Global Pulse

博客

  • Trump’s former campaign manager running multimillion dollar pro-Israel influencer campaign: Report

    Trump’s former campaign manager running multimillion dollar pro-Israel influencer campaign: Report

    A bombshell new report from Time Magazine published Tuesday has uncovered that a covert social media initiative designed to undermine U.S. President Donald Trump’s ceasefire agreement with Iran was orchestrated by Brad Parscale, Trump’s former 2020 campaign manager.

    The operation was launched under a broader contract between Parscale’s private strategic firm Clock Tower X and global advertising giant Havas, which was acting on behalf of the Israeli government. While the public mandate for the work framed it as an effort to counter antisemitism online, Time’s investigation reveals the unstated core goal was to stop rising criticism of Israel among young American conservative audiences.

    Parscale exploited his senior leadership role as chief strategy officer at Salem Media Group, a conservative and Christian-focused national media conglomerate, to narrow his targeting to right-leaning young voters across the United States. He also tapped into a network of social media companies he founded or controls, including digital strategy firm Campaign Nucleus and influencer marketing platform Influenceable, to recruit conservative content creators and online personalities to join the campaign.

    In private encrypted group chats, these recruited influencers received guided messaging instructions tailored for major platforms including X, Instagram and TikTok, all crafted to align with Israeli government interests. Content creators were paid based on the performance of their posts, with compensation tied directly to the number of impressions and user engagement their content generated, according to Time’s reporting.

    Previous influencer campaigns run through Influenceable structured payments with a $2,250 base fee per post, plus an additional $1 for every 1,000 views earned, capped at two million views per post. Under this payment structure, top-performing influencers could walk away with as much as $4,250 for a single social media post.

    One high-profile conservative pro-Israel commentator linked to the campaign is Eyal Yakoby, who boasts 300,000 followers on X and has appeared as a guest on major U.S. outlets including Fox News, CNN and The Washington Post. Yakoby, a vocal public supporter of Israel, maintains his work is focused on combating antisemitism, but he has also spread unsubstantiated claims tying New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani to the Muslim Brotherhood. When contacted by Time, Yakoby denied ever being paid to promote opinions he did not personally hold.

    Parscale committed to delivering a minimum of 50 million monthly digital impressions through the campaign, with a stated goal of shifting how major artificial intelligence platforms including OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Google’s Gemini characterize Israel and the ongoing Israel-Hamas war. For this work, the Israeli government pays Clock Tower X $1.5 million every month. All of Parscale’s work for the Israeli government has been formally registered as required under the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act, a public disclosure requirement for foreign political actors operating in the United States. Prior reporting from The Intercept in May 2026 first revealed that Parscale’s firm had been hired by Israel for $6 million in September 2025, before signing a subsequent $15 million contract with Havas.

    While the campaign itself has been active for months, Tuesday’s Time report carries new significance because it confirms that a close former ally of President Trump was actively working to sink a core foreign policy initiative of the Trump administration. The magazine notes that U.S. officials had already observed a coordinated wave of anti-ceasefire rhetoric on social media, though they had not previously confirmed the origin of the coordinated effort.

    Measuring the campaign’s overall effectiveness remains an open question. Israel has seen consistent erosion in public support across all demographic groups in the U.S. since it launched its military campaign in Gaza following the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack that killed roughly 1,200 people in southern Israel. The Israeli military campaign in Gaza has killed more than 34,000 Palestinians to date, and widespread criticism of the operation as a humanitarian catastrophe has shifted public opinion across the political spectrum.

    Even prominent conservative voices have broken with the Israeli government in recent months: long-time mainstream conservative commentator Tucker Carlson and former Trump chief strategist Steve Bannon have both publicly condemned Israel for dragging the United States into unnecessary conflict in the Middle East. Conservative comedian and podcaster Dave Smith has also built a large new audience for his sharp criticism of U.S. intervention in the region and Israel’s military actions in the besieged Gaza Strip.

    Polling reflects this shifting opinion: a Quinnipiac University poll released last month found that 60 percent of U.S. voters believe potential U.S. military action against Iran would not be worth the cost.

    This reporting was aggregated from original independent coverage by Middle East Eye, a publication that produces on-the-ground, independent reporting and analysis of the Middle East, North Africa and surrounding regions.

  • Authorities across country meet heat wave threat head-on

    Authorities across country meet heat wave threat head-on

    A relentless, extreme heat wave has descended across large swathes of central, western and northern China, prompting top national regulators to issue the country’s first national heat health risk warning of 2026 on Tuesday. The joint alert from the National Disease Control and Prevention Administration and the China Meteorological Administration has been matched by rapid, targeted action from local governments, which have rolled out comprehensive measures to mitigate heat-related public health risks, stabilize critical power infrastructure, and adjust tourism operations to protect visitor safety.

    A broad group of regions have been classified as red alert zones, marking the highest level of heat-related health danger. These at-risk areas span central Hubei Province, north-central Hunan Province, central Guizhou Province, central and southeastern Chongqing, central and eastern Sichuan Province, southeastern Henan Province, southern Anhui Province, northwest Gansu Province, central Shaanxi Province, and sections of Inner Mongolia and the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region.

