In California, state of sunshine and palm trees, a small group of men are locked in a big legal fight over the money made by a US company selling Covid tests to the British government. The founder of Innova Medical Group says his business collected $2bn (£1.6bn) in profits, one of the largest fortunes banked by any medical supplier during the scramble for lifesaving equipment in the early months of the pandemic.

In a storm of claims and counter-claims, Innova’s boss, Charles Huang, is accused by former associates of “squandering” or moving $1bn of those profits, spending lavishly on luxury aircraft, an $18m house in Los Angeles and “homes for his mistresses”.

The previously little-known Chinese-American businessman’s fortune was transformed by the British taxpayer through 11 government contracts worth approximately £4.3bn for lateral flow tests (LFTs) made in China and sold by Innova. The government fast-tracked the company after its British representatives sent a direct email to Dominic Cummings, the chief adviser to the then prime minister, Boris Johnson, in July 2020. And, a Guardian investigation has found, the fast-tracking of Innova was supported by the then chancellor Rishi Sunak’s team at the Treasury.

Innova became for a period of at least four critical months the only company authorised to supply rapid Covid tests in the UK, despite scores of others developing similar kits. At the time, the government spending watchdog raised concerns, saying the lack of competition posed “risks to value for money”.

In his evidence to the Covid inquiry last October, Cummings told how he had pushed through the first Innova contract with backing from Sunak’s team. The intention was to allow the economy to reopen by providing enough kits for up to 10 million people a day to test for the disease. The mass daily testing plan, labelled “moonshot”, was met with scepticism by scientists, including Jonathan Van Tam, the then deputy chief medical officer, who has told the inquiry that he had “real doubts about whether it was workable”. The moonshot plan became part of NHS test and trace, known as the mass testing programme.

“In the autumn [of 2020],” Cummings said in his written statement, “Sunak’s team supported me with the mass testing team as we tried to overcome horrific Whitehall bureaucracy, secretly buy hundreds of millions of fast tests before other countries realised their value and there was a PPE-like panic.”

The UK Health Security Agency has confirmed in response to a freedom of information request that the “secret” buying of tests was the first contract awarded to Innova. Agreed in September 2020, it was worth £103m. The government went on to spend billions more with the company.

The information raises further questions about the UK government’s widely criticised decision-making during the pandemic, and the huge sums of public money spent after normal procurement processes were suspended. The apparent support of Sunak’s team also raises questions about how far the Treasury was involved in the government expenditure of billions of pounds on test and trace and personal protective equipment. Sunak has repeatedly presented his work during the pandemic as a landmark success, telling workers at an event on the first day of the 2024 general election campaign: “You know you can trust me when it comes to the economy: I got our country through Covid.”

‘Risks to value for money’

For Innova, landing any UK government contracts at all was an extraordinary bonanza. The company was only formed in March 2020 by Huang’s California-based financial vehicle Pasaca Capital Inc, said by some of its own investors in the legal claims to have had little money behind it. Huang, a serial entrepreneur, had limited evident success in his track record, according to the legal claims against him.

After the pandemic hit, everything changed. Another investor in Pasaca had a connection with a company in China, Xiamen Biotime Biotechnology, which like many others around the world, including some in the same city of Xiamen, was beginning to manufacture LFT kits.

Kimberley Thonger, Innova’s UK representative, who had previously worked in marketing for a series of shoe companies including Dr Martens, emailed Cummings in Downing Street in July 2020. In that email, published following a freedom of information request by the Good Law Project, Thonger promised that the tests were “a true gamechanger”. Cummings told the Covid inquiry he saw the rapid tests as key to the proposed mass daily testing that he believed could enable “superspreaders” to be isolated and so “allow most of the country to operate as normal”. He immediately referred Thonger to another Downing Street adviser who replied within an hour to tell him “we are very keen”, and introduced him to a leading civil servant. In September 2020, Innova was awarded the first UK government contract, although its test was still not evaluated. It was authorised for use by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) three months later, in December 2020.

The authorisation was based on tests carried out at the government’s high-security Porton Down laboratory, which had been asked to evaluate a number of LFTs and indicated that it had prioritised Innova’s product because contracts had already been awarded to the company. The Department of Health and Social Care identified Innova at that time as the only supplier with a validated test that could produce the large volumes needed and work flexibly.

By March 2021, Innova had already been awarded contracts worth £3.2bn, according to a critical National Audit Office report published in June of that year. The public spending watchdog noted that Innova was still “the only supplier of LFDs [lateral flow devices] for self-test approved by the MHRA”. The report warned that there were “risks to value for money due to a lack of competition and normal regulatory processes”.

