Global Pulse

作者： admin

  • Rubio says Cuba is threat to US as Havana accuses him of ‘lies’

    Rubio says Cuba is threat to US as Havana accuses him of ‘lies’

    Diplomatic tensions between the United States and Cuba have reached a new boiling point, after top US officials have ramped up aggressive rhetoric against the island nation and brought formal criminal charges against its former leader. One day after the US Department of Justice indicted ex-Cuban President Raúl Castro on murder charges linked to the 1996 shooting down of two private aircraft that killed four US citizens, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly labeled Cuba a persistent national security threat to the US, and downplayed the chances of any peaceful diplomatic breakthrough between the two nations.

    Rubio told reporters this week that while Washington officially still prefers a negotiated diplomatic resolution to decades of bilateral tensions, the probability of reaching such an agreement under the current Cuban leadership is extremely low. He further amplified US accusations, labeling Cuba as one of the primary state sponsors of terrorist activity across the Latin American and Caribbean region. The top US diplomat also declined to comment on potential plans to take former President Castro into custody to face trial in the US, noting that any operational details would remain confidential. Acting US Attorney General Todd Blanche, who announced the indictment in Miami, the heart of the US-based Cuban exile community, said Wednesday that Washington expects Castro to face justice in the US “by his own will or another way.”

    Cuban officials have pushed back forcefully against all US claims. Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez denied the accusations in an official post on the social platform X, calling Rubio’s comments outright lies. Rodríguez emphasized that Cuba has never posed any threat to the United States, and accused the Trump administration of deliberately stoking tensions to justify military aggression against the island. He also condemned what he called Washington’s systematic, ruthless campaign of pressure against the Cuban people.

    The escalating confrontation comes as Cuba already grapples with a severe humanitarian and economic crisis, worsened by a longstanding US oil embargo that has created acute fuel shortages across the country. For months, Cuban residents have faced extended, rolling power blackouts and widespread shortages of basic food goods. Rubio confirmed that Cuba has accepted a $100 million US humanitarian aid package, though the gesture has done little to ease the broader political standoff.

    President Donald Trump, who has made aggressive opposition to Cuba’s communist government a central part of his foreign policy agenda, has repeatedly leveraged economic and diplomatic pressure to push for regime change on the island. Speaking from the Oval Office, Trump characterized Cuba as a “failed country” and framed his administration’s actions as a humanitarian effort to support the Cuban people. He noted that decades of previous US presidential administrations failed to resolve the long-running conflict, and positioned himself as the leader who will finally address the issue. Many political analysts have drawn parallels between Wednesday’s indictment of Castro and the Trump administration’s 2025 arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, seeing the move as part of a broader pattern of aggressive action against left-leaning Latin American governments that are opposed by Washington.

  • Israelis slam Ben Gvir for ‘damaging country’s image’ with flotilla abuse video

    Israelis slam Ben Gvir for ‘damaging country’s image’ with flotilla abuse video

    A leaked video showing Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir overseeing the mistreatment of detained activists from the Gaza-bound Global Sumud Flotilla has triggered widespread condemnation both inside Israel and across the global community, exposing deep rifts within the country’s political establishment over the incident and its international fallout. The footage, which went public in late May 2026, captures Ben Gvir waving an Israeli flag while confronting detained activists, who are seen being manhandled and forced to kneel face-down on the ground by officers from the Israel Prison Service (IPS).

    The controversy unfolded days after Israeli naval forces intercepted the flotilla—made up of 77 vessels carrying hundreds of activists seeking to break Israel’s long-running blockade of Gaza—while it was still in international waters. More than 30 activists on board were taken into Israeli custody following the raid, with the vast majority deported by Thursday, with only Israeli citizens remaining in detention. According to Israeli public broadcaster Kan 11, Israeli officials had originally planned to process the detainees quietly, deport them via the southern port of Ashdod, and avoid public provocation. Multiple branches of Israel’s security and diplomatic apparatus, including the foreign ministry, top security establishment leaders, and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) spokesperson unit, had even opposed the publication of any official footage from the raid, to align with this low-profile approach.

    Internal planning shows the IDF spokesperson unit had intended to release curated footage showing activists being treated respectfully, to shape global public perception of the operation. But the foreign ministry vetoed that plan, opting instead to hand-select what imagery would be made public. That carefully managed narrative collapsed after Ben Gvir published the video of his presence at the detention facility, a move that senior Israeli security sources have described as causing “enormous damage” to the country’s international standing.

    Already, the incident has drawn sharp condemnation from world leaders, particularly from nations whose citizens were among the detained activists. Activist testimonies collected by Adalah, an Israeli legal center representing Palestinian and minority rights, confirm that detainees faced systemic abuse in custody. Suhad Bishara, Adalah’s legal director, says activists reported severe violence at the hands of Israeli forces, with at least two people hospitalized after being struck by rubber bullets during the raid. Additional allegations from Ynet, an Israeli mainstream news outlet, add that naval forces fired rubber bullets at approaching flotilla vessels and blasted loud, disruptive music through the ships’ communication systems during the interception. Adalah’s account further alleges that detainees endured extreme violence, sexual humiliation, and serious injuries both during the naval raid and after being brought to Ashdod port. An IPS spokesperson defended the operation in a statement to Haaretz, claiming all treatment of detainees followed official standard operating procedures, and noting that any footage showing abuse was captured in areas controlled by the IDF and national police, not the IPS.

    Within Israel, criticism of Ben Gvir has been widespread—even from the minister’s own political allies—though most internal condemnation has focused on the damage the video caused to Israel’s global reputation, rather than the abuse of the activists documented in the footage. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who appointed Ben Gvir to his national security post, acknowledged that the minister’s handling of the confrontation “is not in line with Israel’s values and norms” amid mounting international pressure. Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar went further, saying Ben Gvir’s “disgraceful display” had caused tangible harm to the state, and that the far-right minister “is not the face of Israel.”

