Global Pulse

作者： admin

  • SAS troops accused of war crimes not referred to police over morale fears, inquiry hears

    SAS troops accused of war crimes not referred to police over morale fears, inquiry hears

    Fresh explosive testimony released from the ongoing Independent Inquiry into UK actions in Afghanistan has laid bare how senior British special forces leadership deliberately suppressed serious war crime allegations against the SAS between 2010 and 2013, choosing an internal whitewash over a mandatory military police investigation to protect operational momentum and force morale.

    A retired former chief of staff of UK Special Forces (UKSF), identified only by the inquiry cipher N2252, told the closed-door investigation that top commanders made the fateful 2011 decision not to refer allegations of extrajudicial killings, falsified operational reports and the deaths of unarmed civilians and children to the Royal Military Police for two core reasons. First, leadership feared a full formal investigation would pull SAS operators off the high-tempo counter-Taliban campaign targeting insurgents and IED bomb-makers, disrupting ongoing operations by forcing units to focus on probes rather than planning new missions. Second, N2252 confirmed a major unspoken factor was that much of the initial evidence implicating the SAS had come from a rival UK special forces regiment, creating institutional distrust that swayed the decision to ignore red flags.

    This intentional choice meant that military investigators remained unaware of widespread concerns about SAS conduct for years, even as multiple senior officers at UKSF headquarters raised alarms about troubling patterns on the ground. Those red flags included multiple accounts of detained, handcuffed suspects being shot dead during raids, a persistent mismatch between the number of people killed in operations and the number of weapons recovered from kill sites – a common indicator of unlawful extrajudicial killing – and formal complaints. A high-profile international conflict monitoring organization submitted complaints about unlawful killings, and even Afghan partner special forces refused multiple times to deploy alongside the SAS over outrage at the alleged murder of civilians.

    Instead of meeting their legal obligation to report suspected war crimes to military police – a requirement binding all British military commanding officers – UKSF’s then-director ordered a rapid internal review led by an officer closely affiliated with the SAS unit under scrutiny. The inquiry has confirmed the review was completed in just seven days, signed off by the unit’s own commanding officer, and concluded no evidence of criminal wrongdoing existed.

    N2252 told the inquiry that the leadership also believed that external police scrutiny would erode trust between command and frontline SAS troops, arguing that questioning operators’ official accounts would send a demoralizing message that headquarters did not believe their on-the-ground judgments. The testimony, first heard in closed session in 2024, was only released in declassified summary form by the inquiry this Friday, marking the latest in a series of damning disclosures about UK special forces conduct during the Afghanistan deployment, which began in 2009.

    Not all witness testimony has aligned on what senior leaders knew. Another senior UKSF headquarters officer, identified as N1788, told the inquiry he only was aware of tactical errors and never received formal complaints or rumors of extrajudicial killings, evidence tampering or falsified records. However, inquiry lawyers directly contradicted that account, noting it clashes with prior testimony from N1788’s superior officer, who confirmed the two discussed the risk of extrajudicial killings and planted weapons, as well as testimony from an Afghanistan-based senior officer who recalled N1788 asking in a phone call whether the “m-word” – murder – was relevant to the allegations.

    A third witness, a UKSF officer deployed on the ground in Afghanistan codenamed N889, acknowledged that he may have been overly trusting of SAS operational reporting in real time. “I totally accept, you know, all these years later looking back that perhaps one should have taken a slight harder view,” he told the inquiry. “I maybe naively read this stuff, believed it and carried on.”

    The Independent Inquiry into Afghanistan is continuing its work examining the full scope of allegations against the SAS, with additional disclosures expected as more closed testimony is declassified in the coming months. The BBC has issued a public call for additional whistleblowers with information about the case to come forward through secure, encrypted channels including Signal and the BBC’s Tor-based SecureDrop platform to protect the anonymity of sources.

  • US labels two Brazilian crime groups as terrorist organizations

    US labels two Brazilian crime groups as terrorist organizations

    In a move that has sparked diplomatic friction between the two Western Hemisphere nations, the United States formally added two of Brazil’s most powerful criminal factions—Comando Vermelho (Red Command, commonly known as CV) and Primeiro Comando da Capital (First Capital Command, PCC)—to its official list of designated terrorist organizations on Thursday, a step Brazilian authorities have openly rejected.

    U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio released an official statement defending the decision, arguing that the two syndicates rank among the most violent criminal enterprises operating in Brazil. Rubio emphasized that the groups’ sprawling illicit networks and influence do not stop at Brazil’s national borders, but stretch across the broader Latin American region and reach directly into U.S. territory. According to Rubio, CV and PCC collectively count thousands of members across their ranks, and have repeatedly planned and carried out violent, deadly attacks targeting Brazilian law enforcement officers, government officials, and innocent civilian bystanders.

    Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has openly pushed back against the U.S. designation, which carries significant legal ramifications for any entities or individuals connected to the groups under U.S. law. The designation has also become a flashpoint in Brazil’s upcoming presidential election: former president and conservative frontrunner Flavio Bolsonaro, Lula’s main challenger in the October vote, has publicly backed the U.S. move. Earlier this week, Bolsonaro held a high-profile meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump during his visit to the U.S.

    The terrorist designation of transnational criminal gangs marks a continuation of a policy the Trump administration implemented immediately after taking office in January 2025. That same year, the administration applied the same terrorist label to two of Mexico’s most powerful drug cartels, the Sinaloa Cartel and Jalisco New Generation Cartel. From the Trump administration’s perspective, the terrorist classification unlocks new legal authority to expand a range of countermeasures against the groups—from enhanced law enforcement operations and expanded intelligence sharing to full counterinsurgency-style actions—targeting the syndicates, their leadership, and their global assets and financial interests.

    The U.S. designation comes on the heels of a major security crackdown by Brazilian forces against CV back in October 2025. That large-scale raid left at least 119 people dead, making it the deadliest law enforcement operation against organized crime in Brazil’s modern history. Deadly small-scale clashes between security forces and criminal factions are a regular occurrence in the country’s most violence-plagued regions.

    Since the late summer of 2025, the U.S. has also launched dozens of airstrikes targeting maritime vessels originating from Latin America that U.S. officials claim are tied to designated terrorist organizations and used for drug trafficking operations. The global debate over this policy of labeling South American and Latin American criminal groups as terrorists has split along ideological lines: center-left governments in countries like Brazil and Mexico have been vocal critics of the policy, while right-leaning administrations in Ecuador and Honduras have publicly expressed support for the designations.

    Brazil is set to hold its presidential election in October 2025, with recent public opinion polling showing incumbent Lula holding a narrow lead over Bolsonaro. As of yet, Lula has not secured enough support to avoid a second-round runoff vote, leaving the race tight as both candidates lean into transnational crime policy as a key campaign issue.

  • Trial of ‘Ulm 5’ activists: How Germany is dealing with its Palestine Action case

    Trial of ‘Ulm 5’ activists: How Germany is dealing with its Palestine Action case

    A high-profile trial of five pro-Palestinian activists in Germany has ignited fierce national debate over the treatment of political dissent, with the outcome poised to set a lasting legal precedent for future protest-related cases. Known publicly as the “Ulm 5,” the group — with citizenship spanning the UK, Spain, Ireland, and Germany — has remained in pre-trial detention since September over accusations that they are members of a criminal organization and caused roughly €1 million ($1.1 million) in damage at a German facility operated by Israel’s Elbit Systems, one of the Middle Eastern nation’s largest defense contractors.

    The incident at the heart of the case dates back to September 2025, when the five activists gained unauthorized entry to Elbit Systems’ Ulm premises. Videos of the action shared to social media showed the demonstrators wearing branding for Palestine Action Germany, chanting the slogan “Germany finances, Elbit Systems produces, Israel bombs,” and spray-painting the phrase “Baby Killers” on facility walls. Prosecutors allege the group destroyed computer monitors, personal computing devices, precision measuring equipment, and other critical electronic infrastructure during the incursion. Additional charges include the use of symbols linked to Hamas, a Palestinian militant group classified as a terrorist organization under German law.

    Court proceedings are being held in a high-security courtroom at Stuttgart’s Stammheim Prison, a location with deep historical resonance: it hosted the iconic 1970s trial of violent far-left Red Army Faction militants. Defense attorneys have argued that holding the trial in this venue deliberately frames the activists as dangerous extremists, creating an implicit bias that could lead to a wrongful conviction before all evidence is heard. Prosecutors have rejected these claims, noting they never requested special detention conditions for the defendants, and that all current restrictions align with standard German legal protocols.

    The core legal dispute in the case centers on whether Palestine Action Germany qualifies as a criminal organization under Section 129 of the German Criminal Code. Prosecutors maintain that the group’s explicit mission centers on committing serious criminal acts, a legal framing that has been upheld in recent lower-court rulings for similar cases. Defense teams counter that the only substantiated offense is straightforward property damage, arguing the sweeping criminal organization charges are wildly disproportionate and have violated the defendants’ right to a fair trial.

    This specific provision of German criminal law has grown increasingly controversial in recent years, as authorities have invoked it against a range of protest movements from climate activists to pro-Palestinian organizers. Amnesty International researcher Yasmin Khuder warns that the application of Section 129 in the Ulm 5 trial carries dangerous implications. “This case creates a risk that measures actually intended to combat organised crimes are now being used against political protest,” Khuder explained, noting that the activists were simply exercising the right to freedom of expression guaranteed under Germany’s constitution.