Cummings said the government needed to buy these tests secretly, “without alerting the rest of the world”. But countries across Europe were already evaluating rapid tests, and Italy was using them in ports and airports from the summer of 2020. In September 2020, the World Health Organization issued guidance, noting that nearly 100 companies were developing or manufacturing rapid tests. It announced a “global partnership” to supply 120m kits to poorer countries, made by companies in the US and South Korea. In February 2021, the EU published a list of 82 different suppliers, but not including Innova or Xiamen Biotime Biotechnology.

Innova did offer to sell to other countries, but does not appear to have done so in large quantities. In a scathing report published after Innova first distributed them in the US without authorisation, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said the tests should be thrown away or returned to the company. It has repeatedly barred attempts to import the tests.

An FDA spokesperson said: “Covid-19 antigen tests produced by Xiamen Biotime Biotechnology Company are being refused admission into the US.”

Innova was included in a later edition of the EU’s approved list, among many other manufacturers, as a “B” supplier; member states were advised to use tests from the “A” list.

The UK government is said to have ordered 1.8bn tests from Innova altogether, paying the company approximately £4.3bn. In one of the legal claims against Huang, the former Innova executive Robert Kasprzak states: “Innova’s UK contracts generated substantially all [sic] of the revenue for Pasaca Group.”

In 2022, Huang was featured in a film, Asian Inspirations, saying Innova had made a profit of $2bn after tax from its Covid contracts. Huang is now contesting legal claims over those profits, from Kasprzak and Innova’s UK representatives, Thonger and Charles Palmer, claiming they should have been paid more.

Kasprzak accuses Huang of having a chequered career and few achievements of substance before Innova’s remarkable fortunes in the pandemic.

Huang is accused in the claim of being “a high-end con artist” who squandered or moved for his own use due to “incompetence, power and greed … more than $1bn of … assets generated from UK sales”. He is alleged to have lavished some of the proceeds on luxury purchases including private jets for $70m, the $18m luxury home with a swimming pool in LA known as “the CEO house”, and “homes for his mistresses”, as well as poor investments in “flailing businesses”.

Kasprzak also claims Huang was trying to secure a knighthood and working on having a film made about himself, titled Overnight Billionaire. He alleges Huang promised to buy out his shares for $75m but never did, and ultimately fired him from the company. Huang has responded by denying the claims and alleging that Kasprzak and the former Innova chief executive Daniel Elliott “stole” millions from the company. Kasprzak and Elliott deny those allegations.

The UK representatives, Thonger and Palmer, are also suing Innova in California, claiming that their company, Disruptive Nanotechnology, was due 10% commission on all UK contracts, and so they should have been paid $500m. They accuse Kasprzak and Elliott of duping them out of that commission and pocketing the money themselves. Instead of the saved commissions being used for the promised purpose, “to keep the price of Innova’s Covid-19 tests competitive”, the claim alleges, Elliott “spent tens of millions of dollars to purchase lavish properties, expensive cars, a private jet, and other luxury items”. They both deny those claims.

The disputes are all ongoing. Whatever the merits of their arguments, this fight on the US west coast is over extraordinarily large amounts of British taxpayers’ money, spent during the pandemic, with one newly formed company, for vast quantities of rapid Covid tests that it was able to deliver.

A spokesperson for Innova and Huang dismissed the allegations against him as “baseless”. Pointing to Innova’s success in being awarded the contracts and having its tests officially validated, the spokesperson said: “We were the largest supplier to the UK of Covid 19 tests for these reasons; we were cost effective – the average price of each test we provided went down on every subsequent contract and we met the significant shipping expenses to the UK ourselves each time – delivered on time and at all times met the urgent requirements of the UK government at a critically important period for the country.”

Mark Holscher, a Los Angeles attorney representing Elliott, said he “categorically denies” any claims against him, and “did not receive any improper compensation” from anybody.

“These tests saved thousands of British lives and prevented many more hospitalisations,” Holscher said, adding that it was “one of the very best performing tests that could be immediately produced and delivered at the massive scale required by the United Kingdom. Providing these tests required herculean and unmatched logistical efforts. Mr Elliott takes great pride in this accomplishment and has been lauded by the UK government for his efforts.”

An attorney representing Kasprzak said he “stands by” his legal claims, and added: “None of these US proceedings has called into question the efficacy of the tests or the UK government process. The tests saved thousands of British lives, as recognised by the UK government itself, and Mr Kasprzak is extremely proud of his role in delivering these tests to the UK.”

A spokesperson for Disruptive Nanotechnology said: “We cannot comment on ongoing legal proceedings.”

Cummings did not respond to requests for comment.

