Global Pulse

作者： admin

  • Ex-Everton director loses Russian sanctions challenge

    Ex-Everton director loses Russian sanctions challenge

    A former senior official at English Premier League football club Everton has failed in a High Court legal bid to overturn UK government sanctions imposed over his family connection to a Kremlin-aligned Russian oligarch, a court has ruled.

    Sarvar Ismailov, who once served on Everton’s board of directors, and his brother Sanjar were first added to the UK’s sanctions register in 2022, shortly after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The designation stemmed from their close familial tie to Alisher Usmanov, an Uzbek-Russian billionaire with long-documented links to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    After the initial imposition of sanctions, Ismailov requested a formal government review of his designation in 2023. While minor wording adjustments were made to his sanction listing in 2024, the restrictive measures against him remained in place, prompting him to launch a judicial challenge against the Foreign Office.

    During the High Court hearing held earlier this month, Ismailov’s legal team argued that the continued sanctions were inherently unfair. They asserted that Ismailov was being penalized solely for his biological relation to Usmanov, a position they described as “outrageously unfair”.

    In defending the government’s decision, barristers representing the Foreign Office told the London court that sanctioning individuals connected by family to targeted oligarchs serves multiple clear, rational and legitimate policy goals within the broader sanctions regime.

    Delivering his 46-page ruling, Mr Justice Pushpinder Saini dismissed Ismailov’s legal challenge. The judge found that the Foreign Office holds unique institutional insight and position to evaluate whether sanctions measures will meet their intended policy objectives, and concluded that the department’s decision to maintain sanctions against Ismailov was not irrational.

    Justice Saini further accepted that it was reasonable for the Foreign Office to infer that Ismailov retains the ability to exert influence over his uncle, Alisher Usmanov. He noted that the decision to keep Ismailov under sanction is clearly tied to the core objectives of the UK’s Russia sanctions regime, one of which is to demonstrate that any association with individuals linked to the Russian government will carry tangible negative consequences.

    “The question is not whether the claimant’s designation will of itself bring the conflict to an end,” Justice Saini wrote. “Rather, the question is whether the measure is capable of contributing to the stated objective as part of the overall sanctions regime. The decision to maintain the designation of the claimant is so capable.”

    He added: “The claimant’s designation, and others like him who are ‘associated with’ [Mr Usmanov], makes an important contribution to the overall cumulative impact of sanctions and enhances pressure on Russia in respect of its actions in Ukraine.”

    Ismailov, who was born in Uzbekistan, joined Everton’s organizational structure in 2019 and was elevated to the club’s board of directors in mid-2021. However, he stepped down from all his positions at the club just months later that November, after facing a criminal charge that was ultimately dismissed.

    Hugo Keith KC, Ismailov’s lead barrister, told the court that his client moved to the United Kingdom at the age of 13, has never resided in Russia as an adult, holds no political influence or connections within Russia, and has no personal relationship or access to President Putin or any senior member of the Russian government. Keith also stressed that there is no evidence to show Ismailov has ever supported the Russian government or its invasion of Ukraine, calling the continued sanctioning of his client “utterly purposeless,” “plainly irrational” and “capricious.”

    Jason Pobjoy KC, representing the Foreign Office, countered that the department acted well within its legal authority in choosing to maintain sanctions against Ismailov. Even acknowledging the significant personal impact the measures have on Ismailov, Pobjoy argued that the decision advances the overarching policy goals of the UK’s sanctions regime against Russia. He added that the Foreign Office is granted a broad margin of discretion in making sanction designations, and there is no valid legal basis to overturn the department’s ruling.

  • Brazilian court to rule on whether Belo Sun’s Amazon gold mine stays suspended

    Brazilian court to rule on whether Belo Sun’s Amazon gold mine stays suspended

    On Wednesday, a Brazilian federal court in Brasilia is set to issue a landmark ruling that will shape the future of the highly contested Volta Grande gold mining project, developed by Canadian firm Belo Sun in the heart of the Brazilian Amazon. The core legal question before the court is which level of government holds the authority to issue critical environmental licenses for the venture: the federal government, or the northern state of Para, where the proposed mine is located.