    The German trial comes amid parallel, equally contentious developments involving Palestine Action in the United Kingdom. Earlier this month, four UK-based Palestine Action activists were convicted of criminal damage for a 2024 break-in at an Elbit Systems facility near Bristol; one defendant also received a conviction for grievous bodily harm. The UK government designated Palestine Action a terrorist organization in July 2025, a ruling that was later struck down as unlawful by the UK High Court in February. The British government has since appealed the High Court’s decision, and the ban remains in legal limbo. Khuder said that repeated references to the UK’s contested designation in German court proceedings are a major point of concern for human rights observers.

    Unlike the UK, Germany has not formally designated Palestine Action as a terrorist group, though it has ramped up monitoring of pro-Palestinian organizers since 2023, when it banned several pro-Hamas slogans and symbols. To date, most German courts have adjudicated cases involving the use of these symbols on an individual basis, as the bans do not carry full force of law in all contexts.

    After eight months in pre-trial custody, the conditions of the defendants’ detention have added further fuel to the controversy. Family members and advocacy groups argue German authorities are deliberately using harsh conditions to make an example of the five activists. Kit Tricks, sibling of defendant Crow Walt Tricks, told reporters that Crow is held in solitary confinement for 22 hours per day — a classification recognized as solitary confinement under UN guidelines — despite the fact that none of the activists have been accused of harming any person. Nicky Robertson, mother of British defendant Hannah “Zo” Hailu, one of two UK citizens on trial, said she is “absolutely disgusted and outraged” by the treatment of her daughter, particularly the requirement that she appear in court in handcuffs. “What we are looking for is a fair trial, and what we have seen so far is not very fair,” Robertson said. She has called on the UK government to intervene, having already contacted her local Member of Parliament and written to the British ambassador in Berlin. A spokesperson for the British Embassy in Berlin confirmed that it is “providing support to two British nationals detained in Germany and was in contact with the local authorities.”

    Analysts trace Germany’s stringent approach to pro-Palestinian protest back to the country’s post-Holocaust political and social identity, shaped by the “never again” doctrine that emerged after World War Two. Joel Crisetig, an analyst at the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data project, notes that former German Chancellor Angela Merkel once codified Israel’s security as Germany’s “reason of state,” a principle that has guided decades of policy toward the Middle East.

    “For these historical reasons, the pro-Palestinian movement is much weaker in Germany than countries like Britain or France,” Crisetig explained. His research shows that over the past year, Germany has hosted half the number of pro-Palestinian demonstrations as neighboring France, and far fewer than the United Kingdom. Crisetig added that property damage targeting an Israeli defense firm is particularly shocking to the German public, leading authorities to treat the Ulm incident with the same severity as a major terrorism case.

    The trial got off to a chaotic start in late April, when supporters of the defendants chanted “Free Palestine” in the courtroom, and defense attorneys refused to take their seats in protest of the court’s decision to keep defendants separated behind a glass partition. Proceedings are ongoing, and if convicted on all charges, each of the Ulm 5 faces up to five years in prison.

  • When trade soured, this American liquor maker moved to Canada

    When trade soured, this American liquor maker moved to Canada

    The ongoing Canada-U.S. tariff conflict sparked by U.S. President Donald Trump has reshaped the operations of an American liquor company, driving a surprising shift in its manufacturing strategy that highlights the far-reaching ripple effects of cross-border trade disputes.

    Minnesota-based family-owned Phillips Distilling Company found itself in an unexpected crisis starting in March 2025, when one of its most popular products, the bright, fruit-flavored liqueur Sour Puss, was suddenly pulled from shelves across most Canadian provinces. What many Canadian consumers like Stephanie Intrevado never knew was that their beloved cult favorite, a staple of university social life, was actually produced in the United States. Intrevado, a 35-year-old Quebec resident who has collected nearly every Sour Puss flavor since she turned 18, says she was shocked when she learned the brand’s origin – and terrified that she would lose access to it entirely.

    The provincial boycott of U.S.-made liquor was a direct retaliatory measure against Trump’s new tariffs on key Canadian industries including automotive manufacturing, metals and lumber. Starting with Ontario, home to one of the world’s largest alcohol wholesale systems and a hard-hit auto sector, the boycott quickly spread to major provinces including Quebec and British Columbia. As of May 2026, only Alberta and Saskatchewan – which operate fully privatized liquor retail systems – still allow the sale of U.S.-produced alcohol. Provincial governments, which control alcohol import and sales regulation across most of Canada, hold full authority to restrict what products reach consumers, giving them the power to implement the boycott without federal approval.

    For Phillips Distilling, the impact was catastrophic. Canada accounts for the overwhelming majority of global Sour Puss sales; CEO Andy England notes that the brand is effectively a Canadian cultural staple, with U.S. sales volume barely registering. After the boycott took effect, the company lost 70% of its Canadian business overnight, a hit England describes as an unmitigated disaster.