    Chongqing became one of the hardest-hit jurisdictions, with the city’s Meteorological Observatory issuing its first red heat warning of the year early Tuesday that covered all 31 of the city’s districts and counties. Forecasters project peak daily temperatures in the region will climb to between 40°C and 42°C. In response, Chongqing’s housing and urban-rural development commission has enacted strict mandatory safety rules for outdoor construction work: all exterior construction activities must be paused when daily high temperatures reach or exceed 40°C to prevent life-threatening heatstroke among workers. To expand free cooling access for local residents, 44 decommissioned civil air defense facilities across 11 Chongqing districts have been converted into public cooling shelters and opened at no cost.

    Neighboring Hubei Province issued a provincial-level orange heat warning Tuesday morning, with forecasts calling for temperatures to surpass 40°C in parts of Shiyan, Enshi and Yichang on Wednesday. The sustained extreme heat has triggered a dramatic spike in electricity demand as residents run air conditioning and other cooling systems. By 2 p.m. Tuesday, the total load on Wuhan’s power grid hit an all-time record of more than 18.3 million kilowatts, though local power providers confirmed that supply remained stable and adequate to meet demand. State Grid Wuhan Power Supply Company projects the city’s peak summer power load could climb above 19 million kilowatts before the heat wave eases.

    Anhui Province is bracing for a unique mix of extreme heat paired with intermittent heavy rainfall over the coming days, according to provincial meteorological forecasts. By 3 p.m. Tuesday, local weather agencies across Anhui had already issued 41 separate heat alerts, with Qingyang and Jingxian counties upgrading their warnings to orange level, signaling expected highs above 37°C within a 24-hour window.

    Across all heat-affected regions, officials have put in place social safety and public health protections: mandatory heat allowances are being distributed to workers required to perform their duties in high temperatures, particularly outdoor laborers. Hospitals have established fast-track green channels specifically for heatstroke patients to speed up access to urgent care, while local community health centers are running targeted public education campaigns focused on high-risk groups: the elderly, children, and outdoor workers.

    As rising temperatures drive increased demand for cool getaways, tourism authorities have also implemented new safety protocols to protect visitors. In Dunhuang, Gansu Province, the popular Mingsha Mountain and Crescent Spring Scenic Area has deployed a dedicated professional emergency rescue team that can reach any ailing visitor anywhere in the site within 10 minutes, according to Zhao Suling, manager of the scenic area’s tourist center. In Xi’an, Shaanxi Province, regional tourism officials have advised all scenic spots to adjust public visiting hours, launch early-morning and after-dark entry programs, and reschedule open-air performance events to avoid the hottest parts of the day.

  • Saudi Arabia grants amnesty to almost 2,000 detained Ethiopians

    Saudi Arabia grants amnesty to almost 2,000 detained Ethiopians

    In a development that comes after widespread public reporting on the dire conditions of Ethiopian prisoners in the kingdom, Saudi Arabian authorities have issued royal amnesties for 1,971 Ethiopian nationals held in detention, Ethiopia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced in an official statement released Monday. In the wake of the amnesty grant, Ethiopian officials have already launched logistical and diplomatic efforts to facilitate the safe repatriation of these released citizens back to their home country.

    The announcement follows an investigative series published by Middle East Eye (MEE) in early July that shed light on the crisis facing hundreds of Ethiopian detainees, many of whom are currently awaiting execution on death row in Saudi facilities. Most of the detained Ethiopians were arrested on low-level drug charges linked to khat, a mild stimulant widely consumed across East Africa that is classified as an illegal controlled substance under Saudi law.

    Ethiopia’s foreign ministry attributed the amnesty grant to years of sustained diplomatic and consular engagement between the two nations. Officials confirmed that the government remains in close, active coordination with Saudi authorities on all issues impacting Ethiopian residents in the kingdom, including those still involved in ongoing legal and judicial proceedings. The statement added that diplomatic discussions are taking place at the highest levels of government, underscoring the priority Addis Ababa places on protecting its citizens abroad. MEE has requested comment from the Ethiopian foreign ministry to confirm the exact date the royal amnesties were issued, and has not yet received a response.

    Currently, hundreds of Ethiopian death row prisoners are held in Saudi Arabia’s Khamis Mushait detention center alone. Data from a recent Amnesty International report shows that Saudi authorities have executed nearly 100 people since the start of 2024, with at least 61 of those executions carried out for drug-related offenses. Executions in Saudi Arabia are most commonly performed by beheading with a sword.

    Multiple detained Ethiopians have shared accounts of abusive treatment at the hands of Saudi security forces. Hailay Berhane, an Ethiopian migrant from the conflict-affected Tigray region currently held in Khamis Mushait, told MEE via the Imo messaging app that he and other detainees were forced to sign Arabic-language legal documents they could not read, and that many have faced physical violence during interrogations. “They handed me 41kg of drugs and forced me to say it was mine, then made me sign papers I couldn’t understand a word of,” Berhane recalled of his arrest by Saudi security officers three years ago.