    Opposition leaders have gone a step further, placing blame squarely on Netanyahu for allowing Ben Gvir to hold a senior government post. Yesh Atid party leader and opposition head Yair Lapid said Netanyahu bears ultimate responsibility for the damage done to Israel’s international public diplomacy, known locally as hasbara. Yair Golan, leader of the opposition Democrats party, called Ben Gvir “a criminal and a strategic liability” to the state, while fellow Democrat Gilad Kariv added that the minister “does not represent Israel” or Israeli values, calling him “a disgrace to Judaism and Zionism.”

    Not all Israeli political figures have criticized Ben Gvir, however. Transport Minister Miri Regev, a member of Netanyahu’s ruling Likud party, was also present at the detention facility and published her own footage from the site. She defended the operation in a social media post, writing “This is what should be done to terror supporters who came to break the siege on Gaza,” and falsely claiming the activists had been under the influence of drugs and alcohol. On Channel 14, a pro-Netanyahu Israeli outlet, panelists openly defended Ben Gvir’s actions, with one commentator stating “We want to show the world that we treat these people like cockroaches here.” Even some critics of Ben Gvir’s messaging have defended his core position: Amichai Stein, diplomatic correspondent for i24NEWS, wrote that Ben Gvir had every right to label the activists as anti-Israel terrorists, but argued he should not be in charge of shaping the country’s international messaging.

    Ahmed Tibi, a Palestinian member of the Israeli Knesset, pushed back on claims that Ben Gvir does not represent Israeli values, arguing that the far-right minister’s actions, and the widespread support they have received within the ruling establishment, accurately reflect the current attitudes of Israel’s government and its core political positions. The controversy has already created significant friction between Israeli security and diplomatic institutions, and has reinforced global criticism of Israel’s ongoing blockade of Gaza and treatment of pro-Palestinian activists seeking to challenge it.

  • Jailed Vietnamese tycoon’s Birkin bags sells for more than $550K

    Jailed Vietnamese tycoon’s Birkin bags sells for more than $550K

    In a high-profile state-led auction held in Ho Chi Minh City, two ultra-luxury Hermès Birkin handbags seized from imprisoned disgraced Vietnamese businesswoman Truong My Lan have sold for a combined total of more than $535,000, after just half an hour of competitive bidding. The sale, part of a broader effort to liquidate thousands of Truong’s confiscated assets to cover court-ordered reparations, has drawn global attention for the extraordinary price fetched by the rare designer goods, highlighting the enduring hype and investment value of Hermès’ most exclusive product line.

    Of the two Birkins sold on Monday at the Ho Chi Minh City Asset Auction Service Center, the larger 30-centimeter model brought in $94,858, while a smaller, embellished 25-centimeter version—adorned with rhinestones on its clasp and trim—sold for an eye-watering $440,144, nearly seven times its original opening bid. The bags were among roughly 1,200 seized assets put up for auction as authorities move to recoup billions in stolen funds tied to Truong’s massive financial fraud scheme.

    Truong My Lan, once one of Vietnam’s most high-profile business figures, was convicted in April 2024 for orchestrating a decade-long embezzlement scheme centered on her secret control of Saigon Commercial Bank, Vietnam’s fifth-largest lender. Over more than 10 years, she siphoned $44 billion from the bank through a complex network of shell companies, and courts ordered her to repay $27 billion in reparations to cover the missing funds. Originally sentenced to death, Truong’s sentence was commuted to life in prison in June 2024, when Vietnam abolished capital punishment for a range of financial and non-violent crimes.

    Throughout her trial, Truong fought to retain ownership of the two handbags, telling courts she had purchased one during a trip to Italy and received the second as a gift from a Malaysian business executive. She argued the bags were intended to be passed down as personal keepsakes for her children and grandchildren, but courts ultimately ordered the assets seized as part of her reparations ruling. Back in January, Ho Chi Minh City’s Civil Judgment Enforcement Agency announced it would bring in independent luxury experts to appraise the rare crocodile-skin Birkins ahead of the planned auction, signaling the high value placed on the items.

    Industry experts note that the extraordinary final price paid for the bags aligns with a years-long trend of rising values for rare Hermès Birkin bags, which have become popular alternative investment assets for wealthy collectors. Nicholas Parnell, founder of Agency Parnell, a leading wholesale luxury fashion agency, explained that Hermès’ intentional limited distribution strategy has kept demand far outstripping supply for the iconic line for decades. “It is one of the most sought-after bags and that has been achieved primarily by Hermès restricting access to people,” Parnell noted, adding that rare and custom Birkins are widely viewed as tangible works of art rather than just accessories. “The price is quite limitless in a way because there are so many special editions,” he said, noting that many collectors view the bags as long-term holdings that hold or gain value over time.

    The auction sale comes just months after another historic Birkin sale that underscored the market’s sky-high appetite for rare examples: in July 2025, Sotheby’s Paris sold an original prototype Birkin bag for €8.6 million (equivalent to $10.1 million at the time), marking the highest price ever paid for a handbag at auction up to that point. Major auction houses including Sotheby’s now regularly list rare Birkins for tens of thousands of dollars, with special editions and custom pieces regularly selling for hundreds of thousands or even millions.

  • Exclusive: Sudan’s Burhan open to talks with UAE but ceasefire not imminent

    Exclusive: Sudan’s Burhan open to talks with UAE but ceasefire not imminent

    More than two years into Sudan’s devastating civil conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), diplomatic overtures are stirring tentative movement between the SAF-aligned transitional government and the United Arab Emirates, a major backer of the RSF. In an exclusive interview with Middle East Eye, Burhan laid out clear preconditions for any formal dialogue with Abu Dhabi: the UAE must immediately end its military and logistical backing for the RSF, honor Sudan’s territorial sovereignty, and conduct all negotiations on terms set by Khartoum’s recognized military leadership.

    MEE can exclusively confirm that Burhan’s high-profile visit to Bahrain last week was not a routine diplomatic stop: it formed the core of a deliberate mediation push by Manama, which leverages its long-standing close political ties to Abu Dhabi to act as a trusted intermediary between the Sudanese government and Emirati officials. Multiple sources, including a senior Sudanese intelligence official and four European diplomatic figures with direct knowledge of the talks, confirm that while efforts to open a sustained communication channel remain ongoing, they have yet to yield any tangible breakthrough.