    Faced with the collapse of their core market for Sour Puss, Phillips Distilling made a historic decision the company had never before considered: shift a portion of production across the border into Canada. Just weeks after provincial liquor boards halted orders, the company began exploring local manufacturing options. By October 2025, with no end to the trade dispute in sight, Phillips signed a production agreement with Montreal-based alcohol manufacturer Station 22.

    The move has paid off. Quebec was the first province to allow the newly Canadian-made Sour Puss back onto shelves, and that approval paved the way for other provinces to follow suit. Today, the product is back in stores across most of Canada, and the company is now classified as a domestic producer for the Canadian market, putting it on a path to recover lost sales. For loyal fans like Intrevado, the return of Sour Puss was cause for celebration: she marked the occasion with an Instagram post featuring her first haul of new raspberry-flavored bottles, writing, “Oh how I’ve missed you.”

    Experts note that Phillips Distilling’s ability to pivot makes it a unique case among U.S. alcohol producers hit by the boycott. Meredith Lilly, an international economic policy professor at Ottawa’s Carleton University, explains that unlike geographically-tied products such as Kentucky bourbon or California wine, Sour Puss has no inherent link to its Minnesota origin. The brand also faces little backlash from U.S. consumers because the vast majority of its sales are north of the border, eliminating reputational risk for the company. In an unexpected twist, Lilly adds, the boycott – which she calls an impulsive, heat-of-the-moment response to U.S. tariffs – has accidentally created an economic benefit for Canada by bringing new manufacturing jobs to the country.

    Nearly 15 months after the boycott launched, a broader trade agreement between the two countries remains out of reach. The U.S. has repeatedly called the Canadian liquor boycott a major point of contention in ongoing negotiations, while Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has stated that provinces would only reconsider lifting the ban if Trump removes tariffs on key Canadian exports. U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has publicly denounced the ban as “outrageous” and “disrespectful.” Lilly cautions that because the final decision to lift the ban rests with individual provinces rather than the federal Canadian government, the boycott remains an unpredictable bargaining chip that is difficult to leverage in national negotiations.

    This is not the first time Canada has targeted U.S. alcohol over tariffs during Trump’s presidency: during his first term, then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau placed tariffs on Kentucky bourbon to pressure Republican-leaning states after Trump imposed steel levies on Canada. That dispute was resolved within a year, but the current conflict has dragged on with no clear resolution in sight. For Phillips Distilling, however, the shift to Canadian production is likely a permanent change. England says the past year of crisis has forced the company to restructure its long-term business model, and whatever outcome comes from ongoing trade negotiations, the production move is here to stay.

  • Lionel Messi is in Argentina’s World Cup squad as coach Scalini calms injury fears

    Lionel Messi is in Argentina’s World Cup squad as coach Scalini calms injury fears

    BUENOS AIRES — With less than two months remaining until the 2026 FIFA World Cup kicks off, reigning world champion Argentina has finalized its 26-man roster for the tournament, with head coach Lionel Scaloni moving quickly to ease widespread concerns over growing injury concerns by confirming that captain Lionel Messi will lead the side as the Albiceleste chases an unprecedented second consecutive World Cup title.

    The Argentine Football Association made the official squad announcement on Thursday, with 39-year-old Messi, who is set to make history at this tournament, headlining the roster. 17 of the players called up were part of the 2022 Qatar World Cup-winning squad that defeated France in a historic final to claim the country’s third World Cup crown.

    Injuries have cast a long shadow over Argentina’s preparations in the final stretch ahead of FIFA’s June 1 deadline for final squad submission, with multiple key first-team players dealing with fitness issues of differing severity — including Messi himself. The Inter Miami superstar was forced to exit last Sunday’s club match early after suffering muscle fatigue and a strain in his left hamstring. Inter Miami has confirmed that Messi’s recovery timeline remains contingent on his ongoing clinical and functional improvement, but the injury did not prevent him from retaining his place in the squad.

    This tournament will mark Messi’s sixth appearance at the World Cup, capping an unparalleled international career that has already seen him compete at the 2006 Germany, 2010 South Africa, 2014 Brazil, 2018 Russia and 2022 Qatar editions of the competition.

    Multiple other key starters have also been included in the squad despite ongoing injury recoveries. Star goalkeeper Emiliano Martínez, who fractured the ring finger on his right hand during Aston Villa’s Europa League final win last week, has been confirmed for the roster. Tottenham defender Cristian Romero, who has been sidelined since mid-April with a sprained collateral ligament in his right knee, also earned a call-up. Fullbacks Nahuel Molina and Gonzalo Montiel — both of whom stepped up to convert penalties in the dramatic 2022 penalty shootout against France — are also included as they continue working through their own muscle injury recoveries.