    The broader crisis of Ethiopian migration to Saudi Arabia is rooted in deep-seated instability at home. Sky-high youth unemployment, a war-ravaged national economy, and years of recurring armed conflict have pushed tens of thousands of young Ethiopians—disproportionately from the Tigray region—to undertake the dangerous irregular journey to Saudi Arabia, where they seek viable employment opportunities to support their families.

    “Political instability, armed conflict and economic collapse are the core drivers pushing Ethiopian youth into these dangerous paths,” explained Yared Hailemariam, a leading Ethiopian human rights researcher. “To make matters worse, many young people are forcibly conscripted into military forces to fight in both internal conflicts and cross-border wars, leaving flight as one of the only options to escape violence.”

    Once in Saudi Arabia, many migrants find themselves trapped by the kingdom’s strict legal system: they run afoul of harsh drug laws, are wrongfully framed for offenses they did not commit, or are coerced into signing false confessions that carry the death penalty. For families back in Ethiopia, the grief of losing a loved one to execution is devastating. Gebremariam Gebrezgiabher, whose son Kibrom was executed in Saudi Arabia, described the lasting toll of his son’s death in an interview with MEE. “It is unimaginable how hard it was to hear the news of my son’s death, especially the way he was killed,” he said. “A part of me died with him that day.”

  • Church of England votes to hear Palestinian Christians on Israeli genocide in Gaza

    Church of England votes to hear Palestinian Christians on Israeli genocide in Gaza

    In a landmark decision that breaks with longstanding norms in Western religious discourse, the Church of England’s legislative body, the General Synod, has voted to advance a motion calling on English congregations and church institutions to listen directly to the experiences of Palestinian Christians, overriding fierce opposition from pro-Israel groups that sought to block consideration of the community’s claims about Israeli “settler colonialism” and an “apartheid system”.

    The approved motion, amended during Monday’s deliberations, centers on engagement with testimonies compiled by Kairos Palestine, a Palestinian Christian grassroots movement. The revised text swapped the original word “receive” for “hear”, explicitly clarifying that the church does not require its members or institutions to endorse every claim laid out in the group’s latest document, Kairos II. The motion frames the text as a sincere reflection of the lived trauma of Palestinian Christians under occupation, and calls on the global Anglican community to stand in solidarity with Palestinians engaged in nonviolent resistance to Israeli occupation. It also explicitly condemns antisemitism, anti-Muslim bigotry, and all other forms of religious and ethnic prejudice.

    Formally titled *A Moment of Truth: Faith in a Time of Genocide*, Kairos II was published in November by Palestinian Christian clergy and lay leaders, drafted in direct response to Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, escalating settler violence and forced displacement across the occupied West Bank. The document labels Israel a colonial project waging a genocidal war on Gaza, and calls for global grassroots action including boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaigns to pressure the Israeli government. It also rejects Christian Zionism as a theological framework rooted in racism, colonialism, and ethnic supremacy, stating that any just resolution requires dismantling the settler colonial structure and apartheid system enshrined in Israel’s Nation-State Law, which enshrines Jewish supremacy.

    The framing used in Kairos II aligns with findings from multiple prominent independent and international bodies: a United Nations commission of inquiry, global human rights group Amnesty International, and leading Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem have all concluded that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza and carrying out ethnic cleansing in the occupied West Bank.

    The Archbishop of Canterbury, Sarah Mullally, who publicly backed the motion following a fact-finding visit to the region in June, addressed the Synod to emphasize the urgency of listening to Palestinian voices. “The fear was palpable among everyone we met, Palestinian and Israeli. From Gaza to the north of Israel, from southern Lebanon to the West Bank, people across the region are traumatized by ongoing conflicts,” she said. Noting that the Kairos II document directly mirrors the pain and suffering of the Palestinian people, Mullally argued that the church has a moral obligation to hold difficult conversations and cross deep divides to engage with lived experience. “I am a pastor, not a politician. When I say the Palestinian people deserve their freedom, that is not a political statement, but a moral and spiritual one,” she added. “Put simply, Palestine, which the British government recognised last year, is disappearing.”

    For Palestinian Christian leaders, the vote marks a historic break from decades of Western religious institutions sidelining Palestinian Christian voices in conversations about the Middle East conflict. Munther Isaac, a prominent Palestinian Christian pastor based in the occupied West Bank, called the decision “a very positive sign and an important step forward” in an interview with Middle East Eye. “Kairos Palestine does speak of genocide, but it is hardly alone in doing so. We should not forget the many credible, extensive, and detailed reports that have reached the same conclusion or raised the gravest concerns about genocide in Gaza,” he said. “In this regard, the Church is simply being true to its calling: to engage seriously with what is happening in the world, with what its own members are wrestling with and speaking about, and with what its Palestinian Christian siblings are calling for.”

    The Synod’s vote drew immediate and fierce pushback from pro-Israel groups and leaders across the United Kingdom. Phil Rosenberg, president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, called the motion “highly problematic”, claiming Kairos II contains “falsehoods and distortions”. Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis described the decision as “shameful” and “a sad day for Jewish-Christian relations”. Isaac noted that the backlash was predictable, but criticized opponents for focusing on the language of the document rather than the atrocities that prompted its creation. “But it is shameful that they seem more concerned about the Church receiving and engaging with a document from Palestinian Christians than they are about the crimes and genocide itself. It is also very telling how easily they dismiss the entire question of genocide, despite the overwhelming body of credible reports and evidence,” he said.