    First proposed in 2012, the Volta Grande project is positioned along the banks of the Xingu River, roughly 12 miles from the Belo Monte Dam—currently the world’s third-largest hydroelectric facility. Operations at Belo Monte have already drastically reduced the Xingu’s water flow, bringing severe disruption to local and Indigenous communities that rely on the river. If approved, Volta Grande would become the largest gold mining operation in the Brazilian Amazon. According to Belo Sun’s 2015 feasibility analysis, the company plans to extract 3.52 million ounces of gold over 17 years, moving more than 600 million tons of earth across a 24-square-kilometer site that would clear 309 acres of intact Amazon rainforest.

    Environmental and community advocates have spent years warning of the severe risks posed by the project. A 2021 independent assessment conducted by scientists from the University of Sao Paulo and the University of Amazonas concluded the venture carried unacceptable risks and should be blocked entirely. The researchers’ top concern is the project’s planned tailings dam, which will store toxic mining waste directly above a water channel connected to the Xingu. A failure of this structure would release poisonous runoff into the river in a matter of hours, endangering the lives of Indigenous and riverine populations and destroying the region’s unique aquatic ecosystem.

    Data from the nonprofit Amazon Watch cited by federal prosecutors estimates the project would generate a total of 3.7 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions, a major contribution to global climate change, based on a calculation of one ton of CO2 for every 28 grams of extracted gold. The Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil (Apib) also reports the mine would displace 813 families, many of whom are already suffering from persistent droughts triggered by the Belo Monte Dam’s diversion of the Xingu’s flow.

    Legal battles over the project’s licensing have dragged on for more than a decade. Opposition emerged as early as 2013, when prosecutors filed a motion to halt the licensing process over the failure to conduct required consultations with affected Indigenous groups. In 2017, a full federal court panel ruled in favor of opponents, mandating that the project secure federal approval and complete formal Indigenous consultation before moving forward. But in 2025, a panel of justices overturned that 2017 ruling and returned licensing authority to the state of Para. Prosecutors have since appealed the decision, arguing the 2025 ruling amounted to an unauthorized new trial without proper procedure. It is this appeal that the court will decide on Wednesday.

    Last December, the Juruna and Arara Indigenous communities of the Xingu released a public open letter reaffirming that they have never granted consent for the project, a requirement laid out in the 2017 court order. In a statement provided to the Associated Press, Belo Sun countered that it has completed all required consultation processes, following protocols established by the affected communities and overseen by Brazilian regulatory authorities.

    Federal prosecutors leading the appeal argue that the project’s cross-jurisdictional impacts make licensing a federal responsibility. The mine would affect federal Indigenous territories, the Xingu—a federally protected waterway—and the federal government-built Belo Monte Dam. “From the start, as we did in Belo Monte, we have argued that the licensing falls under federal jurisdiction because it affects Indigenous lands and a federal river,” explained Felício Pontes Jr., the federal prosecutor handling the case. He emphasized that the combined cumulative impacts of the dam and the proposed mine are a core issue, noting that Brazilian courts have already ruled that Belo Monte’s actual environmental and social harms far exceeded initial projections.

    In recent rulings related to the dam, courts have ordered the dam’s operator, Norte Energia, to compensate affected communities, provide clean drinking water to households whose natural water sources dried up after the dam’s construction, and re-evaluate the volume of water diverted from the Xingu to power the dam’s turbines. “This could create a major conflict if there isn’t a single authority licensing both projects, given the impacts one project has on the other,” Pontes added.

    The ruling on Wednesday will set the immediate path for the project. If the court sides with prosecutors and returns licensing authority to the federal government, the 2025 environmental approvals granted by Para state could be invalidated. Regardless of the outcome, legal challenges are expected to continue: multiple other lawsuits questioning the project’s legality are still pending in Brazilian courts.

    Ahead of the court’s decision, Belo Sun announced it has launched new technical studies for the project to address regulatory concerns. On May 12, the company confirmed it had hired an independent mining consultancy to review and update the technical analysis required for an Installation License. The work will identify needed project improvements, update the definitive feasibility study, and develop a phased implementation plan, with completion expected by the third quarter of 2026. Belo Sun has stated that the Volta Grande project remains subject to all environmental licensing requirements set by Brazil’s competent regulatory and judicial bodies.

    This coverage of climate and environmental issues is supported by funding from multiple private foundations, with the AP retaining full editorial control over all content.