A government spokesperson said in a statement given before the general election was called: “We have always said there are lessons to be learned from the pandemic and we are committed to learning from the Covid inquiry’s findings which will play a key role in informing the government’s planning and preparations for the future. While the inquiry is ongoing, it would not be appropriate to comment.”

The Covid inquiry is due in the spring to turn its attention to the government’s multibillion-pound spending on medical supplies, including lateral flow tests, in the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic.

Benjamin Netanyahu has dissolved the Israeli war cabinet that had been overseeing the conflict in Gaza, rebuffing his far-right allies who had been seeking seats, and apparently moving to solidify his grasp on decision-making over the fighting with Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah across the Lebanese border.

The prime minister announced the move to ministers, saying the war cabinet had been established as part of an agreement in which the moderate politician Benny Gantz and his National Unity party joined an emergency coalition last year.

The disbanding of the war cabinet was confirmed by Israeli officials briefing anonymously, against a backdrop of mounting discontent over the conduct of the war in Gaza and calls from anti-government groups for a week of daily protests.

Netanyahu reportedly told ministers that the war cabinet was no longer needed following Gantz’s resignation a week ago. Gantz, one of the members of the war cabinet, quit the coalition along with Gadi Eisenkot, one of the three observers in the body.

Netanyahu is now expected to hold consultations about the Gaza war with a small group of ministers, including the defence minister, Yoav Gallant, and the strategic affairs minister, Ron Dermer, who had been in the war cabinet.

The dissolution of the war cabinet is unlikely to have any meaningful impact on the conflict – decision-making will move back to the security cabinet – but the political ramifications may be more significant.

The move appears to be a deliberate snub to Netanyahu’s far-right allies in the coalition, including the national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, who had been angling for a seat in the war cabinet since Gantz’s departure after complaining he had been sidelined for key decisions.

Reports in the Hebrew-language media suggested Netanyahu intends to make key decisions in meetings with his own advisers, excluding Ben-Gvir, before presenting them to the security cabinet.

The move comes amid divisions of opinion between Netanyahu and senior Israel Defense Forces commanders.

According to reports in the Israeli media on Monday, Netanyahu told the regular Sunday meeting of the full cabinet that “in order to reach the goal of eliminating the capabilities of Hamas, [he had] made decisions that were not always acceptable to the military echelon”, but added: “We have a country with an army and not an army with a country.”

Netanyahu’s moves suggest an increasing confidence as the prime minister’s poll numbers have improved since the departure of Gantz, which has caused the latter’s polling to decline markedly.

While Netanyahu had been under pressure from the Biden administration to maintain the war cabinet, which was viewed as a more moderate forum, some analysts saw the move as preserving the Israeli prime minister’s desire to continue with the conflict, even as he sidelined Ben-Gvir and the finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich.

The small war cabinet had been the source of friction between Netanyahu and other members, including over the issue of hostages being held in Gaza by Hamas and other groups.

However, the war cabinet had also worked effectively, meeting numerous times since Hamas’s surprise attack on southern Israel’s Gaza border communities on 7 October.

In the immediate aftermath of the dissolution of the war cabinet, the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth speculated that some key decisions would now go to an expanded cabinet, sometimes numbering 50 participants, where more hawkish voices dominate, giving Netanyahu more political cover for the continuing conflict.

When Caitlin Clark was on the receiving end of a hard foul from Angel Reese on Sunday, the sound and fury around the Indiana Fever rookie intensified once again. She has been the focus of a number of controversies lately.

After Clark was left off the USA women’s basketball Olympic team earlier this month, I raised an eyebrow myself. She’s a phenomenal player and athlete and someone who should hold the lion’s share of the credit for the WNBA’s massive increase in popularity. But, as is often the case in sports discourse, multiple things can be true at once. Clark is also an inexperienced rookie, who, aside from a few standout performances (including Sunday’s win over the Chicago Sky), has had a rocky start to her WNBA career – she leads the league in turnovers per game. And when it comes to adding her to the Olympic roster, the US selection committee would have had to alter the roles of skilled guards like Diana Taurasi and Sabrina Ionescu.

Sure, some level of head-scratching was justified. But when you look at the full picture, it’s clear why Clark was left off the Olympic roster, and any further uproar about the situation is a waste of breath. Unfortunately though, we live in a political culture that loves to waste breath.

Politicians, pundits, and fans from across the right decried the decision. Former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley took to X, as did the official account for the House Judiciary GOP, further inflaming a conversation around Clark that was already chaotic. ESPN’s Pat McAfee even invoked Clark’s race when he argued that she deserved more credit than the rest of the WNBA’s (mostly Black) rookie class for helping to popularize the sport. “Nah, just call it for what it is – there’s one white bitch for the Indiana team who is a superstar,” he said (and later apologized saying in that manner). McAfee was countering some who argued that Clark’s whiteness makes her a little more marketable than her equally talented Black peers.

