Global Pulse

博客

  • Houthis reframing the narrative casting them as an Iranian proxy

    Houthis reframing the narrative casting them as an Iranian proxy

    On October 10, a devastating Houthi assault on Riyadh’s primary international airport left 13 people dead and hundreds more injured, marking the deadliest attack on Saudi soil since the outbreak of the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran in February 2026. The deadly opening strike was followed by successive, less lethal missile barrages in the subsequent days, and it landed just as Saudi Arabia prepared to host a landmark gathering of global oil producers. For long-time observers of Yemeni politics, this wave of violence is far more than an isolated militant incident: it lays bare both the deepening regional stalemate gripping the Middle East and the far-reaching spillover effects of Yemen’s decade-long civil war that extend far beyond the country’s borders.

    The Houthi movement first emerged as a militarized political force in Yemen in 2004, and has fought a years-long civil war against the Saudi-backed, internationally recognized Yemeni central government. Today, the group controls roughly one-third of Yemen’s territory and is home to two-thirds of the country’s population, making it the most powerful armed faction in the nation despite its lack of an air force. Over years of conflict, it has built an advanced arsenal of long-range missiles and unmanned aerial drones. For decades, the Houthis have been widely labeled by their adversaries and many external analysts as a mere proxy for Iran, Saudi Arabia’s primary regional rival.

    While it is accurate that the Houthi movement has maintained long-standing broad alignment with Tehran and shared many of its regional strategic goals, the relationship between the two groups is far more nuanced and complex than the simple proxy narrative suggests. Crucially, the Houthi movement’s evolution remains deeply rooted in Yemen’s domestic political landscape and a unique, centuries-old internal Yemeni feud, a reality long documented by regional scholars.

    What makes the current escalation particularly significant is the deliberate strategic narrative shift Houthi leadership has pursued throughout 2026: the group is actively reframing its military campaign to distance itself from the perception that its actions are directed by Iran, a choice that reveals how Houthi leaders leverage narrative to build legitimacy for their operations both domestically and regionally.

    After the United States and Israel launched their offensive against Iran on February 28, 2026, many regional analysts predicted the Houthis would quickly join the conflict. The group’s 2023–2025 Red Sea campaign in support of Palestinians during the Gaza war had already proven its ability to disrupt global maritime traffic, creating a clear blueprint for similar action through the critical Strait of Hormuz. That earlier campaign carried significant symbolic weight: it positioned the Houthis as defenders of Palestinian interests at a time when many Arab governments were seen as abandoning the Palestinian cause, while also demonstrating the movement’s capacity to upend global supply chains and international trade thousands of miles from Yemeni territory.

    Yet despite widespread expectations, the Houthis remained on the sidelines for months following the initial strikes on Iran. The group even ignored reported requests from Iranian leadership in July 2026 to close the Strait of Bab el-Mandeb to commercial shipping. The assumption that the Houthis would automatically follow Tehran’s orders reflected a fundamental misreading of Yemeni politics and the identity factors that shape the movement’s legitimacy. While supporting Palestinians could be framed as an act of pan-Arab solidarity that resonated with Yemeni audiences, acting on behalf of a non-Arab, Persian Shia power was far harder to justify in majority Sunni Yemen, where Twelver Shia Islam has no significant presence.

    When the Houthis re-entered open regional conflict in August 2026, they tied their campaign explicitly to their long-standing rivalry with Saudi Arabia, rather than Iran’s regional conflict. While Houthi actions may indirectly advance Iran’s own strategic goals, the movement frames its military campaign against Saudi Arabia first and foremost as an act of Yemeni national self-defense.

    The catalyst for this escalation came in an incident that received almost no coverage in Western media earlier in the summer of 2026. Seeking to assert sovereignty over Houthi-controlled territory, the group facilitated the surprise departure and return of a commercial flight from Sanaa International Airport bound for Tehran. The capital’s airport had been closed since late 2024 following Israeli strikes, and its ongoing closure left movement in and out of Houthi-held areas restricted by the faction’s adversaries, including the internationally recognized government based in Aden. For the Houthis, this restriction represented an unacceptable infringement on their claimed sovereignty, limiting both civilian travel and the group’s ability to move personnel and military supplies.

    On July 13, as the flight from Tehran approached Sanaa, Saudi warplanes bombed the airport’s runway, giving the Houthis a clear casus belli to reignite open confrontation with Riyadh. After more than three years of a de facto ceasefire and stalled negotiation efforts, Saudi Arabia had been seeking to extricate itself from the long-running Yemeni conflict, mirroring its efforts to de-escalate tensions with Iran. Sensing Riyadh’s desire for exit, Houthi leadership responded with a deliberate policy of tit-for-tat retaliation.

    Today’s Houthi tactics directly mirror the 2015 Saudi-led bombing campaign and blockade that Houthi-held Yemen has endured for over a decade. The group now claims the right to impose reciprocal pressure on Saudi Arabia, targeting critical infrastructure including ports, energy facilities, and airports.

    This new strategic framing serves two core political goals for the Houthis. First, it shifts blame for Yemen’s ongoing catastrophic economic and humanitarian crisis away from the group’s own governance failures, mismanagement, and corruption, and onto the Saudi-imposed blockade. Second, it provides a legitimate, popularly supported rationale for escalating conflict across the region.