  • Musk loses blockbuster OpenAI suit as jury says too late

    Musk loses blockbuster OpenAI suit as jury says too late

    One of Silicon Valley’s most anticipated legal showdowns came to a swift and decisive close this Monday, when a federal jury ruled that Elon Musk had waited far too long to file his blockbuster lawsuit against OpenAI and its top leaders, handing a major victory to the ChatGPT developer.

    The verdict, reached quickly after three weeks of high-stakes testimony that featured appearances from a host of technology industry leaders, brings an end to Musk’s legal challenge that accused OpenAI of abandoning its founding non-profit mission to chase massive commercial profits. Sitting in Oakland federal court, the jury concluded that all of Musk’s claims against OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, President Greg Brockman, the OpenAI Foundation, and lead investor Microsoft were time-barred by applicable statutes of limitations, rejecting the core argument of the world’s wealthiest person.

    District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who had asked the jury to deliver an advisory ruling on the threshold limitations issue, formally accepted and finalized the jury’s decision. The outcome removes what many analysts described as a potentially existential legal threat to OpenAI. Had Musk succeeded in his claims, he would have forced the AI leader to revert to a non-profit structure—a move that would have derailed OpenAI’s heavily anticipated initial public offering and dissolved its partnership with major investors that have poured tens of billions of dollars into the company amid the global artificial intelligence arms race. Those investors include Microsoft, Amazon, and SoftBank.

    Outside the courthouse following the ruling, OpenAI lead attorney William Savitt slammed Musk’s lawsuit as a disingenuous attack on a growing competitor. “The finding of the jury confirms that this lawsuit was a hypocritical attempt to sabotage a competitor and to overcome a long history of very bad predictions about what OpenAI has been and will become,” Savitt said. “Musk can bring his claims, and he can tell his stories, but what the nine members of this jury found is that his stories were just that — stories, not facts,” he added.

    Musk, who co-founded OpenAI in 2015, launched the suit in 2024, alleging that Altman and Brockman had improperly hijacked his $38 million founding donation. Musk said he intended the funds to support OpenAI as an open-access non-profit research lab focused on developing AI for the broad public benefit, rather than the $850 billion profit-driven juggernaut it has become.

    The statute of limitations question was resolved as a threshold matter before the jury could consider the underlying substantive claims of the lawsuit. Musk filed his suit four years after he made his last financial contribution to OpenAI, and the jury ultimately agreed that the window to file such a claim had long closed. Judge Rogers had indicated ahead of deliberations that she would almost certainly follow the jury’s advisory recommendation on the issue, a promise she fulfilled in formalizing the ruling’s dismissal. If the case had moved forward, the court would have gone on to weigh whether OpenAI’s co-founders misused Musk’s donation and broke founding agreements to pursue commercial growth and personal financial gain.

    For weeks, industry observers speculated that the trial’s outcome would hinge on which combative tech leader the nine-person jury would find more credible. Much of the testimony and cross-examination focused on Altman’s leadership, including questions about his decision-making integrity and behind-the-scenes operational moves that alienated dozens of early OpenAI employees, many of whom have since left the company.

    OpenAI’s legal team countered Musk’s claims by highlighting inconsistencies in his accounts of OpenAI’s early days, and drew on testimony from Shivon Zilis, a close business associate of Musk’s (with whom he shares four children) who acted as an intermediary between Musk and OpenAI’s leadership after Musk left the company.

    Musk departed OpenAI’s board in 2018, and has since launched his own competing artificial intelligence efforts: first through his aerospace firm SpaceX, and more recently with dedicated AI startup xAI. To date, xAI has failed to gain significant market traction against dominant players like OpenAI and fellow Bay Area AI leader Anthropic.

    For Altman, the ruling does not fully resolve lingering questions about his leadership: the 2023 unexpected board ouster that saw Altman fired over allegations of lack of candor, before widespread employee pressure forced his reinstatement, left unaddressed claims of manipulative behavior and a toxic internal work culture that were raised during the trial.

    Beyond OpenAI itself, the ruling is also a major win for Microsoft, OpenAI’s largest financial backer that has committed $13 billion to the company to date. Industry analyst Dan Ives, of Wedbush Securities, told AFP the outcome clears a major barrier for OpenAI’s planned public listing. “This is an important victory for Altman and OpenAI and clears the path for an IPO by removing this black cloud trial,” Ives said. “Musk was creating noise around this lawsuit but ultimately it was more of a soap opera than a long-term negative for OpenAI,” he added.