And that’s not the first time race contributed to a fraught dialogue around Clark. The optics of her mostly white Iowa team facing off against Reese’s mostly Black LSU team in the 2024 Women’s NCAA basketball tournament lit a fire of racial allegiances, even prompting then-LSU star Hailey Van Lith (who is white) to speak out. “In my opinion, I know for a fact that people see us differently because we do have a lot of Black women on our team who have an attitude and like to talk trash and people feel a way about it,” said Van Lith.

But the striking thing about the strife around Caitlin Clark is that she has done nothing to provoke the controversy herself. An inherently uncontroversial figure, Clark is the personification of far-right pundit Laura Ingraham’s infamous “shut up and dribble” sentiment, which echoes a long-standing belief on the right that athletes – or the ones they disagree with anyway – should leave politics out of sports. And yet, it is those very same people who are attempting to draw Clark away from neutrality. Indiana congressman Jim Banks, for example, sent a letter to WNBA commissioner Cathy Engelbert asking her to discipline Chicago Sky guard Chennedy Carter for knocking Clark down during a game earlier this month. Like Reese’s hit on Sunday, it was a hard foul, but the idea that it needed to be escalated by an elected official is just as ridiculous as when Louisiana governor Jeff Landry proposed stripping the scholarships of LSU women’s basketball players who were not present during the national anthem at the start of one of their games. As LSU coach Kim Mulkey explained, the players only happened to miss the anthem because of a pre-game routine, but no explanation will ever be good enough for conservatives who weaponize innocuous events to make a name for themselves. Republicans are experts at opposition because it’s kind of the point of their party: to conserve or even regress on the issues that matter most to Americans. Without a sense of progress, they have resorted to self-serving stances that are increasingly desperate.

Clark appears to want to do little more than win basketball games, but she remains in the eye of the kind of political hurricane we’ve seen with activism-driven athletes like Megan Rapinoe and Colin Kaepernick. When those two kneeled during the national anthem to protest against social injustice, for example, the storm that followed was expected, even if it was unwarranted.

Clark, on the other hand, has inspired waves of bombast without actually offering much in the way of political or social opinions. She responded to being left off the Olympic roster the way any self-respecting athlete would, by essentially saying that she’d been underestimated, and expressing excitement about the prospect of making it on to the 2028 squad. And after taking a non-stance on people who have used her name to denigrate other WNBA players in racist, misogynistic, and homophobic ways, she came around later that day to speak out about the charged discourse. “People should not be using my name to push those agendas. It’s disappointing. It’s not acceptable,” she told reporters.

It’s clear that Clark wants nothing to do with anything outside of scoring a bucket. And while that is an understandable position for a 22-year-old who suddenly finds herself one of the most famous people in America, she will hopefully learn over time how to be a more conscious role model, by understanding the power she wields as a superstar athlete. But the fact that she has been at the center of so many conservative talking points speaks to a political environment on the right that is willing to make anything and everything into an issue.

Gone are the days where such controversies were born out of actual controversy. Clark lives in a country whose conservative party has simply moved on from good faith and open-mindedness. Today, political divisiveness is spread not just by media content that is incentivized to bait its audience, but also by a former President and Republican politicians who employ discord as a means to posture to their constituents and potential voters. But whatever they have to say about Clark should be taken as seriously as their takes on the Fever’s perimeter defense.

David Littleproud has claimed Australia doesn’t need “large-scale industrial windfarms” like the planned offshore zone south of Sydney, adding the Coalition will “cap” federal government investment into renewable energy if elected.

The Nationals leader visited Wollongong on Monday, where he promised the opposition would instead offer a “calm” and “methodical” energy pathway to net zero by 2050.

Littleproud offered no details of the Coalition energy plan, only conceding “it will take a little longer to get there”.

The Albanese government on Saturday gave the green light to a 1,022 sq km area, 20-km off the Illawarra coast, in the next stage to become the country’s fourth dedicated windfarm zone.

While the development over the weekend was welcomed by a number of groups, some in the community have continued to oppose offshore windfarms due to potential environmental, economic and social impacts.

The Coalition is yet to detail its full energy plan, which will include a mix of nuclear, coal, gas and renewables. Littleproud said a Coalition government would result in “no windfarm” for the Illawarra.

“We want to send the investment signals that there is a cap on where [the Coalition] will go with renewables and where we will put them,” he said.

“The Coalition isn’t against renewables, but renewables should be in an environment they can’t destroy. Why don’t we give priority to where they can make a difference and give energy independence to businesses and households, which is on rooftops where the concentration of power and population is?”