    The Houthis have already demonstrated pragmatic flexibility in recent years: after the October 2025 Gaza ceasefire, the group halted attacks on Israeli-linked shipping in the Red Sea despite repeated Israeli bombardments, and it suspended attacks on U.S. vessels under a May 2025 agreement with the Trump administration. These moves align with the movement’s pattern of balancing ideological rhetoric with practical strategic calculation, even as it resumed military engagement this year: U.S. diplomatic sources have reported that American diplomats met with Houthi representatives in Oman as recently as September 2026.

    With Saudi Arabia, however, the Houthis have felt far less incentive to show restraint. Riyadh is already grappling with repeated missile attacks from Iran tied to its alliance with the U.S., and facing mounting pressure on its energy export operations. The high-profile attack on Riyadh’s airport, the Houthis calculate, has put Saudi Arabia in an intractable position, with ramifications that will ripple through the global economy.

    This retaliatory strategy gained additional momentum in early September, when Houthi forces secured partial control over the Strait of Bab el-Mandeb, one of the world’s most critical maritime chokepoints for global trade. This position gives the group significant leverage over commercial shipping bound for and departing Saudi Arabia via the Red Sea. As the Riyadh airport attack demonstrated, the Houthis’ arsenal of drones and ballistic missiles also gives them the capacity to strike targets across nearly all of Saudi territory.

    The targeting of civilian infrastructure, including major transportation hubs, highlights the retaliatory logic the Houthis now rely on to justify their escalating campaign. It remains impossible to predict the full consequences of this increasingly aggressive Houthi strategy. The Middle East appears poised for a new period of sustained, widespread conflict, and it remains an open question whether the United States – which has been reluctant to reengage in full-scale regional conflict – will be drawn back into the fray.

    Amid all the focus on regional geopolitics, however, the ongoing suffering of Yemeni civilians must not be overlooked. This latest escalation serves as a stark reminder that a decade of war has devastated a population that was already the poorest in the Middle East before the conflict began, destroying what little infrastructure the country possessed.

  • Why some pro-Palestine activists have turned their backs on Mamdani

    Why some pro-Palestine activists have turned their backs on Mamdani

    When Zohran Mamdani swept into office as New York City’s mayor, he entered office with a historic reputation as the most openly pro-Palestinian chief executive in the city’s modern history. Throughout his campaign, the Israeli military campaign in Gaza dominated his policy platform, with Mamdani repeatedly denouncing Israel’s actions and labeling the conflict a genocide against Palestinian people. Within days of taking office, he acted quickly to roll back two hardline pro-Israel executive orders enacted by his predecessor, Eric Adams.

    The first order he revoked codified New York City’s adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, a framework long criticized by pro-Palestinian activists for unfairly equating legitimate criticism of the Israeli state with antisemitic hate speech. The second revoked ban barred city employees from participating in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, the Palestinian-led grassroots initiative that describes its mission as ending international support for Israel’s occupation and oppression of Palestinian people. In his high-profile first meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House, Mamdani also centered pro-Palestinian demands, using the Oval Office audience to push for the release of detained Palestinian activist Leqaa Kordia. Standing alongside Trump, Mamdani doubled down on a core campaign pledge: to redirect New York City tax revenues away from investments tied to Israel and toward domestic infrastructure and services for city residents.

    Nearly a year into his term, however, the same progressive pro-Palestinian organizers and activists that swept Mamdani into office have turned against him, sparked by a string of unfulfilled high-profile campaign pledges that have left supporters feeling betrayed. One of the most prominent broken promises revolves around the 2024 International Criminal Court arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over alleged war crimes in Gaza. During the campaign, Mamdani vowed that if Netanyahu visited New York City, his administration would uphold the ICC warrant and take the Israeli prime minister into custody, publicly calling Netanyahu a war criminal.

    The test of that pledge came in July, during an interview with *The New York Times*, when Mamdani was asked directly if he would follow through on the arrest promise. He reaffirmed that Netanyahu “belongs in The Hague,” noting that his legal team was holding active discussions to clarify whether local law enforcement had the legal authority to execute the international warrant, and that he would take whatever action the law permitted. Just three days later, however, Mamdani released a public video backing away from the pledge, confirming that his administration did not hold the legal authority to enforce the ICC warrant.

    When Netanyahu ultimately traveled to New York in September to address the annual United Nations General Assembly, he received a formal police escort from the New York City Police Department (NYPD) and faced no detainment during his visit. While Netanyahu spoke inside the UN headquarters, thousands of pro-Palestinian protesters — including grassroots organizers, civilian activists, actors, and elected officials — took to city streets to condemn Israel’s military campaign and Netanyahu’s leadership, with roughly 74,000 Palestinians reported killed in Gaza since the war began. Dozens of member state delegations also staged a walkout during Netanyahu’s address inside the assembly hall.

    Many of the protesters who gathered outside UN headquarters were politicians who had previously endorsed or been endorsed by Mamdani, participating in a mass demonstration organized by Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP). More than a dozen of these protesters were ultimately arrested by NYPD officers, including high-profile public figures: congressional candidate Darializa Avila Chevalier, New York City Council member Chi Osse, former New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, and New York State Senate candidate Aber Kawas. Mamdani did not join the protest, nor did he follow through on his pledge to arrest Netanyahu. Instead, he posted a wordless social media video showing himself planting an olive tree at Gracie Mansion, the city’s mayoral residence, alongside Palestinian families displaced from Gaza.

    The backlash was immediate: activists condemned Mamdani for making a populist pledge to arrest Netanyahu, only to allow the Israeli leader to visit unimpeded while permitting the arrest of peaceful pro-Palestinian protesters under his watch.