  • Iran’s nuclear project is ‘unchanged’, says senior ex-Israeli intelligence officer

    Iran’s nuclear project is ‘unchanged’, says senior ex-Israeli intelligence officer

    A stark, bombshell assessment from a former senior Israeli intelligence leader who held a command role during the ongoing US-Israeli war on Iran has pulled back the curtain on a major gap between official allied rhetoric and on-the-ground reality: Iran’s core nuclear infrastructure remains fundamentally intact, despite months of coordinated military strikes.

    Tamir Hayman, currently serving as executive director of Israel’s leading think tank the Institute for National Security Studies, occupied a senior position in Israeli military intelligence through the first two months of the bilateral conflict. His unvarnished findings were laid out in a new policy paper published Sunday, with initial reporting on the analysis first published by Israeli newspaper Haaretz.

    Hayman’s analysis acknowledges that Israeli and US forces secured limited tactical gains from strikes that began in February 2025 and included a 12-day Israeli air campaign in June that targeted deep inside Iranian territory. But he confirms the war’s two central stated objectives—removing the current Islamic Republic government and eliminating Iran’s nuclear program—remain unfulfilled.

    Specifically, the June 2025 Israeli offensive “failed to establish a permanent solution, and Iran demonstrated a rapid and dangerous recovery capability,” Hayman wrote. While the US carried out its first ever direct strikes on Iranian soil during the conflict, damaging three major nuclear sites, Hayman documents that Tehran has already made significant progress restoring its facilities. Key among these recovery efforts is work to rebuild the Fordow enrichment site and speed up construction of a deeply buried site near Natanz known as “Pickaxe Mountain,” which is reportedly engineered to withstand aerial bombardment.

    Beyond nuclear infrastructure, Hayman adds that Iran has sustained a breakneck pace of ballistic missile production, turning out approximately 125 new missiles each month. At the outbreak of the 2025 war, the country already had an accumulated stockpile of 2,500 missiles. The former intelligence official also notes Iran has led a major rebuilding of the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, which suffered severe casualties in its 2023–2024 conflict with Israel. Tehran has doubled Hezbollah’s operating budget and kept arms supply routes through Syria open, even after the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s government.

    Hayman explains that Israel’s split strategic goals have been undermined by a structural shift in Iran’s leadership following the assassination of former supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. After Mojtaba Khamenei succeeded his father, Iran’s leadership transitioned to a highly decentralized command structure that has made it far harder for allied strikes to decapitate the regime. He also points out that Tehran’s decision to close the Strait of Hormuz—a critical chokepoint through which 20% of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas flows—gave it major global leverage, forcing the US and international community to shift their priorities to stabilizing energy markets.

    The Israeli former official details that after the assassination of top Iranian leaders, the second phase of the allied campaign was meant to use an unprecedented new approach to destroy Iran’s nuclear program. “The ultimate ‘crown jewel’ – the destruction of the nuclear program – was not fully realised by the time the first lull took effect,” he wrote. Critically, Hayman adds that the new supreme leader Mojtaba Khamenei holds harder-line ideological views than his father, and does not feel bound by the elder Khamenei’s religious edict banning the development of nuclear weapons. “Iran has endured two major wars within a single year, and its leadership’s likely conclusion is that only nuclear deterrence can prevent the next war,” he argued.

    Hayman’s findings do not stand alone: just one week before the release of his policy paper, The New York Times published a report based on classified US intelligence assessments that reached nearly identical conclusions. The assessments, completed earlier this month, contradict repeated public claims from the US and its allies that Iran’s military capabilities have been decimated. According to the Times’ reporting, Iran has regained operational access to 30 out of 33 missile sites located along the Strait of Hormuz, allowing it to once again threaten international commercial shipping and US naval vessels transiting the waterway.

    Anonymous sources familiar with the intelligence assessment told the outlet that Tehran can already move mobile missile launchers within these sites to concealed locations, and in some cases launch missiles directly from the facility launch pads. The US intelligence document estimates that 70% of Iran’s mobile missile launchers remain operational across the country, and the country retains approximately 70% of its pre-war missile stockpile. US military analysts using satellite imagery and other surveillance tools also concluded that Iran has restored access to roughly 90% of its underground missile storage and launch facilities, most of which are now either fully or partially operational.