    Burhan’s recent Gulf tour, which also included stops in Oman and Saudi Arabia, comes amid growing cautious optimism among SAF leadership based in Port Sudan that the UAE could eventually be pressured to curb or end its support for the RSF, a force that has faced widespread international accusations of perpetrating genocide in the Darfur region. This tentative optimism has been fueled in large part by a wave of high-profile defections from the RSF in recent months, with every departing senior commander publicly corroborating claims of ongoing Emirati military and financial support for the paramilitary group.

    Even as new mediation efforts get underway, however, veteran regional diplomats warn that there is little sign Abu Dhabi is prepared to alter its core stance in the near term. This comes after Burhan launched a rare public rebuke of both the UAE and Ethiopia in recent weeks over their ongoing backing of the RSF. MEE previously confirmed that the RSF operates from an Ethiopian army base, plunging already fraught relations between Khartoum and Addis Ababa to a new low, with the UAE also implicated in channeling weapons to the RSF through Ethiopian territory.

    Abu Dhabi has repeatedly rejected all accusations of support for the RSF, dismissing claims from the Sudanese government as “unfounded accusations and deliberate propaganda.” In an official statement to MEE, the Emirati foreign ministry claimed the allegations were a deliberate deflection tactic by the SAF, designed to shift blame for the continuation of the war away from military leadership and obstruct genuine peace efforts.

    This is not the first attempt to open direct dialogue between Burhan’s leadership and the UAE. Over the past three years, multiple initiatives have been launched to bridge the divide, with only rare limited successes. The most recent successful contact came in July 2024, when Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed mediated a direct phone call between Burhan and UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan. A separate effort was launched during indirect Quad mechanism talks between the SAF and RSF in Washington last year: the Quad, which includes the United States, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt, arranged a closed-door face-to-face meeting between Sudanese military delegates and senior Emirati officials to de-escalate tensions. But the talks collapsed within minutes, far ahead of the scheduled one-hour timeline.

    According to three sources briefed on the collapsed meeting, the SAF delegation arrived with documented evidence of Emirati military and logistical support for the RSF, a set of accusations Abu Dhabi continues to publicly deny. Led by UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Shakhboot bin Nahyan Al Nahyan, the Emirati delegation cut the discussion short after the Sudanese side focused exclusively on the support allegations. “The atmosphere became tense very quickly,” one participating diplomat recalled. “The Sudanese side focused almost entirely on accusations regarding Emirati support for the RSF, and the Emiratis saw no basis for continuing the discussion.”

    Senior regional figures say the collapse of that meeting reflects a deeper, persistent rift: Abu Dhabi remains deeply distrustful of Burhan’s leadership, clinging to the perception that the SAF is heavily influenced by Islamist political networks and has grown increasingly aligned with Iran, a regional rival of the UAE. Burhan’s recent Gulf tour was in part designed to counter this narrative, with multiple stops in key Gulf Cooperation Council states intended to signal that his administration does not side with Tehran in regional tensions.

    One senior regional diplomat explained that broader geopolitical alignments are the primary driver of the UAE’s intransigence, noting that meaningful change will only come if external powers pressure Abu Dhabi to alter its course. “Without a major change in the approach taken by Washington and Tel Aviv towards the region, there is unlikely to be enough pressure on Abu Dhabi to reconsider its current strategy in Sudan,” the source said. Both the U.S. and Israel maintain close strategic alliances with the UAE, even after a recent public disagreement when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office unilaterally revealed a “secret meeting” between Netanyahu and Mohammed bin Zayed weeks after Israel launched its war on Iran.

    Sudan’s April 2023 outbreak of conflict has long since evolved from an internal power struggle into a proxy battleground, with competing regional powers including Gulf states, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and Turkey backing rival factions to advance their own strategic interests. Despite repeated public denials from Abu Dhabi, a growing body of open-source evidence – including testimony from defected RSF commanders, satellite imagery, flight tracking data, weapons serial numbers, and on-the-battlefield evidence – confirms ongoing Emirati support for the RSF. Emirati academic Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, who has close ties to Abu Dhabi’s leadership, has pushed back on international criticism, arguing that the RSF receives support from multiple regional states including Uganda, Ethiopia, and Chad, and that the UAE is being unfairly singled out.

    The four diplomatic sources interviewed by MEE uniformly agree that there is currently no unified consensus among international and regional actors on a path to end the war, with deep divisions emerging within the Quad mediation framework that have left each member pursuing its own separate interests inside Sudan. “The problem is that everyone officially wants peace, but they all imagine a different Sudan after the war,” one European diplomat explained. “That makes coordinated pressure almost impossible.”

    Another senior diplomatic source assessed the current fragmented diplomatic landscape as unlikely to produce any major breakthrough before the final quarter of 2025, an assessment that aligns with recent comments from U.S. Special Envoy for Africa and Arab countries Massad Boulos, who openly acknowledged the severe challenges of bringing Sudan’s warring factions to the negotiating table.

    Parallel to Bahrain’s mediation efforts, Saudi Arabia has recently ramped up its own diplomatic engagement in Sudan, seeking to counter growing Emirati influence over both civilian and military actors in the country. According to a senior regional diplomat and a Sudanese political figure with direct knowledge of Riyadh’s recent outreach, Saudi officials have quietly expanded contacts with Sudanese civilian political groups over the past several months, hosting a series of closed-door meetings since Ramadan that included members of the Sumoud civilian coalition led by former Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok (currently based in the UAE) and delegates from the Democratic Bloc.

    These meetings are part of a broader Saudi strategy to build political leverage inside Sudan comparable to the extensive influence the UAE has cultivated across sections of Sudan’s civilian political sphere since the war began. Riyadh is also working to build a broad civilian political coalition aligned with Burhan’s SAF-aligned administration. One Sudanese political figure familiar with the discussions said Saudi officials have privately expressed regret over their approach to Sudan following the 2019 popular uprising that toppled long-time ruler Omar Hassan al-Bashir, acknowledging that Riyadh and other Gulf states overrelied on Emirati guidance when backing the country’s post-revolution transitional military leadership.