    This month marks three years since the Hamas-led attack on southern Israel that killed hundreds and triggered Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. On the anniversary, Israeli Voices for Peace, an anti-occupation group that advocates for a secure future for both Israelis and Palestinians, held a public vigil in Manhattan’s Union Square to mourn all lives lost, including the 300 attendees killed at the Nova music festival attack in southern Israel. Mamdani appeared alongside the group at the event, a decision that sparked direct confrontation with pro-Palestinian demonstrators.

    At the same time as the vigil, CUNY Students for Justice in Palestine held a parallel march from City Hall to Union Square to honor the tens of thousands of Palestinians killed in Gaza. The two gatherings converged, and pro-Palestinian protesters turned their anger directly on Mamdani, chanting “traitor” and accusing the mayor of having “blood on his hands.” Leading the protest was Hadeeqa Malik, a former intern for Mamdani who has spent three years organizing to push CUNY to divest from companies that supply Israel’s military. Speaking to Middle East Eye, Malik argued that Mamdani’s participation in the Union Square vigil amounted to “normalisation of the Zionist regime” and normalizing settler colonialism.

    Malik also pointed to another unfulfilled demand: Mamdani’s failure to restructure the CUNY Board of Trustees, which controls the university system’s investment decisions. “Instead of investing into CUNY students and workers, they have decided to invest over one million dollars in weapons manufacturers,” Malik explained. “And Zohran Mamdani is one of the two people, alongside the governor of New York State, responsible for the board of trustees. So we are demanding that he abolish the board of trustees today.”

    Beyond the Gaza-related pledges, activists have also slammed Mamdani for backtracking on a promise to dismantle the NYPD’s Strategic Response Group (SRG), a specialized unit trained to suppress large-scale city mobilizations and civil unrest through aggressive crowd control tactics and mass arrests. The New York Civil Liberties Union has long labeled the SRG “notoriously violent,” accusing officers of escalating confrontations and injuring New Yorkers exercising their First Amendment right to protest. Shortly after launching his 2024 mayoral campaign, Mamdani publicly pledged to disband the unit in a post on X, but he has not taken any action to follow through on that promise.

    Calls to disband the SRG intensified last week after a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer shot and killed a man in the Bronx, with the unit deployed to suppress anti-ICE protesters who gathered in response to the killing. JVP is one of the leading organizations calling for the unit’s dissolution, and has also demanded the ouster of current NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch, a billionaire heiress who retained her post after Mamdani took office. Mamdani, the first New York City mayor in 80 years to decline to appoint his own police commissioner, kept Tisch — a self-described “proud Zionist” originally appointed by Eric Adams — in her leadership role.

    In a recent public statement, JVP argued: “Jessica Tisch’s virulent Zionist politics, connection to big tech surveillance, and commitment to sharing tactics between the NYPD and Israeli military should have led to her immediately being fired at the start of the new mayoral administration.” The Democratic Socialists of America, which supported Mamdani’s campaign, also signed an open letter last week demanding the SRG be disbanded and Tisch fired. Earlier this week, however, Mamdani publicly defended Tisch and rejected calls to remove her, pointing to a historic drop in city homicides during their time working together. “Over the last ten months that we have worked together, we delivered the lowest recorded number of Murders in our city’s history,” he said. A day after facing widespread backlash over the decision, Mamdani announced a first-of-its-kind comprehensive review of NYPD use-of-force policies — the first such review in a decade — alongside new measures to strengthen police accountability.

    Mamdani has also faced criticism from pro-Palestinian activists over his recently released Strategy to Combat Antisemitism, with opponents arguing the plan allocates public funding to what they call “Zionist propagandist groups,” including the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York.

    This report was originally published by Middle East Eye, an independent media outlet covering the Middle East, North Africa and surrounding regions.

  • Azerbaijan’s hijab ban sparks outrage in Turkey as women recall past restrictions

    Azerbaijan’s hijab ban sparks outrage in Turkey as women recall past restrictions

    On September 21, Azerbaijan adjusted its national school uniform regulations, banning any clothing deemed inconsistent with official uniform standards and the country’s foundational secular education principles. While the revised text never explicitly names the Islamic hijab, on-the-ground enforcement has targeted headscarf-wearing female students, who have been systematically turned away from classroom instruction. Reports also indicate that female school staff wearing hijabs have been ordered to remove their religious attire, with termination threatened for non-compliance.

    Footage of the blocked students quickly circulated online, sparking domestic protests across Azerbaijan as students rallied in solidarity with their affected peers. By October 12, Azerbaijani authorities confirmed that 37 people had been taken into custody in connection with the unrest linked to the new policy. Baku’s ruling establishment has stood firm behind the restrictions, framing them as a necessary measure to protect the country’s long-standing secular education framework and safeguard its distinct national cultural identity. Proponents of the policy argue that the hijab represents an external religious influence misaligned with Azerbaijan’s domestic cultural and secular traditions, opening urgent public debate over what forms of religious expression are permissible in public education for a self-identified secular state.

    What might have remained a domestic controversy has quickly spilled across borders, igniting intense condemnation from neighboring Turkey, a close strategic partner that Baku and Ankara frequently describe as “one nation, two states.” The viral images of hijab-wearing girls barred from classrooms have stirred painful collective memories in Turkey, of its own decades-long national ban on headscarves in public institutions that followed the 1997 “postmodern coup”, a military intervention that reshaped the country’s domestic social policy.