    As three-time World Cup winners, with previous titles in 1978 and 1986, Argentina will kick off their 2026 campaign in Group J on June 16, with their opening match against Algeria. The group also includes Austria and Jordan. The full squad will depart for their pre-tournament training base in Kansas City on Saturday, and will play warm-up friendlies against Honduras and Iceland before the tournament officially gets underway.

    The full 26-man Argentina 2026 World Cup squad is as follows:
    Goalkeepers: Emiliano Martínez (Aston Villa), Gerónimo Rulli (Olympique de Marseille), Juan Musso (Atlético de Madrid)
    Defenders: Gonzalo Montiel (River Plate), Nahuel Molina (Atlético de Madrid), Lisandro Martínez (Manchester United), Nicolás Otamendi (Benfica), Leonardo Balerdi (Olympique de Marseille), Cristian Romero (Tottenham), Nicolás Tagliafico (Olympique de Lyon), Facundo Medina (Olympique de Marseille)
    Midfielders: Giovani Lo Celso (Real Betis), Leandro Paredes (Boca Juniors), Rodrigo De Paul (Inter Miami), Exequiel Palacios (Bayer Leverkusen), Enzo Fernández (Chelsea), Alexis Mac Allister (Liverpool), Valentín Barco (RC Strasbourg Alsace)
    Forwards: Lionel Messi (Inter Miami), Nicolás González (Atlético de Madrid), Giuliano Simeone (Atlético de Madrid), Lautaro Martínez (Inter Milan), José Manuel López (Palmeiras), Julián Álvarez (Atlético de Madrid), Thiago Almada (Lyon), Nico Paz (Como)

  • US spelling bee finalists battle it out – can you keep up? Take our quiz

    US spelling bee finalists battle it out – can you keep up? Take our quiz

    One of the United States’ most iconic long-running academic competitions for young people is officially underway, as the nation’s top child spellers convene this week to test their mastery of English orthography and compete for a coveted title and $52,000 in cash rewards.

    The 2026 iteration of the Scripps National Spelling Bee kicked off its final rounds on Tuesday, bringing together 247 qualifying contestants ranging in age from 9 to 15 from across the country. Steeped in 101 years of tradition, the annual contest is scheduled to wrap up Thursday evening, when just nine finalists will advance to the final onstage showdown. These remaining young competitors will face off in front of a live audience of family members, teachers, and peers, as well as a national television viewership, working through the letter-by-letter spelling of some of the most complex, obscure, and challenging words in the English language.

    The champion of the competition will walk away with two top honors: the official Scripps Cup and the $52,000 cash prize, equivalent to roughly £39,000. For readers curious about how their own spelling skills measure up to the nation’s top young competitors, an interactive practice quiz is also being offered, which invites participants to test their abilities by spelling words after listening to audio prompts. For those who have worked years to qualify for the national stage, all eyes are now on the final round to see which speller will claim this year’s title.

  • ‘Would have stung’: Jacob Saifiti reflects on brutal bench blow as ‘staunch NSW supporter’ faces nervous selection wait

    ‘Would have stung’: Jacob Saifiti reflects on brutal bench blow as ‘staunch NSW supporter’ faces nervous selection wait

    The 2024 State of Origin series opener has already made history for an unexpected reason: NSW Blues prop Jacob Saifiti has become the first high-profile casualty of the competition’s controversial new six-man fluid interchange rule, left benched for the entire match at Sydney’s Accor Stadium even as his side clinched a thrilling last-gasp win.

    Ahead of the game, Saifiti was the only specialist front-rower named in the Blues’ matchday squad, a role that would typically carry high importance given the wet, heavy playing conditions that favor physical forward play. But a late-game injury to winger Tolu Koula upended coach Laurie Daley’s substitution plans completely.

    With 23 minutes left to play, Queensland Maroons star Kalyn Ponga delivered a high shoulder charge to Koula’s head, knocking the Blues winger out of the match and forcing Daley to adjust his bench strategy. Because the substitution was triggered by foul play, NSW was permitted to activate an extra reserve without it counting against the four allowed regular interchanges. To maintain attacking momentum while the team was still trailing, Daley opted to bring on outside back Casey McLean to replace Koula instead of sending Saifiti onto the field, leaving the Knights prop unused for the full 80 minutes. Only center Matt Burton also got a late run in the final minutes of the match, making Saifiti the only Blues bench player to not take the field.

    The new interchange framework, which allows teams to name a six-man bench, has reshaped how coaches approach substitutions this series. Most coaches now hold three reserves for early rotations, then delay using a fourth interchange until the final 20 minutes, often leaving two players without any game time. Under the new rules, only Saifiti missed out entirely in the opener, a harsh outcome he says he saw coming.