    “The Saudis increasingly believe that their previous approach helped deepen instability rather than contain it,” the source said. Today, Saudi officials are prioritizing the formation of a civilian-led governing structure, a position that came to the fore during recent debates over Burhan’s appointment of a new civilian prime minister. Multiple sources confirm that Riyadh pushed Burhan aggressively to appoint a civilian premier before he ultimately named Kamil Idris to the role. That push created public tensions with Cairo, which favors a slower, more deliberate transition process and is cautious about rapid restructuring of Sudan’s wartime government. “The Egyptians opposed the idea,” one diplomat confirmed. “But the Saudis pushed hard for Burhan to move ahead with appointing a civilian prime minister.”

    The competing approaches taken by Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt underscore the growing zero-sum competition among regional powers for influence over Sudan’s war and its uncertain post-conflict future. While all Gulf states continue to publicly voice support for diplomatic initiatives to end the conflict, diplomats privately acknowledge that competing strategic interests are the primary driver of their engagement with Sudan’s military and civilian factions.

    For the immediate future, diplomats broadly agree that Bahrain’s indirect mediation is unlikely to produce a quick breakthrough between the SAF and the UAE. Even so, the resumption of backchannel contacts signals that despite high-profile public hostility between the two sides, lines of communication remain open behind closed doors, as regional powers continue to jockey for position in a conflict that has killed hundreds of thousands of people and displaced millions more across Sudan.

  • Angry crowd sets Ebola hospital tents on fire in DR Congo

    Angry crowd sets Ebola hospital tents on fire in DR Congo

    A wave of violent public unrest has broken out at the epicenter of an expanding Ebola outbreak in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), exposing deep rifts between public health authorities and local communities over the response to the deadly virus. The unrest erupted after an angry crowd set fire to a section of Rwampara General Hospital in Ituri province, where nearly all current Ebola cases have been recorded. The confrontation was sparked when medical teams blocked family members from retrieving the body of a 28-year-old local footballer for a traditional burial, after medics recorded his death as a confirmed Ebola fatality.

    Witnesses and local officials report that protesters threw projectiles at hospital staff and set ablaze temporary tents that served as Ebola isolation wards. One healthcare worker was hit and injured by flying stones before law enforcement intervened to restore order, firing warning shots to disperse the crowd. Local politician Luc Malembe Malembe, who witnessed the chaos, confirmed that two isolation tents were completely destroyed, along with the young man’s body that had been held for safe burial. Initial reports that six Ebola patients being treated in the tents escaped during the unrest were later refuted by medical charity Alima, which operates the isolation site, confirming all patients are accounted for and continue to receive care at the hospital.

    Misinformation and deep public distrust have been cited as core drivers of the violence. The victim’s mother publicly stated she believes her son died of typhoid fever, not Ebola, a sentiment shared by many in the local community. Jean Claude Mukendi, security coordinator for the Ebola response in Ituri, noted that the young man was a well-liked local figure, and many upset residents failed to understand the contagious nature of the virus. Malembe added that widespread lack of public education has fueled dangerous conspiracy theories across parts of eastern DRC: many people, particularly in remote, underserved areas, believe Ebola is a fabrication invented by outside non-governmental organizations and hospitals to profit from donor funding. As of the latest official reports, the outbreak has killed more than 130 people across the country, with official death tolls varying between 139 reported by the World Health Organization (WHO) and 159 counted by Congolese health authorities, out of over 600 suspected total cases.

    The unrest unfolded as the cross-border and regional spread of the virus accelerates, prompting growing international concern. The WHO has already designated the outbreak a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, though it has not yet characterized the situation as a global pandemic. Two confirmed cases have already been detected in Uganda, DRC’s northern neighbor, prompting Ugandan authorities to shut down all cross-border public transport, including passenger ferries on the shared Semliki River border crossing, to slow transmission.

    Compounding risks, the outbreak is caused by the rare Bundibugyo strain of Ebola, for which no licensed vaccine is currently available. WHO officials estimate it could take up to nine months to develop and deploy a targeted vaccine for this specific strain. Just days after the hospital violence, M23 rebel forces that control large swathes of eastern DRC confirmed the first Ebola case in South Kivu province, hundreds of kilometers south of the current epicenter in Ituri. The infected patient, who had traveled to South Kivu from the unimpacted city of Kisangani in Tshopo province, died before a formal diagnosis could be confirmed. International observers warn that the spread of the virus into territory controlled by non-state actors creates major new challenges for outbreak response, as aid groups face barriers accessing at-risk communities in these regions. M23 has stated it is willing to collaborate with international health partners to contain the virus, but the group has never previously managed a large-scale public health emergency like an Ebola outbreak.

    The crisis has already had ripple effects beyond the affected regions: DRC’s national men’s football team announced it would cancel its planned pre-World Cup training camp in Kinshasa directly due to the outbreak. Global health officials continue to stress the urgent need for expanded public outreach and education to counter misinformation that is undermining outbreak control efforts, particularly around critical safety measures such as the WHO-recommended safe and dignified burial protocol for Ebola victims, which requires trained teams to handle remains with full protective equipment to prevent new infections.

  • Israel revokes permits for dozens of Al-Aqsa Mosque staff

    Israel revokes permits for dozens of Al-Aqsa Mosque staff

    A controversial new decision by Israeli authorities to cancel entry permits for dozens of senior administrative and religious staff at Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa Mosque has escalated long-running tensions over control of one of the world’s most contested religious sites, multiple sources familiar with the policy confirmed to Middle East Eye.

    The revocation, set to take effect in June 2026, will impact approximately 30 long-tenured employees of the Jerusalem-based Islamic Waqf, the Jordanian-appointed body tasked with administering the holy site under decades-old international governance agreements. The affected staff include high-ranking Waqf officials such as senior treasurer Ayyash Abu Ayyash, as well as mosque-based teachers who are administratively affiliated with the Palestinian Ministry of Education. The move will bar these employees from accessing the site they have managed for years.