    The pushback comes amid a documented rise in attacks on Christian communities and property across Israel and occupied Palestinian territories. The Rossing Centre for Education and Dialogue recorded 155 separate anti-Christian incidents in 2025 alone, including 61 physical assaults, 52 attacks on church infrastructure, 28 cases of harassment, and 14 incidents of vandalism. The centre warns that the recorded figures represent only the “tip of the iceberg”, with many incidents going unreported. Violence targeting Christian sites has also extended beyond Palestinian territories: Israeli forces in southern Lebanon have damaged church buildings, bulldozed part of a Catholic convent, and released footage of soldiers desecrating religious statues of Jesus and the Virgin Mary.

    Isaac called on global church leaders to follow the Church of England’s lead, and to amplify the growing number of Jewish voices that oppose the war in Gaza and criticize Israeli policies. “It is long overdue for church leaders around the world to listen more carefully to the growing number of Jewish voices who oppose the genocide and speak critically of Zionism and the State of Israel. These are important voices for genuine dialogue today,” he said. Addressing the common claim that criticism of Israel amounts to antisemitism, Isaac added: “Criticism of Israel must not be confused with antisemitism. Yet this remains a repeated tactic among some of those who opposed the vote, and I believe people are increasingly fed up with attempts to equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism. Such accusations should not be used to silence legitimate moral, theological and political criticism.”

  • Brazil registered zero direct oil exports to Israel in 2025 in victory for boycott campaign

    Brazil registered zero direct oil exports to Israel in 2025 in victory for boycott campaign

    Newly released official data confirms that Brazil shipped no crude oil directly to Israel in 2025, a milestone that pro-boycott activists are calling a tangible win for grassroots pressure aimed at holding the South American nation accountable to international obligations amid escalating tensions over Israel’s military actions in Gaza.

    Data published in the 2026 Statistical Yearbook from Brazil’s National Petroleum Agency (ANP), which was released publicly in late June, verifies that no direct crude oil shipments from Brazil to Israel were recorded last calendar year. The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, a leading group advocating for economic pressure on Israel over its treatment of Palestinians, has attributed the shift to coordinated campaigning targeting both the Brazilian federal government and the country’s leading energy corporations.

    In a public social media statement, the movement welcomed the end of direct exports as a meaningful step toward reducing Brazil’s complicity in what the International Court of Justice has labeled a plausible risk of genocide in Gaza. The statement emphasized that sustained organizing from grassroots community groups and national trade unions has successfully pushed Brazilian leadership to align its trade practices with its public rhetorical commitments to international law.

    Despite celebrating the breakthrough, BDS activists were quick to note that the zero-direct-export mark only closes one pathway for Brazilian oil to reach Israel. ‘The direct route is closed, but the back door isn’t,’ the group acknowledged, indicating that indirect shipments via third-party re-exports still allow Brazilian crude to enter Israeli markets. The movement added that it would continue its pressure campaign, framing the 2025 result as one incremental step toward a full embargo.

    Recent trade data from clean energy advocacy organization Oil Change International contextualizes the shift: before 2025, Brazil had rapidly grown into one of Israel’s top crude suppliers. As recently as mid-2004, Brazil ranked as Israel’s fifth-largest crude provider, covering 9% of the country’s total crude import demand. Even amid a sharp diplomatic fallout in 2024, Brazil climbed to become Israel’s fourth-largest crude exporter that year, still holding a 9% share of Israeli imports, according to Oil Change International’s analysis.

    The diplomatic rift between Brasília and Tel Aviv widened dramatically in February 2024, when Israeli officials designated Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva persona non grata after Lula publicly accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza and compared Israeli military operations to the Nazi Holocaust during World War II. Since that breakdown, bilateral relations have remained frozen: in July 2025, Brazil formally announced its diplomatic backing for South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice, and recalled its ambassador to Israel in a sign of protest.

    Brazil’s state-owned energy giant Petrobras, which dominates the country’s crude export sector, has long maintained that it does not directly sell crude to Israeli buyers. The company has repeatedly stated that it only sells crude to international refineries, and claims it has no oversight or control over the final destination of products refined from its crude.

    The push for a full national embargo gained formal trade union backing in May 2025, when two of Brazil’s largest oil worker federations submitted an open letter to the federal government. The letter cited Lula’s own sharp public criticism of Israel and urged the administration to implement a formal embargo on all Brazilian oil exports to Israel, regardless of shipping route. To date, the federations have not received any official response from the government.

    BDS has argued that even indirect shipments via third countries still place Brazil under international legal responsibility for enabling Israel’s military campaign. ‘Under international law, a state’s responsibility is determined by its knowledge and its material contribution to the supply, not by the route the shipment takes,’ the movement stated. The group has vowed to continue organizing until all Brazilian crude, whether shipped directly or indirectly, is barred from reaching Israeli markets.

