number.

To earn the money, about £95,000, there is a simple instruction: “Provide information on this wanted person and the related crime or take her to Chinese embassy”.

The woman from the photo is standing in front of me. She shudders when she looks at the building.

We are outside an imposing structure that was once home to the Royal Mint and which China hopes it can develop into a new mega-embassy in London, replacing the far smaller premises it has occupied since 1877.

The new premises, opposite the Tower of London, is already being patrolled by Chinese security guards. The building is ringed with CCTV cameras too.

“I’ve never been this close,” admits Carmen Lau.

Carmen, who is 30, fled Hong Kong in 2021 as pro-democracy activists in the territory were being arrested.

She argues that the UK should not allow China’s “authoritarian regime” to have its new embassy in such a symbolic location. One of her fears is that China, with such a huge embassy, could harass political opponents and could even hold them in the building.

There are also worries, among some dissidents, that its location – very near London’s financial district – could be an espionage risk. Then there is the opposition from residents who say it would pose a security risk to them.

The plans had previously been rejected by the local council, but the decision now lies with the government – and senior ministers have signalled they are in favour if minor adjustments are made to the plan.

The site is sprawling, at 20,000 square metres, and if it goes ahead it would mark the biggest embassy in Europe. But would it also really bring the dangers that its opponents fear?

China bought the old Royal Mint Court for £255m in 2018. The area has layer upon layer of history: across the road is the Tower, parts of it were built by William the Conqueror. For centuries kings and queens lived there.

The plan itself involves a cultural centre and housing for 200 staff, but in the basement, behind security doors, there are also rooms with no identified use on the plans.

“It’s easy for me to imagine what would happen if I was taken to the Chinese embassy,” says Carmen.

In 2022, a Hong Kong pro-democracy protester was dragged into the grounds of the Chinese consulate in Manchester and beaten. British police nearby stepped over the boundary to rescue him.

Back in 2019, mass protests had erupted in Hong Kong, triggered by the government’s attempt to bring in a new law allowing for Hong Kong citizens to be extradited to China.

China’s response included a law that forced all elected officials in Hong Kong, including Carmen who was then a district councillor, to take an oath of loyalty to China. Carmen resigned instead.

She claims that journalists for Chinese state-run media started following her. The Ta Kung Pao newspaper, which is controlled by China’s central government in Beijing, ran a front page story alleging she and her colleagues had held parties in their council offices.

“You know the tactics of the regime,” she says. “They were following you, trying to harass you. My friends and my colleagues were being arrested.”

Carmen fled to London but believes that she has continued to be targeted.

Hong Kong issued two arrest warrants for her alleging “incitement to secession and collusion with a foreign country or with external elements to endanger national security”.

The bounty letter sent from Hong Kong to half a dozen of her neighbours followed.

“The regime just [tries] to eliminate any possible activists overseas,” she says.

Steve Tsang, a political scientist and historian who is director of the SOAS China Institute, says he can see why people from Hong Kong, or certain other backgrounds, may be uncomfortable with the new embassy.

He argues “the Chinese government since 1949 does not have a record of kidnapping people and holding them in their embassy compounds.”

But he says some embassy staff would be tasked with monitoring Chinese students and dissidents in the UK and they’d also target UK citizens, such as scientists, business people, and those with influence, to advance China’s interests.

The Chinese embassy told the BBC it “is committed to promoting understanding and the friendship between the Chinese and British peoples and the development of mutually beneficial cooperation between the two countries. Building the new embassy would help us better perform such responsibilities”.

There is another fear, held by some opponents, that the Royal Mint Court site could allow China to infiltrate the UK’s financial system by tapping into fibre optic cables carrying sensitive data for firms in the City of London.

The site once housed Barclays Bank’s trading floor, so it was wired directly into the UK’s financial infrastructure. Nearby, a tunnel has, since 1985, carried fibre optic cables under the Thames serving hundreds of City firms.

And in the grounds of the Court, is a five-storey brick building – the Wapping Telephone Exchange that serves the City of London.

According to Prof Periklis Petropoulos, an optoelectronics researcher at Southampton University, direct access to a working telephone exchange could allow people to glean information.

This has all prompted warnings about potential espionage – including from Conservative frontbencher Kevin Hollinrake, as well as senior Republicans in the US.

An official with security experience in former US president Joe Biden’s administration told me it’s perfectly possible that cables could be tapped with devices that would capture passing information – and that this would be almost impossible to detect.

“Anything up to half a mile from the embassy would be vulnerable,” he says.

However, he argues that China may not be inclined to do this because it has other ways of hacking into systems.

Regarding these concerns, the Chinese embassy said: “Anti-China forces are using security risks as an excuse to interfere with the British government’s consideration over this planning application.

“This is a despicable move that is unpopular and will not succeed.”