    Palestinian religious and political leaders have condemned the decision as the latest step in a systematic campaign to consolidate Israeli control over Al-Aqsa, reduce Palestinian and Islamic institutional influence at the site, and dismantle the long-standing status quo arrangement that has governed the compound for generations.

    Ekrima Sabri, imam of Al-Aqsa Mosque and head of the Higher Islamic Council, framed the permit revocation as part of a sharp escalation of “unprecedented actions” by Israeli authorities in recent months. “Every action taken by the occupation authorities is intended to change the status quo and pave the way for imposing Israeli sovereignty over the mosque, while stripping the Islamic Waqf of its authority,” Sabri told Middle East Eye. “In the past, we used to say Al-Aqsa was in danger, but now we say Al-Aqsa faces multiple dangers, not just one,” he added.

    Omar Rajoub, director of the media office for the Jerusalem Governorate, traced the recent wave of restrictions to the outbreak of US-Israeli military operations against Iran in February. During that conflict, Israeli forces implemented an unprecedented 40-day full closure of Al-Aqsa, one of the holiest sites in Islam. While the mosque reopened following a ceasefire in April, Rajoub said many of the emergency restrictions imposed during the closure have been made permanent.

    These ongoing restrictions include a ban on Waqf staff carrying out routine maintenance work across the mosque’s courtyards, from pruning overgrown trees to clearing vegetation. The permit revocations announced this month are not an isolated measure, Rajoub emphasized: already this year, at least 30 other Waqf employees, plus six additional sheikhs and imams, have been denied entry or had their permit applications rejected. Israeli authorities have also expanded restrictions on general worshippers, barring more than 600 Palestinian worshippers from accessing the compound in 2025 alone, he said. “The entire status quo at Al-Aqsa Mosque is rapidly deteriorating in favour of Israeli violations,” Rajoub added.

    The Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, located in Israeli-occupied East Jerusalem, sits on a plateau that is revered as the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism. For decades, the site has operated under an internationally recognized “status quo” agreement that designates Al-Aqsa as an exclusively Islamic holy site, with exclusive responsibility for access, worship rights, maintenance and daily management held by the Islamic Waqf.

    In recent years, however, Israeli authorities have systematically eroded this arrangement and the Waqf’s governing authority. Most notably, Israeli police have allowed near-daily incursions into the compound by ultranationalist Jewish groups, who conduct Jewish prayer and religious rituals under armed police protection, a direct violation of the status quo agreement.

    The permit revocation announcement comes amid a string of escalating provocative actions targeting the site in recent weeks. Earlier this week, Israeli cabinet ministers advanced a plan to seize privately owned Palestinian land near the Chain Gate (Bab al-Sila), one of the main entry points to the Al-Aqsa compound, to advance long-standing plans to Judaising the area around the site. Just days before that vote, dozens of Israeli ministers and members of parliament led a mass incursion into the Al-Aqsa compound, during which Israeli flags were raised, Jewish religious rituals were conducted, and one far-right lawmaker publicly called for the mosque to be demolished and replaced with a Jewish temple.

    International law does not recognize Israel’s claim of sovereignty over occupied East Jerusalem, and the Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly prohibits occupying powers from making permanent territorial changes or asserting sovereignty over territory captured in conflict.

  • Brazilian grieving father says justice still missing after Airbus, Air France guilty verdict

    Brazilian grieving father says justice still missing after Airbus, Air France guilty verdict

    Fourteen years after one of the deadliest aviation disasters in modern European history, a Paris appeals court has upheld manslaughter convictions against two of France’s most iconic industrial firms, Airbus and Air France, over the 2009 crash of Flight 447 that claimed all 228 lives on board. But the ruling has sparked fresh legal wrangling, deep grief, and divided reactions among victims’ families, as the two companies immediately announced plans to appeal the verdict, extending a case that has already stretched for more than a decade.

    The fatal flight, traveling from Rio de Janeiro to Paris on June 1, 2009, crashed into the Atlantic Ocean during a thunderstorm, disappearing from radar hours after departure. Recovery efforts took nearly two years, with search teams finally locating the aircraft wreckage and its critical black box flight recorders more than 13,000 feet (4,000 meters) below the ocean surface. Official investigations later confirmed that multiple overlapping failures led to the disaster: icing of the jet’s pitot tubes – external sensors that measure airspeed – combined with inadequate pilot response to the emergency caused the plane to lose control.

    Longstanding scrutiny of the two companies has centered on systemic failures. An Associated Press investigation revealed Airbus had been aware of design flaws in the specific model of pitot tubes installed on the A330-200 aircraft as early as 2002, but did not order a replacement across the fleet until after the 2009 crash. Prosecutors also argued Airbus failed to promptly and clearly communicate the fault risks to partner airlines and flight crews, nor did it push for mandatory training to address potential sensor failures. For its part, Air France was found culpable for failing to implement specialized training for pilots to respond to pitot tube icing events, even after the hazard was documented.

    The case has wound through French courts for years. In 2023, a lower first instance court acquitted both Airbus and Air France of manslaughter charges, a decision that triggered widespread anger and profound renewed grief among families who lost loved ones in the crash. Thursday’s appellate ruling overturned that acquittal, ordering each company to pay the maximum allowed fine of 225,000 euros (approximately $260,000). The conviction was welcomed by some victims’ representatives. Daniele Lamy, president of one victims’ association who lost her son Eric in the crash and attended both the original trial and this appellate proceeding, expressed support for the court’s decision. Victims’ lead attorney Alain Jakubowicz called the ruling a landmark win for ordinary people against global corporate giants, saying outside the courtroom, “there is no fight that it is unwinnable. Even when we are simply passengers, we can make global giants bend.” France’s National Union of Airline Pilots also endorsed the verdict, noting it was unacceptable to place full blame for the disaster solely on working pilots without accounting for the underlying institutional failures that set the stage for the crash.

    Still, the fight for accountability remains far from over. Both Airbus and Air France have confirmed they will appeal the ruling to France’s highest court, a move that could extend the legal battle for years more. Air France said it regretted the conviction and acknowledged the appeal would prolong suffering for families, but defended its position noting its criminal liability had previously been thrown out by the lower court. Airbus said it seeks a reexamination of the core legal issues in the case before the highest judicial body.