    These findings directly contradict public statements from US President Donald Trump and other senior US administration officials, who have repeatedly claimed the offensive “decimated” Iran’s military and nuclear infrastructure. When asked to respond to The New York Times report, a White House spokesperson doubled down on the administration’s position, reiterating that Iran had been “crushed” and claiming anyone who believes Iran has rebuilt its military capabilities is either “delusional or a mouthpiece” for Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.

    The US and Israel launched the current conflict on February 28 with a massive opening wave of strikes across Iran. In response, Tehran launched retaliatory strikes targeting Israeli and Gulf Arab states and carried through on its threat to close the Strait of Hormuz, disrupting global energy supplies.

  • Israel raid of Gaza-bound flotilla near Cyprus sparks outrage

    Israel raid of Gaza-bound flotilla near Cyprus sparks outrage

    In a fresh escalation of actions against humanitarian missions targeting the besieged Gaza Strip, Israeli naval commandos have launched a raid on multiple vessels belonging to the Gaza-bound Global Sumud Flotilla, carrying out the interception in international waters off the coast of Cyprus. The incident comes just four days after the 54-vessel convoy departed Marmaris, Turkey, with the core goal of breaking Israel’s years-long air, land and sea blockade on Gaza that has pushed the enclave into a catastrophic humanitarian collapse.

    In an official statement shared with Middle East Eye shortly after the incursion began, the Global Sumud Flotilla organizing committee confirmed that its entire fleet is currently surrounded and actively targeted by Israeli warships, located approximately 250 nautical miles off Gaza’s coast. The mission described the military encirclement as the opening of yet another unlawful act of aggression on the high seas. Footage released from the scene shows Israeli military vessels circling small civilian aid boats before moving in to seize control of the craft, with activists confirming on the social platform X that Israeli soldiers began boarding the first seized vessel in broad daylight.

    Local Israeli media had already pre-announced the military’s interception plans, noting that the flotilla was projected to reach Gaza’s territorial waters within 48 hours of the raid. Israeli officials have confirmed that all 100 activists on board the seized vessels have been arrested, and the boats will be towed to Israel’s southern Ashdod port for processing. Ahead of the interception, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held high-level security consultations with top military and political leaders on Sunday to coordinate the operation, according to Israeli newspaper Israel Hayom. Another leading Israeli outlet, Yedioth Ahronoth, cited an unnamed official source stating that Israeli forces would “control all participants” and transfer detained activists to a so-called “floating prison” while the vessels are impounded.

    This latest interception is not an isolated incident: just one month prior in late April, Israeli naval forces carried out an almost identical raid on another Gaza-bound aid convoy off the coast of Greece, hundreds of nautical miles from the Gaza border. In that earlier attack, roughly 200 activists were detained, multiple vessels were deliberately and systematically disabled to render them immobile, and activists were left stranded in open water. Activists who participated in the April mission reported that Israeli military speedboats approached the convoy before the raid, soldiers pointed laser targeting devices and semi-automatic firearms at unarmed civilian crew members, ordered all on deck to crawl with hands and knees on the ground, and jammed all vessel communications systems to block calls for assistance.

    The Monday raid has already triggered widespread international condemnation, with Turkey’s foreign ministry leading diplomatic pushback against the action. In a formal statement, the Turkish government stressed that “Israel’s attacks and intimidation policies will in no way prevent the international community’s pursuit of justice and solidarity with the Palestinian people,” calling on Israel to immediately halt the ongoing operation and release all detained activists.

    The interception comes amid an ongoing catastrophic humanitarian crisis in Gaza, triggered by Israel’s large-scale military incursion that began in October 2023. To date, official Palestinian health data records at least 72,769 Palestinians killed in Israeli bombardment and ground operations, with thousands more still missing and presumed dead beneath the rubble of destroyed buildings. Israel’s total blockade of the enclave has cut off access to food, clean water, electricity and life-saving humanitarian aid, leading the United Nations and global humanitarian agencies to declare full-scale famine in multiple northern Gaza districts. The vast majority of Gaza’s hospitals, residential homes and schools have been completely destroyed in sustained air and ground attacks. Even after a temporary ceasefire was agreed in October 2023, Israeli air strikes have killed more than 800 additional Palestinians in Gaza, and Israel has continued to violate ceasefire terms by maintaining strict restrictions on aid entry, leaving the territory’s humanitarian emergency completely unresolved.