  • Argentina v England in the World Cup: much more than just a game

    Argentina v England in the World Cup: much more than just a game

    When Argentina takes on England in the 2026 World Cup semi-final in Atlanta, Georgia, the fixture carries far more meaning than 90 minutes of soccer for millions of Argentines. From the 1982 Falklands War to Diego Maradona’s legendary controversial 1986 World Cup moments, decades of shared history have turned this rivalry into something that extends far beyond the white lines of the pitch.

    The core of this layered history lies in the dispute over the South Atlantic archipelago Argentina calls the Malvinas, a territory claimed by Argentina but controlled by the United Kingdom since the 19th century. The 1982 war over the islands left 649 Argentines and 255 Britons dead, ending in a British victory that still stings for many in Argentina. Today, the claim to the Malvinas is enshrined in Argentina’s constitution, taught in every national school textbook, and woven into daily life through murals, tattoos, and place names honoring the disputed territory. In a deeply politically divided country, the national football team and the Malvinas claim remain two of the only unifying issues that bridge left-right divides.

    This historical weight is captured in Argentina’s 2026 World Cup anthem *La Cuarta Estrella*, which puts the Malvinas at the top of its rallying cries: “For Malvinas, for Diego, for Leo’s last, Argentina, I want to see you double world champions.” The anticipation has gripped the nation, with ordinary fans saying the excitement has crowded out all other thoughts. Thirty-three-year-old teacher Ezequiel Murmis told AFP, “I’m going crazy, I haven’t slept, I can’t think of anything else,” after attending a screening of *El Partido*, a new documentary revisiting Argentina’s iconic 1986 World Cup quarter-final win over England.

    That 1986 match remains one of the most famous in football history. Maradona’s opening goal, punched into the net with his hand and later dubbed the “Hand of God,” became a symbol of Argentine defiance just four years after the Falklands War defeat. Minutes later, Maradona scored what is still widely called the “Goal of the Century,” a stunning solo run that weaved through a bewildered England defense, cementing his legacy as a national hero before his death in 2020.

    Not all Argentines tie the current match to the decades-old conflict, however. Ernesto Alonso, a veteran of the 1982 Falklands War, argued that Maradona already gave Argentina the symbolic victory it craved in 1986. “Of course we’re all excited and want to win but we cannot shift the responsibility for the Malvinas issue onto the national team,” he explained.

    Andres Burgo, author of the original book that became *El Partido*, noted that 2026 is a far cry from 1986, when fresh war wounds made restoring national honor the overwhelming priority for the team. “That game was tainted by political pressure,” Burgo explained. “This year’s semi-final has less symbolic importance and more sporting significance.” Even so, the documentary has drawn packed audiences across Argentina, a clear sign the old tensions still run deep. Leaving a Buenos Aires screening, 33-year-old insurance agent Tomas Barbeito, wearing an Argentina national team jersey, admitted he felt “very anxious” ahead of the match: “It’s like we want to avenge something we shouldn’t have to avenge.”

    Despite the decades of rivalry, many Argentine fans acknowledge a deep respect for English football culture. After Argentina’s recent win over Switzerland, the entire team could be seen jumping in celebration to the traditional Argentine chant: “He who doesn’t jump is English!” That fiery, confrontational passion that defines Argentine fan culture has few parallels — and England is one of them. Both nations are famous for their all-consuming love of the game, and both have seen that passion spill over into crowd violence at times.

    Burgo pointed out that beyond the rivalry, Argentines recognize a kindred spirit in English football. “There are countries that don’t have a passion for football, like the United States; countries that have passion but not a distinct football culture. England has both, passion and culture, and I think Argentine fans recognize and respect that,” he said. Barbeito echoed that contradictory but warm sentiment: “But the truth is, I like the English and how they live and breathe football.”

    As kickoff approaches in Atlanta, the clash brings together sporting ambition and decades of shared history, for a match that means as much off the pitch as it does on it.

  • British surgeon launches legal challenge over NHS use of IHRA definition

    British surgeon launches legal challenge over NHS use of IHRA definition

    A senior British surgeon has launched a landmark judicial review against the National Health Service (NHS) and the UK government, challenging what he argues is the weaponization of a widely adopted antisemitism definition to censor legitimate pro-Palestine political expression.

    Ranjeet Brar, who worked at King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, faced immediate suspension just two days after delivering an anti-war speech on April 6, 2026, outside the U.S. Embassy in London. The speech commemorated civilian victims of a reported joint U.S.-Israeli strike on a school in the Iranian city of Minab, where Brar described Israel as a “genocidal settler colonial entity” and stated “it has no right to existence” and should be replaced by a sovereign state of Palestine.

    Clips of Brar’s remarks were quickly amplified across pro-Israel and right-wing social media channels, including outlets like GB News and broadcaster Julie Hartley-Brewer, triggering formal complaints against the surgeon. On April 8, King’s College Hospital issued Brar a suspension notice pending investigation, citing claims from complainants that his language could be classified as antisemitic under the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism. The hospital framed the suspension as a “neutral act” rather than formal disciplinary action, and referenced a submission from UK Lawyers for Israel alongside an anonymous patient complaint dated the same day. Two days later, Brar was arrested by police over his comments but ultimately released without any charges being filed. While the trust has not yet moved forward with formal disciplinary proceedings, it has warned that action could be taken if additional complaints are submitted.