Asked why the Nationals supported an offshore windfarm in Victoria’s Gippsland, but not in the Illawarra, Littleproud said: “They are fixed in Gippsland, this is floating.”

He said, unlike the Illawarra zone, few people lived near the Gippsland site, “and the transmission lines that are required aren’t as necessary”.

Earlier on Monday , Littleproud told ABC radio the Coalition’s energy policy will show investors Australia doesn’t need “large-scale industrial windfarms, whether they be offshore or onshore”.

“From what you’ll see in our energy mix, we won’t need large-scale industrial renewable projects. So that’s in essence where we’ll get to and be very clear and upfront and we are committed to that pathway. But it won’t be a linear pathway that you’re experiencing at the moment,” he said.

“It’d be one that’ll invest in the technology that’s zero emissions and it will take a little longer to get there.”

Guardian Australia has contacted the shadow energy minister, Ted O’Brien, and the member for Gippsland, Darren Chester, for comment.

The federal energy minister, Chris Bowen, defended the Illawarra’s windfarm announcement on Monday, saying three other areas around the country had also been marked as wind energy hubs.

“It’s very energy-rich, it’s very windy off our coast, and it’s windy constantly,” he said.

“Unlike onshore wind, which is windy some of the time and not some of the time, offshore wind is pretty much always windy. During the night, during the day, all the time.”

The Clean Energy Council’s chief executive, Kane Thornton, said his group were certain Illawarra residents would prefer “wind turbines that are 20 kilometres offshore, as opposed to a nuclear reactor on their doorstep”.

“It is disappointing that the Coalition has chosen to oppose sensible policy developments such as offshore wind and instead focus on stoking division in regional communities,” he said.

“This will undermine investor confidence in infrastructure projects right across Australia.”

In a statement to Guardian Australia, Littleproud clarified the Nationals are not against renewables but preferred “common sense and sensible options”, such as solar on rooftops.

“While the Gippsland project is smaller in size, the offshore wind farm in the Illawarra will still be 1,022 square kilometres and just 20 kilometres from the coast.”

Peter Dutton, the opposition leader, has said the Coalition is looking at six or seven nuclear power sites around the country but their locations will only be revealed “at a time of our choosing”.

Dutton has also backed away from Labor’s legislated 43% emissions reduction target by 2030 as part of Australia’s commitments to the 2050 net zero agreement, warning it would “harm Australian families and businesses in the interim”.

Beavers reintroduced to a Scottish rainforest 15 years ago may have created the right habitat for the area’s endangered water voles to flourish.

The voles, once abundant in Scotland but now one of the country’s most threatened native animals, could thrive in the “complex boundary between water and land” that beavers have created in Knapdale in Argyll and Bute since their reintroduction there in 2009.

The beavers’ dam-building in the forest has led to the creation of a new habitat along the banks of watercourses, where water voles can dig burrows hidden from predatory mink.

John Taylor, the west region area wildlife manager for Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS), which manages the Knapdale forests, said: “Aside from flooding a few places, the biggest impact we’ve seen from the beavers is creating a new habitat along watercourses. They’ve increased what we call edge habitat: instead of a harsh change from water to land, the edges along the burns and lochs are softened and seasonally flooded.

“This more complex boundary between water and land could be excellent for water voles.”

He added: “One of water voles’ main predators is mink. If you have a very simple burn or loch, it’s easy for mink to find the water voles’ burrows – and the female mink is small enough to get right inside. The Knapdale beavers have blurred the boundaries between water and land, which means more places for water voles to hide and hopefully flourish.”

Pete Creech, a wildlife ranger at the Heart of Argyll Wildlife Organisation, which is working with the FLS in the initial stage of the reintroduction of water voles, said beavers were better engineers than humans when it came to creating wetlands.

“The human creation of wetlands is an extremely costly undertaking and, frankly, we’re not as good at it as beavers.” He added that water voles were themselves “eco-engineers” that could in turn create conditions for wildflowers to flourish.

“Water voles and beavers are complementary species and, in their own way, the voles are as busy eco-engineers as their bigger cousins. Their nibbling of sedges and grasses provides space for a greater diversity of wildflowers, while their burrowing shifts soil nutrients to the surface, increasing their accessibility for plant growth.”

Beavers were hunted to extinction in the 16th century before being reintroduced.

Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has reportedly criticised plans announced by the military to hold daily tactical pauses in fighting along one of the main roads into Gaza to facilitate the delivery of aid

On Sunday the military announced a daily pause that would begin in the Rafah area at 8am and remain in effect until 7pm along the main Salah al-Din road, to allow aid trucks to transit between the Kerem Shalom crossing from Israel, adding that the pause would take place every day until further notice.