    Following the 1997 intervention, Turkish authorities enforced sweeping restrictions that barred hijab-wearing students from university campuses and forced women employed in public sector roles to choose between removing their headscarves or losing their jobs. Thousands of women were locked out of education and formal employment, forced to select between upholding their religious beliefs and advancing their academic and professional goals; many ultimately left the country to pursue study opportunities abroad. These restrictions were only gradually rolled back: barriers for hijab-wearing university students were lifted around 2010, and the ban for most female civil servants was not removed until 2013. Decades later, however, the policy remains a raw and defining part of Turkey’s modern political memory, shaping ongoing conversations about secularism, religious freedom, and systemic discrimination that still resonate across generations.

    Turkish social media has erupted in response to Azerbaijan’s new policy, with thousands of users sharing their own personal stories of discrimination under the old Turkish ban, and expressing solidarity with affected Azerbaijani women. “What the Turkish public went through decades ago is now being forced on the Azerbaijani people,” one Turkish commentator noted in a widely shared Instagram video. Turkish journalist Hatice Orhan echoed that sentiment in her own viral post, writing, “Women wearing headscarves in Turkey were subjected to all kinds of cruelty; so many were barred from school, blocked from their professions, and forced to put their dreams on hold. What is happening in Baku right now brings all that pain back to the surface.” Turkish content creator Gulben Tankus questioned how such restrictions could exist in 2024, writing, “We in Turkey spent decades fighting this injustice. How can we accept this happening in a country we call our brother nation?”

    Outcry has not been limited to social media: earlier this month, demonstrators gathered outside Azerbaijan’s consulate in Istanbul to demand an immediate end to the headscarf restrictions. Criticism has also come from senior Turkish political circles: presidential adviser Oktay Saral and multiple lawmakers from Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party have publicly condemned Azerbaijan’s policy. That criticism has in turn sparked a sharp diplomatic rebuke from Baku’s ruling New Azerbaijan Party, which issued a formal statement on October 13 accusing Turkish political figures of violating Azerbaijan’s sovereignty and interfering in its domestic affairs.

    The statement noted that secularism is enshrined in both nations’ constitutions, and defended Azerbaijan’s education policy as rooted in commitments to equality, secularism, and the rule of law. Baku’s ruling party further accused Turkish officials of exploiting the sensitive religious issue for domestic political gain, and rejected the argument that the two countries’ close bilateral relationship gives Ankara any right to shape Azerbaijan’s domestic policy decisions. The controversy has laid bare underlying tensions between the two nominally close allies, turning a domestic education policy debate into a high-stakes dispute over sovereignty, religious freedom, and the legacy of secular governance across the region.

  • FBI arrests Saudi OpenAI engineer over hidden recording device

    FBI arrests Saudi OpenAI engineer over hidden recording device

    A high-stakes national security case has emerged around one of the world’s most influential artificial intelligence firms, after U.S. federal prosecutors filed criminal charges against a former OpenAI engineer accused of sneaking a hidden recording device into the company’s top-level executive conference room. The incident has amplified already urgent conversations about protecting sensitive AI development as global competition for advanced artificial intelligence technology intensifies.

    The U.S. Department of Justice announced the charges this week, confirming that federal law enforcement agents arrested 35-year-old Abdulrahman Alfozan, a Saudi national and legal permanent U.S. resident, last week. Alfozan made his first formal court appearance at a federal hearing on Tuesday, with the case moving rapidly through the judicial system amid heightened scrutiny of AI sector security.

    Court documents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation lay out the timeline of the alleged surveillance plot. Alfozan joined OpenAI as an engineer in July 2025, and investigators say he planted the custom recording device approximately two months after starting his role, around September 28. The thumb-sized device, equipped with both a microphone and camera, was concealed inside a roll of toilet paper and connected to an available USB port behind a mounted television in OpenAI’s San Francisco executive meeting space. Company staff discovered the covert device just two days later, on September 30. All data stored on the device remained encrypted, leaving investigators unable to access any recorded content as the probe continues. A second identical custom-built recording device was also seized from Alfozan’s personal bag during searches, according to the complaint.

    Beyond placing the device, the FBI alleges Alfozan leveraged an AI productivity tool to gather key details: meeting room schedules, layout blueprints, and technical capabilities of the space he targeted. Once the device was discovered, OpenAI said it used its own proprietary AI models to link the device to Alfozan and trace how it was planted. Internal investigations by the company also uncovered evidence that Alfozan had planned to place additional covert recording devices across other sensitive areas of OpenAI’s office to capture more private executive discussions.

    In an official statement posted to X, OpenAI moved quickly to reassure stakeholders that no critical company data had been compromised. “At this time, we have no indications of this individual inappropriately accessing or exfiltrating model weights, source code, or customer data. The employee was terminated immediately following the discovery,” the company said.

    FBI Director Kash Patel emphasized the severity of the alleged plot in an official statement, noting that Alfozan “allegedly concealed a covert recording device inside his employer’s executive conference room to secretly capture sensitive communications about the company’s super intelligence technology.” The FBI’s investigation into the incident remains active and ongoing.

    Public records show Alfozan has been a legal permanent resident of the United States since September 2020. His public LinkedIn profile lists academic credentials from two of the country’s most prestigious technology programs: the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of California, Berkeley. He is also listed as holding prior engineering roles at two other major U.S. tech firms, Meta and Microsoft. Outlets including Middle East Eye have not been able to independently confirm the accuracy of the details posted to his LinkedIn profile. As of this reporting, Alfozan has not issued any public response to the criminal allegations against him.

    If convicted on the current charges, Alfozan faces a maximum sentence of five years in federal prison, a $250,000 fine, and three years of court-supervised release following incarceration.