    In statements to Middle East Eye, Brar pushed back against the actions taken against him, arguing that the hospital bears its own legal responsibility to oppose genocide. “All the pressure on me is illegal, and by imposing that pressure, the hospital is aligning itself with genocide and imposing anti-Palestinian, anti-Arab, anti-Muslim racism and political censorship,” Brar said. King’s College Hospital declined to comment on the case when contacted by reporters, citing its policy against discussing matters involving individual staff members.

    Brar’s legal team argues that the application of the IHRA definition to justify his suspension amounts to a disproportionate violation of his right to freedom of expression protected under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The challenge further contends that the framework is applied in a discriminatory manner when compared to other hate speech guidelines used in the UK, such as official guidance on anti-Muslim hatred, which underwent extensive public consultation and includes explicit safeguards for free expression. Unlike that guidance, the IHRA framework offers no comparable protections for political criticism of the Israeli state, a disparity that Brar’s legal team argues constitutes unlawful discrimination under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

    Lead counsel Amer Rahman emphasized that the case carries major constitutional implications for free speech in the UK. “Public authorities must act consistently, proportionately, and with proper regard to fundamental rights. This case seeks to ensure that freedom of expression is not only protected in principle, but applied equally in practice,” Rahman said. He added that the growing use of the IHRA definition in workplaces creates a dangerous chilling effect: “There are many doctors who are pro-Palestine, many nurses who are pro-Palestine, and the use of the IHRA definition risks creating a framework in which support for Palestinian rights is mischaracterised as racism, potentially chilling legitimate speech and participation in public debate.”

    Brar’s legal challenge is not an isolated case. Just two months after his claim was filed, a second judicial review targeting the IHRA definition was launched by Bea Foster, a Methodist preacher who was removed from her position as a charity trustee over a Facebook post labeling Israel an apartheid state.

    The IHRA definition, first drafted in 2004, was originally designed as a non-binding monitoring tool to help track antisemitism across countries. One of the 11 illustrative examples appended to the definition labels “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour” as antisemitic, a provision that longstanding critics argue erases the line between bigotry against Jewish people and legitimate political debate over Israeli policy. Even the original lead author of the definition, Kenneth Stern, has repeatedly warned against its misuse as a legal or disciplinary tool, arguing that overreach risks criminalizing protected political speech.

    Despite its non-binding status, critics point out that the definition has increasingly been enforced as if it carries full legal weight across UK public institutions. As early as 2018, prominent human rights barrister Geoffrey Robertson QC published a legal opinion finding the definition “likely in practice to chill free speech” by incentivizing bad-faith complaints against critics of Israeli policy. Robertson recommended that any institution adopting the definition add an explicit clarification that criticism of the Israeli government, without proven antisemitic intent, does not qualify as antisemitism on its own. A 2023 study from the European Legal Support Centre further backed these concerns, finding the definition has a disproportionate impact on marginalized groups including workers of color and Jewish activists who support Palestinian sovereignty, with many facing disciplinary action and even termination over legitimate speech.

    The NHS rolled out adoption of the IHRA definition across England in October 2025, following a formal request from then-Secretary of State for Health Wes Streeting. Brar is one of a growing cohort of British healthcare workers who have faced investigation or suspension over public criticism of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, amid a broader crackdown on pro-Palestine speech in public institutions.

    In recent weeks, the UK Department of Health and Social Care backed a new review into antisemitism and racism in the NHS, led by the government’s independent antisemitism adviser Lord John Mann. The review centers the IHRA definition and proposes mandatory antisemitism training for all NHS staff, alongside new restrictions on political activity in clinical settings, including bans on displaying political symbols and participating in pro-Palestine protests while in uniform. Shortly after the review’s recommendations were published, the British Medical Association (BMA), the UK’s leading doctors’ union, voted in a historic move to reject the IHRA definition, echoing widespread concerns that it would suppress protected free speech in healthcare workplaces and criminalize lawful political expression. The BMA’s passed motion also called for a full independent assessment of the definition’s impact on professional speech, particularly related to the Israel-Palestine conflict, and reaffirmed the right of all healthcare workers to participate in public policy debate over human rights issues. The vote now allows BMA members to lobby government and NHS bodies to revise policies that enforce the definition in the workplace.

  • Caribbean leaders press for slavery reparations, end of islands’ territorial status

    Caribbean leaders press for slavery reparations, end of islands’ territorial status

    LONDON — As global momentum for reparations for the transatlantic slave trade grows, a high-level delegation from the Caribbean Community (Caricom) Reparations Commission has returned to the United Kingdom for a four-day official mission, holding talks with senior Church of England clergy this week ahead of scheduled meetings with British parliamentarians. This marks the commission’s second official visit to the UK since November, as regional leaders move past symbolic gestures to push for formal, binding negotiations over centuries of systemic harm inflicted by colonial slavery.

    Hilary Beckles, chair of the Caricom Reparations Commission and vice chancellor of the University of the West Indies, opened the trip’s press briefing by emphasizing the urgency of the Caribbean’s demands. The region remains the most heavily colonized part of the globe today, with at least 20 territories still holding formal ties to the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands, and the United States, Beckles noted. Activists are not only seeking financial compensation for slavery, but also an end to ongoing colonial occupation and full sovereignty for all remaining non-self-governing territories across the Caribbean.