“When the prime minister heard the reports of an 11-hour humanitarian pause in the morning, he turned to his military secretary and made it clear that this was unacceptable to him,” an unnamed Israeli official told media late on Sunday.

The official said Netanyahu received assurances that “there is no change” in the military’s policy and “fighting in Rafah continues as planned”.

Israeli television stations later quoted Netanyahu as criticising the military, saying: “We have a country with an army, not an army with a country.”

The military clarified that normal operations would continue in Rafah, the main focus of its operation in southern Gaza, where eight soldiers were killed on Saturday. However the reaction from Netanyahu underlined political tensions over the issue of aid coming into Gaza, where international organisations have warned of a growing humanitarian crisis.

National security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, who leads one of the nationalist religious parties in Netanyahu’s ruling coalition, denounced the idea of a tactical pause, saying whoever decided it was a “fool” who should lose their job.

The spat is the latest in a series of clashes between members of the coalition and the military over the conduct of the war, now in its ninth month, and comes a week after centrist former general Benny Gantz quit the government, accusing Netanyahu of having no effective strategy in Gaza.

The limited pause was announced after talks with Egypt and pressure from the US to increase the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza. The IDF said the pause was being coordinated with the UN and international aid agencies.

“We welcome this announcement,” said Jens Laerke, a spokesperson for the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). However, he added: “This has yet to translate into more aid reaching people in need.

On Sunday, US president Joe Biden used his Eid al-Adha message to Muslims to push his US-backed ceasefire deal in Gaza, saying it was the best way to help civilians suffering the “horrors of war between Hamas and Israel.”

“Too many innocent people have been killed, including thousands of children. Families have fled their homes and seen their communities destroyed. Their pain is immense,” Biden said in a statement.

The US has been pressing Israel and Hamas to formally accept the ceasefire deal, backed by security council members last week, which would allow an initial six-week pause to fighting.

But despite the growing international pressure for a truce, an agreement still appears distant.

Although opinion polls suggest most Israelis support the government’s aim of destroying Hamas, there have been widespread protests attacking the government for not doing more to bring home about 120 hostages who are still in Gaza after being taken hostage on 7 October.

Agence France-Presse, Reuters and Associated Press contributed to this report

Serbia (3-5-1-1)

Predrag Rajkovic (GK) No chance with England’s goal. Denied Alexander-Arnold before making a stunning save from Kane. 7

Milos Veljkovic (RCB) England’s left-sided problems meant the defender had a quiet night. Was able to step forward. 6

Nikola Milenkovic (CB) Too deep when England broke through in the 13th minute. Unable to cope with Bellingham’s charge. 6

Strahinja Pavlovic (LCB) Struggled when isolated against Saka at first. Warmed to the challenge after half-time. Decent display. 6

Andrija Zivkovic (RWB) A lively presence who delivered some teasing crosses. England kept a close eye on him. 6

Nemanja Gudelj (CM) Evening summed up when he hurt himself fouling Bellingham. Booked and removed at half-time. 4

Sasa Lukic (CM) Reduced to fouling Bellingham at times. Nowhere to be seen when England went ahead. Substituted. 5

Sergej Milinkovic-Savic (CM) Caused problems when he moved into a higher position in the second half. Clever player. 6

Filip Kostic (LWB) Often caught high, leaving Saka free to roam forward. Forced off with an early injury. 5

Dusan Vlahovic (AM) On the periphery for long spells but flashed a dangerous ball across goal. Almost equalised. 6

Aleksandar Mitrovic (CF) The big striker fired Serbia’s best chance wide. Appealed in vain for a penalty. Ineffective. 5

Substitutes: Filip Mladenovic (for Kostic, 43): Worried England with driving runs down the left. 7; Ivan Ilic (for Gudelj, ht): Helped Serbia take control of the game. 7; Dusan Tadic (for Mitrovic, 61): Huge cheer when he came on. Made a difference. 7; Luka Jovic (for Lukic, 61): The striker was thrown on as Serbia chased an equaliser. 6; Veljko Birmancevic (for Zivkovic, 74): 6

England (4-3-3)

Jordan Pickford (GK) Earned England victory with a save from Vlahovic. Stayed focused, kicked well. One nervy punch. 7

Kyle Walker (RB) Breakthrough stemmed from his piercing pass. Missed a chance to make it 2-0. Defended well. 7

John Stones (CB) Looked sharp after recovering from illness and shaking off an ankle injury. Composed as ever. 8

Marc Guéhi (CB) Strong and snappy on his tournament debut. Harry Maguire’s inexperienced replacement made some important blocks. 8