    The case has struck a nerve across the global tech and policy communities, as private companies and national governments around the world pour billions of dollars into a race to develop cutting-edge, next-generation artificial intelligence. With so much economic and strategic advantage riding on breakthroughs in AI, the incident highlights the persistent vulnerability of even the most high-profile AI firms to insider threats and espionage targeting confidential development information.

  • Burnham condemns ‘Zionism is racism’ motion and rules out coalition with Greens

    Burnham condemns ‘Zionism is racism’ motion and rules out coalition with Greens

    A growing political firestorm has erupted across British politics after the Green Party of England and Wales formally adopted a controversial motion labeling Zionism as a form of racism, prompting sharp condemnation from Prime Minister Andy Burnham who has ruled out any national-level partnership between his Labour Party and the Greens while the policy remains in place.

    The confrontation unfolded Wednesday during questioning in the UK Parliament, where Conservative Member of Parliament Harriett Baldwin pressed the prime minister to explicitly rule out any future cooperation with the Greens on national legislative matters. Burnham responded with unreserved condemnation of the policy, stating clearly: ‘It is wrong, it is antisemitic, and this side of the house will have nothing to do with it. We cannot support a partnership with a party that holds the position that has recently been adopted.’

    The policy was approved earlier this month by rank-and-file Green Party members voting at the organization’s annual conference, making the Greens the first major UK political party to enshrine the classification of Zionism as racism in official party policy. Alongside the classification, the motion also formalized the party’s support for a single democratic Palestinian state with equal rights for all ethnic and religious groups, breaking from the long-standing international consensus backing a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Under Green Party rules, members can drive official policy through conference votes, though senior party leaders have recently acknowledged the process requires structural reform. Critically, the new policy will not automatically be added to the party’s next general election manifesto.

    International reaction to the vote was swift and forceful. The Israeli government immediately banned Green Party leader Zack Polanski — who is openly Jewish — from entering the country, formally accusing the party of spreading antisemitism. The United States also announced it would make formal diplomatic representations to the British government over the policy, stating it views the classification as a potential expression of antisemitic sentiment.

    Domestically, cross-party condemnation has been widespread. More than a dozen sitting Labour MPs have gone as far as reporting the Green Party to UK police over the controversial policy. Tensions have also emerged within the Green Party itself, where internal divides over the motion have come into clear view.

    Before the vote was held, Polanski had pushed for amendments to the text that would explicitly protect Jewish members within the party, arguing that opposition to Zionism should not target individual Jews who identify with the ideology. ‘If someone stands against the occupation, stands against apartheid, stands against the genocide, but happens to be a member of a synagogue that calls itself a Zionist synagogue, they should not be treated any differently within the Green Party,’ Polanski said. However, the proposed amendment was defeated by a vote of ordinary members.

    Green Party co-deputy leader Mothin Ali indicated ahead of the vote that he did not oppose adding the extra safeguards, noting: ‘If Jewish members feel like they need an additional level of reassurance, then I think they’re right to ask for that. All members should feel safe in this party. Not that the motion should make them feel unsafe, but if they want an additional level of reassurance, I welcome that.’ Following the vote, Ali reaffirmed that the outcome of the member-led process must be respected, and defended the framing of the motion, telling Middle East Eye: ‘Zionism is an ethno-nationalist state. Zionism is resulting in ethnic cleansing, in the belief that one group of people is superior to another.’

    Several sitting Green MPs have publicly broken ranks to criticize the motion, including Adrian Ramsay, Sian Berry and Ellie Chowns. At the same time, the motion has gained support from some high-profile figures, including prominent Holocaust survivor and activist Stephen Kapos, who endorsed the measure saying, ‘Zionism both as an ideology and practice is harmful and has no legitimacy and must be rejected.’

    Complicating the current political standoff is the fact that the Labour Party already holds power in coalition with the Greens on multiple UK local councils. Downing Street has so far declined to confirm whether Burnham’s ban on cooperation will extend to these existing local-level partnerships, leaving the future of those local coalitions unclear.

  • Musk says any limits on Ukraine’s Starlink access down to US, not his firm

    Musk says any limits on Ukraine’s Starlink access down to US, not his firm

    A sudden controversy over speed and connectivity restrictions on SpaceX’s Starlink satellite internet for Ukrainian military operations has sent new ripples through already strained relations between Kyiv and Washington, with Elon Musk publicly placing responsibility for the limitations directly in the hands of the U.S. government.

    Starlink has emerged as one of the most critical communications tools for Ukraine’s military since Russia’s full-scale invasion, enabling forces to guide attack drones toward Russian positions, coordinate air defense operations to protect Ukrainian airspace, and maintain command connectivity across frontline positions. On Tuesday night, however, Ukrainian officials reported unexpected new speed caps of 100 mph (160 km/h) on the service that cut off connectivity for any Ukrainian weapons traveling faster than that threshold, directly disrupting active battlefield missions.

    In a post on the social platform X, Serhiy Beskrestnov, an adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, argued the timing of the restrictions could not be coincidental, linking them to growing recent tensions between Kyiv and the U.S. administration. The restrictions came the same night Russia launched one of its largest mass drone and missile strikes against Ukraine in months, hitting critical civilian and military energy and communications infrastructure across the country, killing multiple civilians in Kyiv, and leaving more than 600,000 households without power.