At the back of the Royal Mint Court is a row of 1980s-built flats. Mark Nygate has lived here for more than 20 years. He gestures across his low garden wall. “Embassy staff will live there and overlook us,” he says.

“We don’t want [the embassy] there because of demonstrations, because of the security risks, because of our privacy.”

Opponents of the embassy – Hong Kongers, Tibetans, Uighurs, and opposition politicians – have already staged protests involving up to 6,000 people.

Mostly, though, he fears an attack on the embassy – that could harm him and his neighbours.

But Tony Travers, a visiting professor in the LSE Department of Government, lives near the current embassy and isn’t convinced that these sorts of protests will materialise for the new neighbours, if the relocation goes ahead.

“I’m not aware of any evidence that there are regular protests that block the road outside the current Chinese embassy… self-evidently, there are much larger protests outside a number of other countries’ embassies and high commissions.”

The Chinese embassy in London says that the proposed development would “greatly improve the surrounding environment and bring benefits to the local community and the district”.

China’s first planning application to develop the site was rejected by Tower Hamlets council in 2022 over safety and security concerns – and fears protests and security measures could damage tourism.

Rather than amend the plan or appeal, China waited, then resubmitted an identical application in August 2024, one month after Labour came to power.

On 23 August, Sir Keir Starmer phoned Chinese President Xi Jinping for their first talks. Afterwards Sir Keir confirmed that Xi had raised the issue of the embassy.

Since then, Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner has exercised her power to take the matter out of the council’s hands, after being urged to do so by Foreign Secretary David Lammy.

This is in the context of an attempt by the government to engage with China after previous Conservative Prime Minister Rishi Sunak declared in 2022 that the so-called “golden era” of UK-China relations were over.

For his part, Prof Travers believes that politics is involved in planning decisions.

“The Secretary of State has to make the decision on the basis of the documentation in front of them and the law surrounding and affecting the issue,” he argues.

“But it would be naïve to imagine that politics didn’t play a role.”

Lord Peter Ricketts, a former diplomat who chaired the UK’s National Security Council, advising prime ministers on global threats, stresses that the country’s relationship with China is complex.

A National Security Strategy published in June laid out the conflicting priorities in the government’s approach, highlighting its desire to use the relationship to boost the UK economy but also likely “continued tension” over human rights and cyber security.

But is that duality of reaping the business benefits while pushing on the human rights transgressions, even possible?

“It is absolutely an adversary in some areas, which tries to steal our intellectual property, or suborn our citizens,” says Lord Ricketts. “(But) it is a commercial market, a very important one for us, and it’s a player in the big global issues like climate and health.

“We have to be able to treat China in all those categories at the same time.”

The embassy decision, he says, cuts to the heart of this. “There are acute dilemmas, and there are choices to be made, whether to privilege the 30, 40 or 50-year relationship with China, which an embassy, I guess, would symbolise.

“Or whether to give priority to the short-term security threats, which are no doubt real as well.”

The Conservative MP Sir Iain Duncan Smith is convinced giving the go-ahead for the new embassy would be a big mistake. “They think that the only way they’ll get growth is by kissing up to China and getting them to invest,” he tells me.

But for all the concerns around security, having one big embassy could well make it easier to keep an eye on what Chinese officials are up to in the UK, according to Prof Tsang.

“Allowing the Chinese to put their staff on one site is preferable,” he argues, “because they’re at the moment all over the place in London, you can’t actually keep an eye on them.”

He is not convinced that rejecting or approving the embassy will have an effect on business and trade.

“The Chinese are the absolute ultimate pragmatists. They are not going to suddenly say that no, we’re not selling our best electric vehicles to you any longer just because you denied us the embassy,” he says.

But, equally, “they are not going to substantially increase Chinese investments in the UK because they have got the new embassy compound.”

If Angela Rayner thinks that too, then her decision may well come down to how seriously she takes the warnings that China could eavesdrop on the UK’s banks.

If she rejects the embassy it may be because she judges the danger it poses to be very real indeed.

Researchers have embarked on a mission to save what some consider to be the world’s most beautiful snails, and also unlock their biological secrets.

Endangered Polymita tree snails, which are disappearing from their native forest habitats in Eastern Cuba, have vibrant, colourful and extravagantly patterned shells.

Unfortunately, those shells are desirable for collectors, and conservation experts say the shell trade is pushing the snails towards extinction.

Biologists in Cuba, and specialists at the University of Nottingham in the UK, have now teamed up with the goal of saving the six known species of Polymita.

The most endangered of those is Polymita sulphurosa, which is lime green with blue flame patterns around its coils and bright orange and yellow bands across its shell.

But all the Polymita species are strikingly bright and colourful, which is an evolutionary mystery in itself.