    For many families, the ongoing legal process has kept their grief raw, 15 years after the crash. Nelson Faria Marinho, a Brazilian victims’ association leader who lost his son in the disaster, says full justice remains out of reach. In his Rio de Janeiro home office, lined with newspaper clippings and photographs documenting his 15-year campaign for accountability, Marinho said the pain of losing a child is impossible to put into words. Unlike some victims’ groups, he has rejected the verdict as insufficient, saying he will not accept anything less than prison sentences for the corporate executives who led the companies at the time of the crash – a demand that goes beyond the scope of the current case, which has only examined institutional rather than individual criminal liability.

    Marinho’s wife Maria Eva echoed the enduring pain of their loss, saying the disaster left countless families with permanent wounds. Still, she noted, “as long as there is life there is hope.”

    While the legal battle continues, the crash has already left a lasting legacy on global aviation: in the years following the disaster, international regulators implemented sweeping changes to requirements for airspeed sensor design and maintenance, as well as updated mandatory pilot training for in-flight sensor emergencies, rules that have improved safety for passenger flights worldwide.

  • Legal groups file complaint against barristers over role in UK Lawyers for Israel

    Legal groups file complaint against barristers over role in UK Lawyers for Israel

    Two London-based legal advocacy organizations have launched a formal complaint with Britain’s top legal regulator, accusing three of the country’s most high-profile King’s Counsel barristers of abusing their professional seniority to silence pro-Palestine advocacy. The complaint, submitted Thursday by the European Legal Support Centre (ELSC) and the Public Interest Law Centre (PILC), names Lord David Pannick, Lord Anthony Grabiner, and Stephen Hockman, all three of whom serve as patrons for UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI), a pro-Israel advocacy group.

    At the core of the complaint is the allegation that UKLFI routinely highlights the elite legal standing of its patrons in formal correspondence sent to individuals and groups engaged in lawful Palestine solidarity work. The complainants argue that prominently displaying the barristers’ senior titles and reputations intentionally inflates the perceived threat of legal action, creating disproportionate pressure on recipients who often lack the resources or access to legal representation to push back against complex legal claims.

    Founded in 2011, UKLFI frames its core mission as countering efforts to “delegitimize Israel” and opposing the global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement targeting Israel over its policies toward Palestinians. Structured as a guarantee-limited company with an affiliated registered charitable trust, UKLFI is not regulated by the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority (SRA), meaning its activities do not face the same strict oversight required of licensed law firms. The group has a well-documented history of sending legal warnings and formal complaints to individuals and institutions that organize or participate in pro-Palestine activity, and has publicly described its patrons as “some of the most distinguished members of the legal profession in the United Kingdom.”

    Under UKLFI’s standard practice, the names of its high-profile patrons, including the three barristers named in the complaint, are listed at the bottom of every legal threat sent to groups suspected of violating equality or terror legislation. The complainants argue that this practice leads pro-Palestine campaigners, teachers, healthcare workers, students, and artists to overestimate the severity and credibility of the legal threats they receive, because the barristers’ senior standing lends unearned authority to the correspondence.

    The complaint was filed on behalf of a broad coalition of individuals and organizations working across education, healthcare, migrant advocacy, trade unions, and the arts, many of whom provided formal impact statements detailing how receiving UKLFI’s correspondence disrupted or chilled their Palestine-related work. ELSC data shows UKLFI appears 128 times in its Britain Index of Repression, a database tracking what the organization calls systematic efforts to suppress Palestine solidarity activism across the United Kingdom. The cumulative impact of these tactics, the complainants argue, has created a “chilling environment” that pushes groups and individuals to abandon or alter completely lawful pro-Palestine activity out of fear of costly, drawn-out legal action.

    ELSC and PILC are calling on the Bar Standards Board (BSB), the independent regulator for barristers practicing in England and Wales, to open a full investigation into whether the three barristers’ conduct violates the BSB’s Code of Conduct, specifically provisions requiring barristers to uphold integrity, maintain professional independence, and preserve public trust in the legal profession. Beyond a formal investigation and compliance assessment, the groups are also pushing the BSB to issue new formal guidance governing how senior legal titles can be used in communications directed at non-lawyers and civil society organizations.

    An ELSC spokesperson emphasized that the complaint exposes a clear pattern of weaponizing professional legal status to intimidate people engaged in protected, lawful advocacy. “The effect is a chilling environment that deters lawful public support for Palestine, particularly amid a mass global movement in response to the situation in Gaza,” the spokesperson said. “As our report On All Fronts sets out, these mechanisms are deliberate attempts to erase Palestine from public consciousness. This narrows democratic space, threatens freedom of expression, and must be examined by the regulator to protect public confidence in the legal profession.”

    A PILC spokesperson echoed that sentiment, noting that the prestige associated with senior barrister titles should never be deployed to silence legitimate public debate. “For small charities and grassroots campaign groups showing solidarity with Palestine, receiving legal correspondence that appears to carry the backing of some of the most senior figures at the Bar can be deeply intimidating,” the spokesperson said. “At the heart of this complaint is the public interest – protecting democratic participation, safeguarding freedom of expression, and ensuring that people are not discouraged from speaking out or organising lawfully because of the fear of legal intimidation.”

    This is not the first time the two advocacy groups have taken legal action against UKLFI. Last year, ELSC and PILC filed a separate complaint with the SRA against Caroline Turner, a UKLFI director, accusing her of violating the SRA’s professional conduct rules through the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation, commonly known as SLAPPs—legal tactics designed explicitly to deter and silence free speech on matters of public interest. The groups claim that between January 2022 and May 2025, UKLFI sent at least eight threatening legal letters to pro-Palestine groups and individuals, a pattern of “vexatious and legally baseless” correspondence aimed at silencing campaigners, academics, and civil society organizations.

    At the time of that earlier complaint, a UKLFI spokesperson denied all allegations, stating that the group “seeks to promote respect for the law in matters relating to Israel and the Jewish people by drawing attention to conduct which is or may be illegal and explaining the relevant facts and law. This sometimes upsets people who are not complying with the law and their supporters. They may seek to disrupt our work by making misinformed complaints to various bodies.”