    As Ukrainian officials appealed for the restrictions to be lifted—including Zelenskyy, who told British media he hoped the issue was an unforeseen technical error and requested full connectivity be restored—Musk responded publicly to clarify the division between SpaceX’s two satellite services. While consumer-focused Starlink is a commercial civilian product, Musk noted that Starshield, the military-grade variant of the satellite network in use by Ukraine, is fully owned and controlled by the U.S. government. “Any limits on speed or usage are decided by the U.S. military and ultimately [the U.S. president],” Musk wrote in his post.

    Musk further added that commercial Starlink, the company’s primary consumer offering, was intended only for “civilian or defensive activities and cannot be used for offensive military action, as doing so would be inappropriate for a commercial company.” By Wednesday evening, partial restoration of connectivity had been confirmed by Mykhailo Fedorov, Ukraine’s former defense minister, who published an appeal on X urging the complete removal of the speed cap, calling it “critical for Ukraine’s defense” while thanking Musk for his past support.

    The controversy comes amid a period of escalating friction between Zelenskyy and U.S. President Donald Trump, who has openly voiced growing frustration with Ukraine’s ongoing strikes on Russian energy infrastructure. Zelenskyy has previously alleged that the U.S. threatened to cut off intelligence sharing if Kyiv refused to agree to a Trump-proposed energy ceasefire with Russia, a claim Trump has publicly denied.

    During a one-day visit to London on Wednesday, where he was greeted by British Prime Minister Andy Burnham at 10 Downing Street and met with King Charles III, Zelenskyy acknowledged to journalist Piers Morgan that he felt betrayed by a recent U.S. deal to import 300,000 tonnes of diesel from Russia. “Really yes… but it’s a little bit more complicated than just my emotions or my feelings,” Zelenskyy said of the betrayal claim. Ahead of the Ukrainian president’s arrival, Downing Street announced it would accelerate deliveries of lightweight multirole missiles to Kyiv—weapons that have proven effective at shooting down Russian drones—with Burnham reaffirming British support: “We are behind you and that will not change.”

    As of Wednesday, the U.S. government has not issued any public comment on Musk’s claims or the Starlink restrictions.

  • Saudi Arabia cancels death sentence for Sri Lankan who insulted Prophet Muhammad

    Saudi Arabia cancels death sentence for Sri Lankan who insulted Prophet Muhammad

    In a high-profile legal decision that has drawn international attention to Saudi Arabia’s restrictive regulations on online speech, the kingdom’s highest judicial body has reversed a death penalty handed down to a 27-year-old Sri Lankan national convicted of blasphemy over a social media comment.

    The case of Anojan Sivarasa traces back to intercommunal online tensions that erupted earlier this year, when video footage of a Muslim man kicking a dog during the return of a Hindu pilgrimage went viral across regional social platforms. The clip sparked heated arguments between Hindu and Muslim users in comment threads, where one user posted a derogatory remark targeting a Hindu deity. Sivarasa responded to that comment with an insult to the Prophet Muhammad, the act that would ultimately lead to his arrest and prosecution.

    Quickly realizing the severity of his statement, Sivarasa deleted the comment and posted a public apology video to address the offense. But a screenshot of the exchange was already circulating, and it was eventually shared both with his employer, based in Saudi Arabia where Sivarasa resided and worked, and Saudi law enforcement officials. He was taken into custody by authorities in July this year.

    Last month, the Al-Ahsa Criminal Court found Sivarasa guilty of blasphemy against Islam. Alongside the death sentence, the court issued a concurrent 5-year prison term and a fine of 3 million Saudi riyals, equivalent to roughly $800,000. The conviction and capital sentence sparked widespread international backlash, with critics highlighting longstanding concerns over how Saudi Arabia’s legal system targets freedom of expression online.

    On Wednesday, Sri Lanka’s Deputy Foreign Minister Arun Hemachandra confirmed the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the death sentence in an official Facebook post, where he also thanked Saudi authorities for agreeing to commute the capital punishment. As of the latest update, Sivarasa remains in Saudi custody, and there has been no official confirmation on whether additional legal proceedings will be initiated against him.

    The ruling comes against a backdrop of growing international scrutiny of Riyadh’s approach to online speech. The kingdom combines traditional interpretations of Islamic law with modern cybercrime and counter-terrorism legislation to crack down on online expression deemed to violate “public morals,” a policy that has led to a sharp rise in lengthy prison sentences for social media users and a sustained high rate of capital punishment. Data from regional monitoring organizations shows that at least 175 people have been executed in Saudi Arabia so far this year, the vast majority of whom are foreign nationals working and residing in the kingdom.