“One of the reasons I’m interested in these snails is because they’re so beautiful,” explained evolutionary geneticist and mollusc expert Prof Angus Davison from the University of Nottingham.

The irony, he said, is that this is the reason the snails are so threatened.

“Their beauty attracts people who collect and trade shells. So the very thing that makes them different and interesting to me as a scientist is, unfortunately, what’s endangering them as well.”

Searching online with Prof Davison, we found several platforms where sellers, based in the UK, were offering Polymita shells for sale. On one site a collection of seven shells was being advertised for £160.

“For some of these species, we know they’re really quite endangered. So it wouldn’t take much [if] someone collects them in Cuba and trades them, to cause some species to go extinct.”

Shells are bought and sold as decorative objects, but every empty shell was once a living animal.

While there are international rules to protect Polymita snails, they are difficult to enforce. It is illegal – under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species – to take the snails or their shells out of Cuba without a permit. But it is legal to sell the shells elsewhere.

Prof Davison says that, with pressures like climate change and forest loss affecting their natural habitat in Cuba, “you can easily imagine where people collecting shells would tip a population over into local extinction”.

To try to prevent this, Prof Davison is working closely with Prof Bernardo Reyes-Tur at the Universidad de Oriente, Santiago de Cuba, who is a conservation biologist.

The aim of this international project is to better understand how the snails evolved and to provide information that will help conservation.

Prof Reyes-Tur’s part of the endeavour is perhaps the most challenging: Working with unreliable power supplies and in a hot climate, he has brought Polymita snails into his own home for captive breeding.

“They have not bred yet, but they’re doing well,” he told us on a video call.

“It’s challenging though – we have blackouts all the time.”

Meanwhile, at the well-equipped labs at the University of Nottingham, genetic research is being carried out.

Here, Prof Davison and his team can keep tiny samples of snail tissue in cryogenic freezers to preserve them. They are able to use that material to read the animals’ genome – the biological set of coded instructions that makes each snail what it is.

The team aims to use this information to confirm how many species there are, how they are related to each other and what part of their genetic code gives them their extraordinary, unique colour patterns.

The hope is that they can reveal those biological secrets before these colourful creatures are bought and sold into extinction.

“Eastern Cuba is the the only place in the world where these snails are found,” Prof Davison told BBC News.

“That’s where the expertise is – where the people who know these snails, love them and understand them, live and work.

“We hope we can use the genetic information that we can bring to contribute to their conservation.”

A white South African farm worker accused of killing two black women says he was forced to feed their bodies to pigs, according to lawyers.

Adrian de Wet is one of three men facing murder charges after Maria Makgato, 45, and Lucia Ndlovu, 34, were killed while allegedly looking for food on a farm near Polokwane in South Africa’s northern Limpopo province last year.

Their bodies were then alleged to have been given to pigs in an apparent attempt to dispose of the evidence.

Mr De Wet, 20, turned state witness when the trial started on Monday and says farm owner Zachariah Johannes Olivier shot and killed the two women.

Ms Makgato and Ms Ndlovu were searching for soon-to-expire dairy products which had been left for pigs when they were killed.

Mr De Wet, a supervisor on the farm, will testify that he was under duress when he was forced to throw their bodies into the pig enclosure, according to both the prosecution and his lawyer.

If the court accepts his testimony, all charges against him will be dropped.

The case has sparked outrage across South Africa, exacerbating racial tensions in the country.

Such tension is especially rife in rural areas, despite the end of the racist system of apartheid more than 30 years ago. Most private farmland remains in the hands of the white minority, while most farm workers are black and poorly paid, fuelling resentment among the black population, while many white farmers complain of high crime rates.

• South Africa outrage over farmer accused of feeding women to pigs
• Is there a genocide of white South Africans as Trump claims?

William Musora, 50, another farm worker, is the third accused. He and Mr Olivier, 60, are yet to enter a plea and remain behind bars.

The three men also face charges of attempted murder for shooting at Ms Ndlovu’s husband, who was with the women at the farm – as well as possession of an unlicensed firearm and obstructing justice for allegedly dumping the bodies in the pig enclosure in an attempt to conceal evidence.

Mr Musora, a Zimbabwean national, faces an additional charge under South Africa’s Immigration Act over his status as an illegal immigrant.

The Limpopo High Court was packed with supporters and relatives of the victims ahead of proceedings. Also present was Mr Olivier’s wife, who was seated in the front row of the public gallery and could be seen wiping away tears.

Members of opposition party Economic Freedom Fighters, which has previously called for the farm to be shut down, were also present in the courtroom.

The trial was postponed to next week.

• Tears and heartbreak over tragic story of South African girl sold by her mother
• Unpacking the South African land law that so inflames Trump
• Do Afrikaners want to take Trump up on his South African refugee offer?