    The London meetings come on the heels of a controversial remark from a British lawmaker, who suggested former British colonies should repay the UK for historical infrastructure investments — a comment that drew sharp pushback from Caribbean leaders, who argue the proposal ignores the massive wealth extracted from the region through enslaved labor that fueled Britain’s industrial revolution.

    Commission members reported that their opening meeting with three senior Church of England clerics was productive, framing the institution as a potential ally in the reparations movement. David Comissiong, Barbados’ ambassador to Caricom, echoed the call for full decolonization as a foundational first step toward reparatory justice, stressing that national sovereignty and self-determination cannot be separated from demands for redress.

    Comissiong acknowledged King Charles III’s previous statements of personal sorrow over the suffering caused by slavery and his recognition of its ongoing, intergenerational impact. But he pointed to a critical gap between rhetoric and action: the UK was among the major powers that abstained from a United Nations resolution passed in March that labeled the transatlantic trafficking of enslaved people “the gravest crime against humanity” and called for global reparations. All 27 European Union member states also abstained, while the United States, Argentina, and Israel voted against the measure.

    While some European governments have offered preliminary gestures such as official apologies, public memorials, museums, and preservation of slavery-era infrastructure along West Africa’s coast, Comissiong said these steps do not go far enough. “These are some preliminary gestures that we appreciate,” he said. “But those gestures are not negotiations. … The damage that was done and that still exists today was so consequential, so deeply rooted, that it goes way beyond, way beyond gestures of memorialization.”

    Historians estimate that between the 16th and 19th centuries, European powers forcibly trafficked an estimated 12 million African people across the Atlantic. Survivors of the deadly middle passage were forced into chattel slavery on Caribbean plantations, enduring brutal conditions that created generational poverty and structural inequality that persists in the region today.

    The commission is currently developing a formal framework to launch official negotiations, with Beckles noting that the global community has waited far too long to address the foundational harm of colonial slavery. Leaders are now waiting to see if King Charles III will take formal action to advance discussions of sovereignty, decolonization, and reparatory justice for the crimes of the slavery era.

    When asked if the commission would outline formal eligibility rules for reparations recipients, leaders noted details are still being finalized for the Caribbean. However, Ron Daniels, head of the U.S.-based National African-American Reparations Commission, pointed to ongoing discussions in the United States that center on tangible reparations measures including land redistribution, targeted economic development, and investment in Black community healthcare and communications infrastructure — a model Daniels called a working blueprint for the global movement.

    Caricom’s formal demands for the UK and other former colonial powers include a full official apology for slavery, targeted investments to improve Caribbean education and public health systems, development support for Indigenous communities, support for repatriation and resettlement for descendants of enslaved people seeking to return to ancestral homelands, full cancellation of Caribbean sovereign debt, and direct monetary compensation for intergenerational harm.

    In the coming weeks, Jamaica is set to take a major step forward in the movement: early September will see the Jamaican government file a formal petition asking King Charles III to refer legal questions on slavery reparations to the Privy Council, Jamaica’s final court of appeal, setting up a landmark legal test for reparations claims against the British Crown.

  • US Supreme Court seeks major boost in security funding over threat increase

    US Supreme Court seeks major boost in security funding over threat increase

    In an extremely rare public appearance before lawmakers on Capitol Hill, two sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justices from opposite ideological sides joined forces Tuesday to urge Congress to approve a massive $228 million budget request that would dramatically increase security funding for the nation’s highest court. The proposed budget marks a 53% jump from the previous year’s allocation, with the overwhelming majority of the new funding earmarked for expanded safety protections for justices and their families amid a documented surge in violent threats.

    Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who joined the court in 2020, opened her testimony before the House Appropriations Committee by detailing the daily toll that constant safety risks have placed on her personal life, including two alarming incidents that brought threats directly to her door. Just six weeks before her testimony, Barrett was targeted in a dangerous swatting attack, a harmful prank where bad actors send false emergency reports to draw heavily armed police responses to a target’s home. Barrett described the chaos of dozens of law enforcement vehicles surrounding her residential property after a caller falsely reported an active shooting with multiple casualties at her home.

    Barrett also recalled a troubling moment shortly after she joined the 2022 majority vote to overturn the federal constitutional right to abortion established in Roe v. Wade: her own security detail provided her with a bulletproof vest to wear at all times outside the court. She told the committee that the hardest part of the constant threat has been explaining safety measures to her children, saying, “I didn’t expect that performing this service was going to put me in the position of explaining to my children what a bulletproof vest was and why I had to wear one.”

    Joining Barrett was veteran liberal Justice Elena Kagan, who echoed the call for increased funding, citing official court police projections that violent threats against Supreme Court justices will jump 38% this fiscal year alone. Kagan emphasized that growing political polarization across the United States has supercharged threats, while rapid advances in artificial intelligence have opened new dangerous vectors of attack, including exponentially more sophisticated and frequent cyberattacks targeting court infrastructure.