  • Student protesters attack government buildings in Tirana

    Student protesters attack government buildings in Tirana

    TIRANA, ALBANIA — Tens of thousands of student demonstrators have descended on the streets of Albania’s capital for a second consecutive day, turning a movement rooted in demands for educational reform into a widespread outburst of anti-government unrest that has left multiple government buildings damaged and dozens in custody. What began as a focused demonstration outside Albania’s Ministry of Education on Tuesday, with students calling for improved campus infrastructure, updated academic resources, and greater employment opportunities for graduates, escalated dramatically by Wednesday, when acts of vandalism and arson targeted multiple state facilities. Eyewitness reports and visual footage from the scene show that a section of the Ministry of Education building was set ablaze by protesters, while nearby structures including the Prime Minister’s official office, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of the Interior, and several adjacent private businesses were also targeted with projectiles and vandalism. Groups of protesters wearing gas masks and balaclavas were observed throwing rocks and firecrackers over the gated perimeter of the education ministry, clashing directly with lines of riot police deployed to contain the unrest. Law enforcement responded to the violence with tear gas and water cannons to disperse the crowds, marking one of the most intense confrontations between demonstrators and state security in recent Albanian history. The current wave of unrest is not an isolated incident, but rather the escalation of months of anti-government organizing under the banner of the so-called Flamingo Revolution, a movement that has demanded the resignation of Prime Minister Edi Rama over widespread allegations of systemic corruption and lack of governmental transparency. The movement gained initial momentum back in May, when a high-profile luxury tourism development linked to Jared Kushner, son-in-law of former U.S. President Donald Trump, sparked public fury over allegations that the Rama administration had cut opaque, insider deals to advance the project. Speaking to reporters on the ground, multiple protesters emphasized that their grievances extended far beyond poor university conditions. Enida Bimi, one demonstrator interviewed by Reuters, explained that the protest has grown into a broader movement for all Albanian citizens frustrated by systemic failure. “The people are very angry at the system. They need to change everything. With this corruption all around, the crime and everything else is happening. And the people now are angry. They need to change the system,” Bimi stated. Another protester, Arber Leshi, echoed that sentiment, saying that demonstrators believe the current administration is the most corrupt in Albania’s modern history. Albanian Deputy Prime Minister Albana Koçiu has publicly called for de-escalation, urging protesters to exercise calm and self-control in a statement released Wednesday. “Albania does not need to burn to change,” Koçiu said, emphasizing that peaceful dialogue is the only appropriate path to political reform. Senior government officials have also condemned the violent actions of a subset of demonstrators, noting that damage to public institutions puts civilian lives at risk. Economy Minister Delina Ibrahimaj pushed back against claims that the unrest constituted peaceful protest, saying, “Setting fire to an institution is not a peaceful protest. It is an act that endangers people’s lives.” As of Wednesday afternoon, Albania’s state-run news agency confirmed that 16 people have been arrested in connection with violent acts that occurred during Tuesday’s initial demonstration, with more arrests expected as law enforcement reviews footage from the clashes.

  • HSBC ‘sharia‑compliant’ fund spent over $100m on five Israeli military‑linked firms

    HSBC ‘sharia‑compliant’ fund spent over $100m on five Israeli military‑linked firms

    An exclusive analysis conducted by independent outlet Middle East Eye (MEE) has uncovered that the United Kingdom’s largest sharia-compliant investment fund, managed by global banking giant HSBC, acquired more than $100 million worth of shares in companies directly tied to Israel’s military operations in Gaza during the first half of 2026.

    The findings build on a prior report from outlet Hyphen, which first revealed this week that HSBC’s Islamic Global Equity Index Fund had bought $38.3 million in shares of controversial U.S. technology firm Palantir — a data surveillance company already linked to enabling Israeli military actions against Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip.

    Widely used by UK halal pension providers, the HSBC fund publicly frames its investment strategy as aligned with core Islamic finance principles, claiming it builds “portfolios underpinned by the principles of Islamic investing that deliver both investment returns and better outcomes for society as a whole.” But MEE’s review of the fund’s public semi-annual portfolio disclosures for the first six months of 2026 paints a different picture of its holdings.

    According to the analysis, the single largest new acquisition by the fund was $35.7 million in shares of RTX, the world’s second-largest aerospace and defense contractor. Raytheon, RTX’s major defense subsidiary, operates a joint venture with Israeli arms giant Rafael Advanced Defense Systems to produce interceptor missiles for Israel’s Iron Dome air defense system. UK-based anti-arms trade advocacy group Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT) has labeled Raytheon as a “significant supplier of missiles and other goods and services to the Israeli military” and confirmed the firm is “implicated in Israel’s war on Gaza.” The company has reportedly supplied thousands of missiles to Israel, many of which have been used in military operations that have killed tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians. It also produces key weapons systems and components for F-15, F-16, and F-35 fighter jets, all of which have been extensively deployed in Gaza. RTX did not respond to multiple requests for comment from MEE ahead of the investigation’s publication.

    Beyond RTX, the HSBC fund added $20.3 million in shares of U.S. semiconductor manufacturer Analog Devices (ADI) to its portfolio. In 2024, amid Israel’s large-scale military campaign in Gaza, ADI supplied critical semiconductor components to Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest domestic weapons manufacturer that provides 80% of the Israeli military’s land-based equipment and 85% of its combat drones. In a statement to MEE, ADI noted that as a publicly traded company, its shares are traded freely on open markets, and the firm does not control the investment decisions of third-party funds. “ADI’s products are sold worldwide for a broad range of applications, and all of our sales are subject to U.S. and other applicable export control and sanctions laws, including government licensing requirements where they apply,” the company added.

    The fund also purchased $18.9 million worth of shares in U.S. industrial conglomerate Honeywell International, which designs specialized sensors and guidance components for precision weapons. According to reporting from Al Jazeera, a Honeywell-manufactured inertial measurement unit — a component that improves targeting accuracy for missiles — was recovered from the wreckage of a missile that struck a Gaza school in June 2024, an attack that killed at least 40 Palestinians, including 14 children and nine women. Honeywell’s UK subsidiary also held three valid government export licenses to ship aircraft components to Israel between 2022 and 2023. Honeywell did not respond to MEE’s request for comment.

    Another $17.6 million in new investments went to UK engineering firm Rolls-Royce, whose German subsidiary MTU produces engines for Israel’s Merkava main battle tanks — which have been heavily deployed in ground operations across Gaza — and Israeli naval vessels. In April 2025, Rolls-Royce Solutions America secured a $180 million contract as the primary supplier of engines for Israel’s new Eitan armored personnel carrier under a U.S. Foreign Military Sale agreement with Israel. A Rolls-Royce spokesperson told MEE the company does not comment on the investment decisions of third-party shareholders.