    Speaking to NewsWire after the match, Saifiti acknowledged that the structure of the new rules always carried the risk of going unused. “I knew with a six-man bench it was a possibility,” he said. “I was close to going on for Isaah Yeo just before halftime, but I knew at halftime we were chasing points, so it was a good chance I wasn’t going to get on. After Tolu went down, it was a free interchange, but we were still chasing points. Honestly, if we were winning, I probably go on in that situation. But the fact that they needed creativity meant I wasn’t going to.”

    Despite the disappointment of sitting out the match, Saifiti said he bore no ill will over the call, and celebrated wildly when captain James Tedesco scored the match-winning try that sealed the opening game for the Blues. “I’ve been on the other side of it when we’re defending points they put me back on, so that’s the game we play,” he explained. “If we had a loss, then it probably would have stung a bit more, but we won so that’s great. I would have loved to have got on, but I’ll take the win any day of the week. I’m a staunch NSW supporter. Even if I wasn’t playing tonight or part of the squad, I would have been at home with my Blues jumper on, so I’m just so grateful to be part of the squad.”

    The snub leaves Saifiti facing an uncertain future for the second game of the series, with Brisbane Broncos star prop Payne Haas waiting in the wings to return to the Blues starting squad after missing the opener with a minor knee injury. Haas, who is set to return to club football this weekend, downplayed talk of his Origin recall ahead of his Broncos commitments, saying: “To play for your state is always a blessing and it’s a huge honour, but for now I’m just worried about Broncos and doing my job for the boys here. I’ll just stay present here, worry about my footy here. We’re in a bit of a slump at the moment, so I just want to get back to playing Broncos footy and try and get the win this week.”

    Beyond his own benching, the opening match brought a bittersweet moment for Saifiti, who counts Queensland’s Ponga – the player responsible for Koula’s injury – as one of his closest friends from their time together at the Newcastle Knights. Ponga was sent off immediately after the tackle and faced a likely ban before the match review committee only issued a fine, a decision that left Saifiti sympathetic to his teammate’s position. The prop said he waited until after the final whistle to reach out, wanting to give Ponga space to process the moment.

    “He’s on the other side and he’s wearing a different jersey, but he’s honestly one of my good mates,” Saifiti said. “It’s probably too soon to go over and see him because I can only imagine how he’s feeling, so it’s a tough one. He’s such a competitor. I love the bloke, so I’ll reach out to him soon. I’ll let him do his thing in this next couple of hours, then I’ll give him a call and check up on him.”

  • How did this novel about food win a Booker Prize this year?

    How did this novel about food win a Booker Prize this year?

    The 2024 Booker Prize has marked an unprecedented milestone in global literary circles, as *Taiwan Travelogue* has etched its name into the award’s history books as the first work originally written in Mandarin Chinese to take home the prestigious honor after being translated into English. For decades, the Booker Prize has celebrated the most exceptional English-language fiction from across the globe, but this win opens a new chapter for the award by breaking long-standing linguistic barriers that have often marginalized translated works from East Asian literary traditions.

    Industry observers and literary critics have been quick to note the significance of this outcome, pointing to the novel’s rich, sensory exploration of food, culture, and personal memory as the core of its widespread acclaim. Centered on intimate stories woven around local Taiwanese cuisine, the book connects everyday culinary experiences to broader themes of identity, heritage, and cross-generational connection, creating a narrative that resonates with both English-speaking readers and critics familiar with the global literary landscape. Translator of the work also shared credit for the novel’s success, emphasizing the careful work required to preserve the nuance of cultural context and emotional texture when shifting between Mandarin and English.

    This historic win is expected to reshape future Booker Prize selections, drawing greater attention to translated fiction from underrepresented linguistic regions and opening new doors for Chinese-language literature to reach a global mainstream audience. It also sparks broader conversations about the role of major literary awards in fostering cross-cultural exchange through storytelling.

  • US extends TPS for Lebanese citizens in US through November

    US extends TPS for Lebanese citizens in US through November

    In a surprise development this week, the second Trump administration has confirmed it will extend Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for an estimated 11,000 Lebanese citizens currently residing and working legally in the United States. The six-month extension will push the expiration of their protected status to November 27, 2026, marking the first such voluntary extension of the program since President Donald Trump returned to the Oval Office in January 2025.

    The official notice of the extension was submitted to the U.S. Federal Register on Wednesday and is set for formal publication this Friday. Contrary to many assumptions about the Trump administration’s broader aggressive rollback of TPS programs across multiple nations, the extension for Lebanese nationals is not a deliberate policy shift, but an automatic procedural renewal. According to the filing, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin lacked sufficient time to complete a full formal review of Lebanon’s TPS designation and issue a final determination 60 days ahead of the program’s original expiration date, triggering the automatic six-month extension under existing regulations.