    The spokesperson added that UKLFI is a non-profit membership organization, not a law firm, and is not required to register or be authorized under UK law for the activities it conducts. “Nevertheless, its work is carried out to the highest professional standards. Many of its members and supporters are practising lawyers who are regulated by the applicable professional regulators. UKLFI has not conducted any activity that can be described as a SLAPP,” they said.

    As of press time, neither the BSB nor UKLFI had issued a public response to the new complaint, and Middle East Eye had not received a reply to its requests for comment from either organization.

  • Top Democrats decry Trump ‘taxpayer shakedown’ and ‘super-pardon’

    Top Democrats decry Trump ‘taxpayer shakedown’ and ‘super-pardon’

    Leading Democratic lawmakers on two key U.S. House of Representatives committees have launched a new push to force senior leaders from the Department of Justice and Treasury Department to explain the controversial settlement of President Donald Trump’s $10 billion civil suit against the Internal Revenue Service, a deal Democrats deride as an orchestrated “sham” designed for political self-dealing.

    In a formal letter sent Wednesday to acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and IRS CEO Frank Bisignano, the top Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee and Ways and Means Committee—Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Richard Neal of Massachusetts, respectively—leveled harsh condemnation against the agreement, calling it “one of the most brazen acts of public corruption and self-dealing in American history.”

    The lawmakers argue that the current leadership at the DOJ and IRS chose to capitulate rather than protect public funds from what they call a clear grab for private political gain. Central to their criticism is the establishment of a $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” created as part of the settlement, which Raskin and Neal label a taxpayer shakedown meant to direct public money to the president’s political allies—including the pro-Trump rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

    The pair added that the massive, unaccountable fund will be overseen by a handpicked commission made up entirely of Trump’s political cronies, and the terms of the original settlement block both Congress and the general public from ever learning which individuals receive payments from the pool of public money. According to prior reporting from CNN, the first known claim to the fund was already filed this week by Michael Caputo, a long-time Trump advisor and former White House official. Caputo describes his family as “survivors of the illegal Russiagate investigations” and is seeking $2.7 million in compensation from the fund.

    House Democrats emphasized that the U.S. Constitution grants Congress alone the power of the purse through its appropriations clause, and congressional leaders never approved or allocated taxpayer funds for the $1.776 billion political fund. “This settlement is a transparent attempt to circumvent the separation of powers and use the judgment fund for a scam Congress never contemplated: rewarding the president’s political allies at the expense of American taxpayers,” the letter reads.

    Beyond the creation of the controversial fund, the settlement permanently bars the IRS from pursuing any further legal or administrative action against Trump and his immediate family members. Lawmakers say the deal effectively grants a sweeping, unofficial “super-pardon” to the president, his family, and all connected business entities. This immunity releases them from any potential accountability for unpaid taxes, as well as from other ongoing federal civil and criminal probes into allegations including insider trading, antitrust violations, false statements, and sexual harassment.

    Raskin and Neal have ordered the federal agencies to preserve all records tied to the settlement and fund creation, including both physical documents and electronically stored information—covering communications sent via private emails, text messages, encrypted apps like Signal, and all other non-official communication channels. They have also given agency leaders a deadline of next week to turn over the IRS internal memorandum on the settlement, all related supporting records, and formal responses to a list of probing questions. The deadline comes ahead of Bessent’s scheduled public appearance before the Ways and Means Committee.

    The controversy has already drawn scrutiny on Capitol Hill from both chambers. Blanche appeared before the Senate on Tuesday to testify on the DOJ’s annual budget request, where he faced a wave of questions from Democratic lawmakers pushing back on the deal. He attempted to push back against the framing put forward by Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chair Patty Murray of Washington, who has argued the fund amounts to Trump using tax dollars to enrich his own political circle. Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware questioned Blanche about requirements for public disclosure of payouts and safeguards to prevent Trump family members from accessing the fund, while Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland raised questions about whether January 6 rioters—including those who attacked Capitol police and even those convicted of child sex crimes—would qualify for payments.

    Hours after the House Democrats released their letter on Wednesday morning, two Capitol Police officers who defended the building during the 2021 attack filed a separate federal lawsuit seeking to dissolve the fund entirely. Their legal argument argues that no federal statute authorizes the fund’s creation, the underlying settlement is a corrupt sham, and the fund’s design violates both the U.S. Constitution and federal law.

    Separately, Raskin introduced new standalone legislation Wednesday, the No Taxpayer-Funded Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2026, designed to explicitly block Trump’s fund from operating. He also submitted a motion to issue formal subpoenas for Blanche, Bisignano, Bessent, and two other officials directly involved in the deal: Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward and Treasury Department General Counsel Brian Morrissey. Morrissey notably resigned from his post as the deal was publicly announced.

    “Mr. Blanche orchestrated this outrageous slush fund as part of the settlement with Donald Trump, which was also signed by Mr. Woodward, and Mr. Bessent will oversee the payout of these funds,” Raskin said in a public statement. “Mr. Bisignano signed off on this settlement for the IRS, and Brian Morrissey remarkably resigned as this deal was being announced. These individuals all possess critical insights into Trump’s self-dealing scheme with his own agencies to create this fund and reward his supporters and friends.”

    The Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee voted to reject the proposed subpoenas along a strict party-line vote, ending the immediate push for congressional testimony from the involved officials.

  • Three ways Cuba crisis could play out after US indictment of Raúl Castro

    Three ways Cuba crisis could play out after US indictment of Raúl Castro

    The long-strained relationship between the United States and Cuba has entered a new, highly unpredictable phase after US authorities brought murder charges against 94-year-old former Cuban president Raúl Castro. This unprecedented legal action has ignited widespread global speculation that the Caribbean island could be the next target of Washington’s regime change agenda, coming on the heels of a years-long US maximum pressure campaign that has pushed Cuba into its worst fuel and energy crisis in decades. For 66 years, Cuba has been governed by a Communist system, and a growing bloc of US officials have publicly pushed for that government to be removed from power.