    Organizers of the Global Sumud Flotilla reiterated in their statement that Israel’s repeated interceptions of unarmed aid convoys in international waters demonstrate a deliberate and systematic disregard for core tenets of international maritime law, the fundamental right to freedom of navigation on the high seas, and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a binding international agreement that Israel is a party to.

  • French judge to probe complaints against Saudi crown prince over Khashoggi killing

    French judge to probe complaints against Saudi crown prince over Khashoggi killing

    Nearly six years after the brutal assassination of Saudi dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi inside Saudi Arabia’s Istanbul consulate, a French investigating judge will move forward with a formal probe into the killing, multiple sources confirmed to Agence France-Presse on Saturday. The long-awaited investigation follows a years-long legal battle launched by global human rights and press freedom organizations that have accused Saudi Arabia’s de facto leader, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, of direct involvement in the murder.

    Khashoggi, a contributing columnist for The Washington Post and reporter for Middle East Eye who was known for his critical reporting on the Saudi regime, was killed by Saudi agents shortly after he entered the consulate on October 2, 2018. His body was dismembered, and no remains have ever been recovered. In 2021, a declassified U.S. intelligence report publicly concluded that bin Salman had personally ordered the assassination, a finding the crown prince has repeatedly denied, though he has acknowledged the killing occurred on his watch. During a 2025 White House meeting with former U.S. President Donald Trump, he described the incident as “a huge mistake.”

    The legal push in France began in July 2022, when two organizations — Switzerland-based NGO Trial International and Democracy for the Arab World Now (Dawn), an advocacy group Khashoggi founded just months before his death — filed an official criminal complaint accusing bin Salman of complicity in torture, enforced disappearance, and premeditated murder, claiming he directly “ordered the assassination by asphyxiation.” Reporters Without Borders (RSF) later joined the complaint. For years, France’s public prosecutor’s office blocked the investigation, arguing the NGOs’ claims were legally inadmissible. That changed last week, when the Paris Court of Appeal ruled the complaints meet the threshold for investigation, noting that “the possibility that the case could be classified as a crime against humanity could not be ruled out” before a formal probe is completed.

    The case has now been assigned to an investigating judge with specialized expertise in prosecuting crimes against humanity. The judge’s core mandate will be to examine whether the assassination was part of a coordinated, state-level campaign by the Saudi government targeting political dissidents, which would qualify as a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population under international criminal law.

    While Dawn was unable to gain formal status as a civil party to the proceedings, the organization welcomed the court’s ruling as a critical milestone for accountability. “The crime committed against Jamal Khashoggi is an abominable crime decided and planned at the highest levels of the Saudi state, which had a journalist executed who was a dissenting and independent voice,” said Emmanuel Daoud, legal counsel for RSF. Henri Thulliez, a lawyer representing Trial International, emphasized that France is legally obligated to pursue allegations of torture and enforced disappearance when suspects are present on its territory, adding that “there should no longer be any obstacle to opening a judicial inquiry into the atrocious crime against Jamal Khashoggi.”

    The 2018 killing sparked global condemnation from world leaders, press freedom advocates, and human rights groups, who widely criticized Saudi Arabia’s internal domestic trial over the incident as a sham. The closed-door 2018 trial sentenced five defendants to death and explicitly cleared bin Salman of any involvement, a outcome that rights groups dismissed as an “antithesis of justice” and “a mockery.” For years after the killing, bin Salman faced informal diplomatic isolation among Western leaders, though that has gradually eased in recent years amid shifting geopolitical priorities.

    This development marks the first formal judicial investigation by a Western country into the case, opening a new chapter in the multi-year push for accountability for Khashoggi’s killing.

  • Israel advances plan to seize Palestinian property near Al-Aqsa Mosque

    Israel advances plan to seize Palestinian property near Al-Aqsa Mosque

    The Israeli government has moved forward with long-dormant plans to seize privately owned Palestinian property in the sensitive area surrounding Jerusalem’s Old City Al-Aqsa Mosque, a step Palestinian leaders and residents decry as a deliberate push to “Judaise” the contested holy city.