Kieran Trippier (LB) Solid defensively but reluctance to use his left foot hindered England. Required treatment late on. 6

Trent Alexander-Arnold (CM) Pressed well in first half but lucky Mitrovic did not punish a mistake. Lacked control. 6

Declan Rice (CM) Unselfish and positionally aware. Made interceptions and always seemed to be in the right place. 8

Jude Bellingham (CM) Dominated the big stage. Surged in for 1-0 and also worked hard off the ball. 8 MOTM

Bukayo Saka (RW) Zipped down the right to cross for Bellingham’s goal. Dangerous dribbling. But he tired. 7

Harry Kane (CF) Little service. Few touches but almost headed in the second. Wasted time by winning free-kicks. 6

Phil Foden (LW) Drifted inside to link the play but got crowded out. Questions remain over his international form. 5

Substitutes: Conor Gallagher (for Alexander-Arnold, 69): Came on with England’s midfield toiling. 6; Jarrod Bowen (for Saka, 76): Immediately made a chance for Kane. 6; Kobbie Mainoo (for Bellingham, 86): A late replacement as England shut up shop. 6

England are up and running. Again. It has been a happy feature of the Gareth Southgate years that his team always win their opening game at tournaments. It never used to be the case with England but to the list that features Tunisia, Croatia and Iran can be added the name of Serbia.

It was a nervy second half, a stark contrast to the enjoyment and expression of the first, which had been epitomised by Jude Bellingham, whose early bullet header would prove decisive. England dropped deep, stirring a few uncomfortable memories but trusting their ability to hold an extremely physical Serbia at bay.

There were periods when England struggled to get out, their passing options were restricted and it was easy to fret. Serbia pushed. And yet in the final analysis, Jordan Pickford was not overly tested, the goalkeeper’s only big save being the tip-over from Dusan Vlahovic’s drive on 82 minutes.

It was the players in front of him who put in the hard yards, who brought the resilience, particularly the central defenders, John Stones and Marc Guéhi. Their only previous appearances together for England had been in the home defeats by Hungary and Iceland. This was much better.

Bellingham had been the star turn before the interval, a heady mix of aggression and incision, and even though the team performance was far from perfect, the result meant everything. The pre-tournament worries had been numerous. Fitness. Players out of position. The burden of favouritism. England have a basis from which to build.

Southgate’s midfield was always going to be a subplot and it was effective in the first half, Phil Foden’s licence to drift into central areas from the left pronounced. Bellingham was the No 10. He was also the left-sided No 8. He dropped deep at times. But it was when he attacked the six-yard box in the 13th minute that he gave England the start they had dreamed about.

The celebratory pose was familiar, Bellingham standing with his arms outstretched, and what a header it was, loaded with raw aggression but control, too. Trent Alexander-Arnold had found Kyle Walker and it was the right-back who ignited the move, ushering in Bukayo Saka up the right. Across came Strahinja Pavlovic, intent on taking man, ball, either, both. He got a bit of the ball when Saka crossed, affecting the flight. Bellingham read it, surging inside Andrija Zivkovic to plant the header high into the net.

Serbia gave no quarter, leaving plenty on England in the challenges, Bellingham feeling a few in the first half. It seemed to fire him up even more. He was in the mood and he decorated the first half with some wonderful moments. How about the side-on volleyed crossfield pass with the outside of his right boot? Or the shoulder drop, the surge upfield, the riding of a challenge and then another thrilling run? It looked as though he was in the playground.

Alexander-Arnold had a few nice moments before the interval but he also had a very bad one when his loose touch allowed Zivkovic to supply Aleksandar Mitrovic for a meaty drive that flew wide. ­Alexander-Arnold was a mixed bag and Southgate replaced him with Conor Gallagher in the second half.

Saka menaced up the right with his quick feet and explosive acceleration. He had the beating of his man and he also released Walker for a run after Alexander-Arnold had stretched to make an interception. Walker’s low cross was just in front of Foden.

Serbia pushed higher from the restart, especially the wing-backs in their 5-3-2 system. Sergej Milinkovic-Savic, the dangerman midfielder, was given greater scope. Dusan Tadic came off the bench. This Serbia team usually score. Their support turned up the decibel levels. The tension was extraordinary.

A detail from the first period was that Kane touched the ball only twice. The captain was more prominent after the interval, although much of his work was more akin to wrestling in his efforts to hold the ball up, to give England an outlet.

Serbia knocked England out of their stride and it was alarming to see Southgate’s players sink back. They invited pressure and Serbia were close to getting in on goal, Pickford diving in on one occasion to grab the ball in front of Mitrovic.