    Alongside these new 2026 purchases, the HSBC fund retains a pre-existing stake in BAE Systems, the UK’s largest defense contractor, valued at $386,784. BAE manufactures key components for F-35 fighter jets, which the Israeli Air Force has used extensively in Gaza. The fund also holds shares in travel platforms Booking.com and Expedia, both of which have been named by the United Nations for listing tourist accommodation in illegal Israeli settlements built on occupied Palestinian territory.

    Ibrahim Khan, co-founder of industry outlet Islamic Finance Guru, told MEE that while the fund’s investment criteria were established decades ago and cannot be revised overnight, changes are both possible and necessary given the strong ethical views of the Muslim communities the fund serves. “That is a question for HSBC to take seriously and figure out,” Khan said. He added that HSBC has a long track record of serving UK Muslim communities and their pension savings, and that while the current holdings represent a clear misstep, “It is right that we put pressure on them and demand better, but also that we deal with them in a fair way.”

    HSBC has not issued any response to MEE’s requests for comment on the investigation’s findings.

    Over the past three years, growing grassroots activist pressure linked to Israel’s military campaign in Gaza has pushed numerous large investment funds across Europe and North America to divest from companies tied to Israeli military activities. In a prior report in May, MEE revealed that Border to Coast Pensions Partnership, the UK’s largest public sector pension pool which manages roughly £120 billion ($160 billion) in assets for two million local government workers, quietly sold off all of its holdings in Israeli government bonds in 2025.

  • Why is Starlink internet so important on the battlefield in Ukraine?

    Why is Starlink internet so important on the battlefield in Ukraine?

    Since the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Elon Musk’s SpaceX Starlink satellite internet network has emerged as one of Kyiv’s most critical military assets. Delivering reliable high-speed connectivity that modern warfare depends on, Starlink became the backbone of Ukraine’s cross-service military communications, serving the country’s land, naval, and air forces alike.

    Unlike conventional radio communications, Starlink gives Ukrainian drones far stronger long-range connections with their operators, while also offering greater resilience against enemy signal jamming. This advantage has made Starlink-connected drones a core component of Ukraine’s offensive operations and its defense against Russian aerial attacks, most notably interception missions targeting Moscow’s jet-powered Shahed attack drones.

    But earlier this week, a sudden, unannounced speed cap imposed by SpaceX upended this capability. A top Ukrainian official, Serhiy Beskrestnov, confirmed that the 100mph (160km/h) limit, rolled out overnight Tuesday, has already disrupted multiple battlefield missions. Crucially, Beskrestnov added that Ukrainian authorities received no advance warning of the restriction, leaving military operations scrambling to adjust.

    The Washington-based Institute for the Study of War (ISW) warns that the speed cap renders Ukraine’s primary anti-Shahed interception operations nearly ineffective. Russian Shahed drones fly at speeds exceeding 198mph, far above the new Starlink limit, meaning Starlink-enabled Ukrainian interceptors cannot keep pace to intercept them. ISW’s Director of Innovation and Open Source Tradecraft George Barros explained that Starlink’s integrated connectivity cuts the critical “sensor-to-shooter” timeline, linking drones, artillery batteries, and command posts into a single real-time operational network. Any disruption to this system, Barros noted, carries severe strategic consequences for Kyiv’s frontline efforts.

    There is currently no viable alternative to Starlink for Ukraine’s military: while the network does not operate within Russia itself, Ukrainian drones can use Starlink to communicate back to operators based in Ukraine during cross-border strikes. The speed restriction also complicates all drone navigation across both Ukrainian government-held territory and Russian-occupied regions inside Ukraine, according to Tom Whittington, an electronic warfare expert and associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI). Whittington explained that Starlink functions like a distributed smartphone network, capable of moving large volumes of data including video feeds, text updates, and voice communications without relying on vulnerable ground-based infrastructure. The 100mph cap, he noted, effectively blocks any Starlink-connected device from operating above that speed threshold.

    Beskrestnov, an adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, argues the unannounced restriction is no random technical adjustment. He linked the move to growing geopolitical strains between Kyiv and Washington, pointing to recent public criticism of Ukraine from former U.S. President Donald Trump, who has condemned Kyiv’s long-range strikes on Russian oil refineries and called for a change in Ukrainian leadership – criticisms that Musk has echoed publicly.

    The controversy has also drawn new attention to SpaceX’s Starshield program, a military-grade satellite network developed for the U.S. Pentagon. While Musk has emphasized that commercial Starlink and government-run Starshield are separate programs, the two systems share core underlying satellite technology. In a post on X, Musk pushed back against Ukrainian criticism, shifting responsibility for the speed limits to the U.S. government. “Starshield systems are owned and controlled by the U.S. government,” Musk wrote. “Any limits on speed or usage are decided by the U.S. military and ultimately POTUS.” He added that commercial Starlink is explicitly restricted to civilian or defensive use, and cannot be leveraged for offensive military action, arguing that such use would be inappropriate for a private commercial company.

    This is not the first time SpaceX’s policy shifts on Starlink have altered the trajectory of the war in Ukraine. Earlier this year, Musk cut off Starlink terminal access for Russian forces, a move that slowed Moscow’s frontline advance and sowed confusion among Russian military commanders. Starlink has also been used by Russian forces in a range of operations, including an attack on a moving civilian passenger train. Today, Moscow retains control of roughly 18% of Ukraine’s internationally recognized territory, more than two years after launching its full-scale invasion.