    While sitting US President Donald Trump has stated publicly that he does not believe any military escalation will be needed to achieve US goals, the White House has simultaneously doubled down on its vow to not tolerate what it labels a “rogue state” located just 90 miles (144 kilometers) off the US coast. Analysts and policymakers are now examining three distinct scenarios that could unfold as tensions escalate.

    The first, and most immediately dramatic pathway, is a US military operation to capture Castro to stand trial in an American courtroom. The charges against Castro stem from the 1996 downing of two civilian aircraft by Cuban fighter jets, and the indictment has stoked fears of a repeat of previous US capture missions. This kind of operation is not without precedent: earlier this year, US special operations forces carried out a rapid raid in Venezuela to capture then-President Nicolás Maduro, a long-time close ally of Cuba, to face US drug and weapons charges in New York. Going back further, the 1989 Operation Just Cause saw 20,000 US troops invade Panama to overthrow and detain then-leader Manuel Noriega.

    While Trump has declined to confirm or deny whether a similar mission is being planned for Cuba, a number of sitting US lawmakers have openly called for exactly that approach. “We shouldn’t take anything off the table,” Florida Senator Rick Scott told reporters, adding that “the same thing that happened to Maduro should happen to Raúl Castro.”

    Regional security experts note that from a purely military perspective, a capture mission is logistically feasible, but it carries significant risks and unforeseen complications. One key factor is Castro’s advanced age, and analysts also anticipate fierce resistance from Cuban security forces. Adam Isacson, a regional specialist at the Washington Office on Latin America, a non-governmental organization, explained that while Castro’s age might simplify extraction, his iconic status means he is under extremely heavy security protection. “It’s certainly possible,” Isacson noted, but added that removing Castro would likely do little to shift Cuba’s existing power structure. Castro stepped down from the presidency in 2018, and has since functioned primarily as an influential symbolic figurehead rather than holding direct day-to-day governing power. “He’s 94. I don’t think it would affect the power structure in Cuba very much anymore,” Isacson said. “The Castro dynasty retains influence, but it is no longer central to the system the revolution built.” Still, he acknowledged that a capture would carry major domestic political benefits for the Trump administration, which has long courted the anti-Castro Cuban exile community in Florida. “They’d love to humiliate the Castros and lock up one of the original 1959 revolutionaries,” Isacson said. “But the strategic value of that move is really questionable.”

    The second scenario being pushed by senior Trump administration officials is a negotiated transition to a new, US-aligned leadership structure that leaves most of Cuba’s existing governing institutions intact. This approach, experts point out, would mirror the recent transition in Venezuela that saw Nicolás Maduro replaced by Delcy Rodriguez, who has since governed the country while working directly with the Trump administration. Trump has repeatedly stated that his administration is already in contact with dissident figures inside Cuba who are seeking US support amid the island’s deepening economic crisis. “Cuba is asking for help, and we are going to talk,” Trump wrote on his social platform Truth Social on May 12.

    Just days after that post, CIA Director John Ratcliffe held a closed-door meeting with multiple senior Cuban officials, including Castro’s grandson Raúl Guillermo Rodríguez Castro and Interior Minister Lázaro Álvarez Casas. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters during a Florida appearance that “We’ll engage with the Cubans… at the end of the day they need to make a decision. Their system just doesn’t work.” Rubio added that the administration’s top preference is reaching “a negotiated agreement” that would leave core government structures in place. The changes Washington is demanding include commitments to liberalize Cuba’s state-controlled economy, open the country to increased foreign investment, grant greater political power to US-based Cuban exile groups, and expel all Russian and Chinese intelligence operations from the island.

    Georgetown University Latin American studies professor Michael Shifter, former president of the Washington-based think tank Inter-American Dialogue, explained that this approach aligns with US strategic goals: “Just like they wanted to avoid instability in Venezuela, they want to avoid instability in Cuba. Forcing a full regime collapse would be too risky for that.” The biggest challenge to this plan, multiple experts note, is that there is no clear, pre-vetted alternative leader waiting in the wings inside Cuba, unlike the situation in Venezuela. “I don’t think there’s an obvious Delcy Rodriguez in Cuba, and power works differently in Cuba than it does in Venezuela,” Shifter said. “It’s hard for them to find the kind of figure they’re looking for, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t actively searching for a cooperative governing structure.”

    The third and most passive scenario is that Cuba’s government will eventually collapse entirely under the weight of ongoing US economic pressure, which has already left most Cuban residents coping with hours-long daily blackouts and widespread shortages of basic food and consumer goods. President Trump has argued that this outcome is already well underway, saying “There will be no escalation. I don’t think it’s necessary. The place is falling apart. It’s a disaster, and they have lost control to some extent.”

    But experts warn that this narrative overlooks key strengths of the Cuban state, noting that even amid a catastrophic economic downturn, government and security institutions still maintain firm control over daily life across the island. “You have to distinguish between the Cuban economy and the Cuban state and government,” Shifter explained. “The Cuban economy can collapse, and is collapsing… but the state still functions, especially on the security side.”

    A full state collapse would also create major new problems for the Trump administration, as it would likely trigger a massive wave of Cuban migration, primarily toward the US southern border. The Trump administration has already imposed harsh new immigration restrictions that have blocked most recent Cuban arrivals from accessing political asylum and other legal pathways to resettlement. “If there’s a collapse, you’re going to see a big portion of the Cuban population do everything they can to get away, the same way they have from Haiti over the years,” Isacson said. He added that while Florida would be the primary destination for most migrants, many would also likely travel through Mexico to reach the US. Isacson noted that he has been surprised a mass exodus has not already begun, given the extreme conditions many Cubans are facing: “People are probably subsisting on 1,000 or 1,500 calories a day, and are not able to get basic healthcare. You’d think that people would already be building their boats.”

    For the hundreds of thousands of Cuban exiles living in the US, many of whom have spent decades advocating for the overthrow of the Havana government, the current moment brings long-awaited hopes that their goal may finally be within reach. But for Cuban residents on the island, the uncertainty of what comes next brings new hardship and anxiety after decades of economic isolation and political tension.