The second half was not a siege of the England goal but it had some of the trappings of one. Serbia made it uncomfortable. Southgate introduced Jarrod Bowen for Saka and the substitute did well, crossing for Kane to extend Predrag Rajkovic with a header. It was a brilliant save from the goalkeeper, who was able to tip the  ball up against the crossbar and away.

It was at the other end where ­England had to get it right. Pickford’s save from Vlahovic was a good one and when Kane made a clearing header to repel a shot from the substitute Veljko Birmancevic it was an example of all hands to the pump. But England did enough.

A missing US tourist has been found dead on a beach on a small Greek island west of Corfu, local media reported.

The body of the man was found Sunday on a rocky, fairly remote beach on the island of Mathraki by another tourist. He had been reported missing Thursday by his host, a Greek American friend. The tourist had last been seen Tuesday at a cafe in the company of two female tourists who have since left the island.

No further details about the victim, including a name or hometown, were immediately available.

Mathraki, which has a population of 100, is a 3.9 sq km (1.2 sq mile) heavily wooded island, west of the better-known island of Corfu.

This was the latest in a string of recent cases in which tourists on the Greek islands have died or gone missing. Some, if not all, had set out on hikes in very hot temperatures.

The body of a 74-year-old Dutch tourist was found by a fire department drone on Saturday lying face down in a ravine about 300 meters (330 yards) from the spot where he was last observed last Sunday, walking with some difficulty in the blistering heat.

Dr Michael Mosley, a noted British television presenter and author, was found dead last Sunday on the island of Symi. A coroner concluded that he had died the previous Wednesday, shortly after going for a hike over difficult, rocky terrain.

On Friday, two French tourists were reported missing on Sikinos, a relatively secluded Cyclades island in the Aegean Sea, with less than 400 permanent residents.

The two women, ages 64 and 73, had left their respective hotels to meet.

On the island of Amorgos, also in the Cyclades, authorities are still searching for a 59-year-old tourist reported missing since Tuesday, when he had gone on a solo hike in very hot conditions. US media identified that missing tourist as retired Los Angeles county deputy sheriff Albert Calibet of Hermosa Beach, California.

The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating after a Southwest Airlines flight reportedly plunged to “within 400ft” of the Pacific Ocean during a flight.

A memo distributed to Southwest pilots, obtained by Bloomberg, said that the Boeing 737 Max 8 plunged at a rate of 4,000ft a minute off the coast of Hawaii, coming within hundreds of feet of the ocean before climbing to safety.

News of the incident comes as investigators said a Southwest-operated Boeing 737 Max 8 sustained significant damage after it did a “Dutch roll” during a flight from Phoenix to Oakland in May.

The plunge off the coast of Hawaii occurred on 11 April, amid adverse weather conditions. The plane had been flying from Honolulu to Lihue when it experienced the rapid descent, Bloomberg reported. The report said the descent took the plane to about 400 feet above the ocean, according to data from a flight tracking website.

No one was injured. “Nothing is more important to Southwest than Safety,” the airline said in a statement provided to media outlets. Through our robust Safety Management System, the event was addressed appropriately as we always strive for continuous improvement.”

The FAA told CNN that it learned of the incident immediately and opened an investigation. The plane eventually re-routed to Honolulu.

In the separate incident, on Friday Bloomberg reported that a Boeing 737 Max suffered damage to parts of the plane’s structure after it went into a “Dutch roll” during a Southwest Airlines flight in May.

The incident happened as the jet cruised at 34,000 ft from Arizona to California. Associated Press reported that the plane landed safely, but said Southwest did not notify the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) about the roll or damage to the jetliner until 7 June.

“Following the event, SWA performed maintenance on the airplane and discovered damage to structural components,” the NTSB said.

A dutch roll occurs when the plane’s tail slides from side to side, and the plane rocks in a way that causes the wings to roll up and down.

A report by the FAA said that “substantial” damage was discovered to a unit that controls backup power to the plane’s rudder. It is unclear what triggered the incident, which was the latest to involve a Boeing 737 Max aircraft.

In January the FAA ordered nearly 200 Boeing 737 Max 9 to stop flying after a chunk of fuselage blew out of the plane mid-flight. The planes were allowed to return to the air after undergoing an expansive inspection and maintenance process.

Last year Southwest agreed to pay a record-setting $140m civil penalty after a December 2022 holiday meltdown left 2 million passengers stranded at airports around the US. The airline canceled 8,000 flights over a four-day period, following a winter storm.

The US Department of Transportation found that Southwest violated consumer protection laws by failing to provide adequate customer service assistance “via its call center to hundreds of thousands of customers”, as well as failing to provide prompt flight status notifications to more than 1 million passengers and prompt refunds to thousands.