    “For some of us, those threats have come very close, and all of us live with the knowledge that they may again materialize,” Kagan told lawmakers, adding that AI-powered cyber threats have grown “by magnitudes” in recent years, outpacing the court’s existing security capacity.

    Data presented during the hearing backed up the justices’ concerns. Citing a recent report from the U.S. Marshals Service, committee ranking member Rosa DeLauro noted that as of July 1, more than 370 threats against federal judges have already been documented in the current fiscal year – a 31% increase compared to the same period last year, a trend DeLauro called “deeply alarming.”

    One of the most high-profile recent threats targeted Chief Justice John Roberts: in October, a woman was sentenced to eight years in federal prison after law enforcement found a vehicle stocked with multiple firearms and discovered she had explicitly planned to harm Roberts. The incident underscored the immediate nature of the risks justices face.

    Barrett told committee members that the court currently assigns between four and eight security personnel to each justice for around-the-clock protection, depending on the context and threat level. She explained that the additional funding would allow the court to expand security details to bring protection for Supreme Court justices in line with that provided to U.S. cabinet-level officials, who receive more robust permanent security support.

    “The threats are constant and they’re always there,” Barrett said.

    Tuesday’s hearing marked the first time sitting Supreme Court justices have testified before this congressional committee since 2019, a rare break from the court’s usual tradition of keeping public engagements with lawmakers limited. Multiple committee members used the hearing to note that more frequent public engagement between the court and Congress could help rebuild fading public trust in the nation’s highest judicial body. Recent polling from the Pew Research Center finds that just 50% of U.S. adults now hold a favorable view of the Supreme Court, down sharply from 70% just two years ago.

    The appearance comes just weeks after the Supreme Court wrapped up its 2025-2026 term, which saw the court issue landmark divisive rulings on high-profile issues ranging from trade tariffs and voting rights to birthright citizenship. As with most recent terms, the decisions drew both fierce praise and fierce criticism from across the political spectrum, with a wave of targeted harassment directed at justices in the aftermath of the most contentious rulings.

  • Billionaire Warren Buffett stops donations to Bill Gates charity

    Billionaire Warren Buffett stops donations to Bill Gates charity

    For two decades, billionaire investor Warren Buffett stood as one of the most significant backers of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, pouring more than $47 billion into the organization’s global charitable work. That long-standing partnership has now come to an abrupt end, just months after new details of Bill Gates’ professional and personal ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein came to light.

    When Buffett first made his commitment to the foundation in 2006, he pledged irrevocably to donate annual shares of his holding company Berkshire Hathaway to the foundation for the entirety of his lifetime. This week, however, the 95-year-old investor released a revised list of recipient organizations for his annual multi-billion dollar stock gifts, and the Gates Foundation was noticeably absent from the roster. Instead, all of the upcoming donations will be divided between four family-led foundations tied to Buffett’s own relatives.

    Buffett announced a timeline to fully distribute his remaining Berkshire Hathaway shares by December 31, 2034, a full eight years from now. Acknowledging the inherent uncertainty of human lifespan, he noted that regardless of circumstances, all of his remaining stock would be transferred to the four family foundations by that deadline one way or another.

    The break in donations follows a cascade of new revelations about Gates’ relationship with Epstein, a financier who died in 2019 in a New York prison while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges. Declassified documents released by the U.S. Department of Justice in early 2024 first pulled the connection back into the public spotlight, and Gates testified before the U.S. House Oversight Committee in June to answer questions about his years of interactions with Epstein.

    During his congressional testimony, Gates explained that he was first introduced to Epstein in 2011, with the meeting framed around a potential opportunity to raise billions of dollars for the Gates Foundation’s core global health initiatives. Gates acknowledged he was aware that Epstein had prior criminal convictions, including a 2008 guilty plea for soliciting prostitution from a minor, but said he failed to grasp the full scope of Epstein’s crimes. “I should never have met with Epstein in the first place,” Gates told the committee, adding that even if Epstein had delivered on his promised fundraising, the connection would never have been justified.

    Buffett has not explicitly referenced either Gates or Epstein in his official statements about the revised donation plan. But in comments to CNBC back in March, Buffett confirmed he had not spoken to Gates since the Epstein connection was publicly re-examined earlier this year. He added at the time that he wanted to avoid being placed in a position where he could be called as a witness in any ongoing proceedings related to the case.

    In a response to the end of Buffett’s donations, a spokesperson for the Gates Foundation expressed gratitude for his 20 years of support. The organization emphasized that it remains on solid financial footing, with Bill Gates’ own $200 billion commitment to the foundation’s endowment that will allow its work to continue through 2045.

    The end of Buffett’s donations marks another major shift for the foundation in recent years, following the 2021 divorce of Bill and Melinda Gates after 27 years of marriage. Last year, Melinda French Gates stepped down from her role as co-chair of the foundation she co-founded, and has since launched her own initiatives focused on gender equity, including a $1 billion commitment to advancing women’s rights across the United States. Buffett and the Gates couple first partnered in 2010 to launch the Giving Pledge, a global initiative that encourages the world’s ultra-wealthy to donate the majority of their fortunes to charitable causes during their lifetimes or through their estates.