    First established to allow foreign nationals to remain and obtain work authorization in the U.S. when their home countries face unsafe conditions such as armed conflict, natural disaster, or humanitarian catastrophe that make return impossible, TPS grants temporary extensions of up to 18 months at a time with no statutory cap on total extensions. Lebanon was first added to the TPS program by the outgoing Biden administration in October 2024, amid a sharp escalation of Israeli military operations in the country that began after a Hezbollah attack on Israel in October 2023, launched in solidarity with the group’s ally Hamas in Gaza.

    As of this week, the ongoing Israeli campaign has killed more than 3,000 Lebanese people, injured close to 10,000, and this week saw a major expansion of ground operations into southern Lebanon beyond previously declared buffer zones, with more than 135 strikes on alleged Hezbollah targets in a single 24-hour period, including strikes in the capital Beirut that killed at least 14 people, among them children. This escalating violence comes as top U.S.-brokered military security talks between Lebanese and Israeli officials are set to open in Washington on Friday, the first high-level direct talks between the two sides in more than 30 years, following an initial meeting between their ambassadors hosted by Secretary of State Marco Rubio last month. Notably, a permanent ceasefire was not on the agenda for the initial talks, and Hezbollah, the core Lebanese faction involved in the conflict, has no representation at the negotiating table, leaving Lebanese negotiators with limited authority to reach substantive agreements.

    The TPS extension applies only to Lebanese nationals (and stateless individuals who last resided in Lebanon) who have continuously lived in the U.S. since October 16, 2024, and will remain in effect from May 28, 2026 through November 27, 2026.

    This extension marks a departure from the Trump administration’s broader agenda of dismantling existing TPS programs across the globe. Since taking office in January, the administration has moved aggressively to terminate TPS designations for multiple nations including Haiti, Somalia, and Venezuela, though many of these termination attempts have been temporarily blocked by federal court orders. Last month, advocacy groups and affected TPS holders filed a federal lawsuit challenging the administration’s termination of TPS for Somali nationals, arguing that the country still faces a decades-long humanitarian crisis marked by ongoing armed conflict, arbitrary detention, extrajudicial killing, torture, and widespread severe human rights violations that make return unsafe for Somali nationals. Somalia has held continuous TPS designation since 1991, with every successive administration from 2002 to 2024 reaffirming that ongoing instability meets the criteria for protected status. Former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem defended the administration’s move to end Somalia’s TPS earlier this year, claiming that “temporary means temporary” and that conditions in Somalia have improved enough that it no longer meets the legal standard for the program, which the administration argues was never intended to serve as a pathway to permanent residency.

  • Israel’s Gaza offshore gas plans condemned as illegal resource grab

    Israel’s Gaza offshore gas plans condemned as illegal resource grab

    Israel’s latest push for natural gas exploration off the coast of the Gaza Strip has sparked sharp criticism from Palestinian rights organizations and environmental campaigners, who argue the initiative violates international law, undermines Palestinian sovereignty, and poses unnecessary threats to marine ecosystems and the global climate.

    In February 2024, Israeli Energy Minister Eli Cohen formally approved the country’s fifth round of offshore gas licensing in the Mediterranean Sea. Per official documentation from Israel’s Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure, the auction opens up roughly 8,600 square kilometers of Mediterranean waters for exploration, split across six distinct exploration blocks.

    Adalah, a Haifa-based legal organization that advocates for Palestinian rights, has revealed that two of these six blocks sit within internationally recognized Palestinian maritime territory off Gaza’s shore. This is not the first time Israeli licensing rounds have encroached on Palestinian waters: the group notes that the previous offshore auction also extended into waters claimed by the State of Palestine.

    Last month, Adalah submitted an official letter to both Cohen and Israeli Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara challenging the legality of the new licensing round. The correspondence, which has been shared with independent news outlet Middle East Eye, argues that the plan is unlawful because approximately 1,000 square kilometers of the proposed exploration area lies in waters over which Palestine claims full sovereignty. Adalah emphasizes that Israel holds no legal authority to conduct resource activities in these Palestinian maritime areas, noting that any exploration here would violate both Israeli domestic legislation and binding international law.

    The organization rejects Israel’s ongoing military occupation of Palestinian territories as a valid justification for denying the inherent sovereign rights of the State of Palestine and the Palestinian people. It further points out that the drilling plans directly contradict the 1993 Oslo Accords, the landmark agreement signed between Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization that laid out frameworks for Palestinian self-governance in occupied territories. Under international humanitarian law, Adalah notes, occupying powers are explicitly prohibited from exploiting natural resources in occupied territories for their own benefit—a rule the new exploration plan clearly violates.

    Suhad Bishara, Adalah’s legal director, framed the gas plans as an inseparable component of a broader accelerating Israeli policy aimed at formalizing annexation and permanent control over all Palestinian land and natural resources. “This is not merely a violation of international law,” Bishara explained in a public statement. “It is a deliberate attempt to entrench permanent Israeli control over Palestinian territory and resources, directly undermining the Palestinian people’s fundamental right to self-determination.”

    To date, the Israeli energy ministry has not publicly released the results of the licensing round since the tender was first announced, and Middle East Eye’s request for comment on the allegations went unanswered as of the original publication of this report.

    Adalah’s investigation also connects the new exploration round to a long-standing pattern of Israeli restrictions that have systematically denied Palestinian access to their own offshore energy resources. Since the early 2000s, Israel has blocked the Palestinian Authority from developing the Gaza Marine gas field, which independent experts estimate holds up to 30 billion cubic meters of natural gas. Development of this field would generate an estimated $4 billion in revenue for the Palestinian Authority, according to industry projections. The organization also notes that Israel already exports billions of dollars worth of natural gas to Egypt via the Ashkelon-Arish pipeline, which traverses Palestinian maritime territory without any consent from Palestinian authorities.

    Joining the condemnation are Israeli environmental advocates, who warn that the exploration plan carries severe ecological risks and runs counter to global efforts to transition away from fossil fuels. Yuval Arbel, a policy specialist with the Zalul Environmental Association, an Israeli group focused on protecting marine and freshwater resources, argues that Israel already holds sufficient domestic gas reserves to meet all its current and future energy needs. “There is no justification for expanding gas production,” Arbel told Middle East Eye. “Our policy priority should be accelerating the transition to renewable energy, not opening new fossil fuel exploration blocks.”

    Arbel warned that offshore drilling carries inherent major risks to delicate Mediterranean marine ecosystems, and that expanded gas production will only worsen climate change by increasing global greenhouse gas emissions. He noted that while the energy ministry justifies new exploration on the grounds that renewables alone cannot meet future Israeli energy demand, the policy is primarily driven by the pursuit of short-term profit. “Even if extraction moves forward, production will not begin for another six to 10 years,” Arbel pointed out. “No one can accurately predict what global gas demand will look like in 10 or 15 years. There is no tangible public benefit for Israel in extracting more gas—this is solely about generating extra export revenue for the state.”

    These claims are backed by recent official revenue figures: in 2024, the Israeli energy ministry reported record revenues from domestic gas production, with the state collecting 2.3 billion shekels (roughly $640 million) in royalties, an increase of more than 8% from the previous year. Israel’s offshore gas sector has been a major source of state revenue since it was privatized in 2015, and currently hosts operations from a range of international and domestic energy firms, including UK-based Energean and U.S. energy giant Chevron. Just one year prior, BP and Azerbaijan’s state-owned energy firm SOCAR won bids in Israel’s fourth licensing round, which was also widely criticized for violating Palestinian maritime sovereignty.

    Arbel emphasized that even a low probability of a catastrophic oil or gas spill is unacceptable given the irreversible damage it would cause to Gaza’s and Israel’s Mediterranean coastlines. “The potential damage from drilling is so severe that even a small risk of disaster is not worth taking,” he said.

    Over the past decade, natural gas has become Israel’s dominant source of electricity generation, displacing coal as the country’s top fuel. Knesset data shows that gas accounted for just 49% of Israeli electricity production in 2014; a decade later, that share has jumped to more than 70%, with coal and renewable energy each contributing roughly 14% of total generation.

    The gas exploration plan off Gaza aligns with a broader aggressive policy agenda pursued by Minister Cohen since he took office in 2024, which centers on consolidating Israeli control over occupied Palestinian territories in line with demands from the Israeli settler movement. Just last week, Cohen announced plans to expand natural gas infrastructure into the occupied West Bank, explicitly framing the move as an exercise in de facto Israeli sovereignty. The project will extend Mediterranean gas supplies to Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and earlier this week Cohen told Israeli outlet Channel 14 News that new power plants and gas pipelines across the West Bank are “the economic key on the path to one million settlers” living in the occupied territory.

    The push for new fossil fuel exploration comes as Israel’s ongoing military campaign in Gaza has already had extreme climate and energy impacts. Research published last year by the Social Science Research Network found that the carbon footprint generated in the first 15 months of military operations in Gaza exceeded the total annual emissions of more than 100 countries combined. Since October 2023, Israel has systematically destroyed Gaza’s already fragile energy infrastructure, leading to near-total nationwide electricity blackouts throughout 2024, according to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).

    Before the current war, Gaza residents received an average of just 10 hours of electricity per day, with the entire occupied Palestinian territory relying almost entirely on energy supplies from Israel. Pre-war data from the Institute for Palestine Studies shows that Palestinians sourced 87% of their total electricity from Israel, with the remaining 13% coming from Egypt, Jordan, and small-scale local solar generation projects.