    On Sunday, Israeli cabinet ministers voted unanimously to establish a cross-governmental working group tasked with clearing legal and bureaucratic barriers to enacting decades-old expropriation orders for properties along Chain Gate (known locally as Bab al-Silsila), the primary pedestrian corridor leading directly to the western entrances of Al-Aqsa Mosque.

    Israeli officials and national Hebrew media frame the move as a routine measure to solidify Israeli sovereignty over the Old City and create connected thoroughfares linking Jaffa Gate, the Jewish Quarter and the Western Wall. Israeli government accounts frame the step as the finalization of a 1960s land seizure process, launched shortly after Israel occupied and annexed East Jerusalem in the 1967 Six-Day War. Official government documents repeatedly reference the need to “implement” long-overdue historic confiscation orders, noting the new inter-ministerial panel will resolve decades of legal and planning delays that kept the orders from being enacted.

    Jerusalem municipal officials estimate the orders would impact approximately 15 to 20 Palestinian-owned residential homes and commercial storefronts located along the corridor. Stretching through one of the Old City’s most densely populated and politically sensitive districts, the narrow stone-paved Chain Gate route is flanked by centuries-old Islamic educational institutions, Mamluk and Ottoman-era historical structures, local shops and small family-owned restaurants, according to Sheikh Ekrima Sabri, the senior imam of Al-Aqsa Mosque. Sabri emphasized that most of the targeted properties are tied to Islamic waqf endowments and longstanding religious institutions that surround the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, one of the most sacred sites in Islam.

    “Every measure carried out by the occupation serves the project of changing Jerusalem’s identity,” Sabri told independent regional outlet Middle East Eye, labeling the latest decision as yet another deliberate attempt to erase Palestinian and Islamic identity from the city.

    The approval of the confiscation plan comes at a moment of already soaring friction across occupied East Jerusalem, as Palestinians grow increasingly alarmed that Israeli authorities are ramping up territorial and demographic changes in the Old City while global attention is fixed on the ongoing war in Gaza and widening regional escalation. Palestinian officials and community activists argue that the global focus on the Gaza conflict has significantly reduced international scrutiny of Israeli policy shifts in Jerusalem, creating a window of opportunity for accelerated land seizures.

    Khalil Tawfikji, a leading Jerusalem affairs analyst, explained that the targeted properties were first formally seized shortly after the 1967 occupation under Israeli legislation designed for expropriation for “public benefit” – a legal tool typically reserved for building schools, hospitals and public infrastructure, but which was instead deployed to transfer vast swathes of the Old City into Israeli state ownership.

    “These properties were confiscated in the name of public benefit, but the public they meant was the Israeli public,” Tawfikji told Middle East Eye. “Not the Palestinian, Muslim, or Christian public.” Over the decades following the 1967 occupation, most Palestinian families living in the Bab al-Silsila area were gradually displaced, leaving only a small handful of Palestinian residents and business owners remaining today. Tawfikji pointed to the timing of the latest move as particularly significant, arguing Israeli leaders are actively exploiting the current distracted regional and international climate to consolidate full control over one of the Old City’s most geographically and politically strategic corridors. Already, he noted, Israeli settlers have occupied the upper floors of several targeted buildings, while Palestinian shopkeepers continue to operate on the ground level.

    “This is about reshaping the area,” Tawfikji said. “Whoever controls the Old City controls the narrative presented to the world. Controlling this space means controlling the image of Jerusalem before the world.” The Bab al-Silsila corridor holds unique strategic importance not only for its direct access to Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Western Wall, but also for its proximity to the Via Dolorosa, the iconic Christian pilgrimage route that marks the path Jesus is believed to have walked to his crucifixion. “The Old City is where the three religions meet. For Christians, there is the Way of Sorrows; for Muslims, Al-Aqsa Mosque; and for Jews, the Western Wall,” Tawfikji added.

    The Israeli government proposal also outlines a plan to create what it calls a “continuous urban space” that connects disparate sections of the Jewish Quarter and creates unbroken access routes to the Western Wall. Sabri reported that Palestinian and Islamic officials are currently mobilizing to block the confiscation plan through both domestic legal challenges and international diplomatic outreach, including coordination with Jordanian officials who hold formal jurisdiction over the Jerusalem Islamic waqf. “There are political and diplomatic efforts taking place,” Sabri confirmed.

    For many Palestinian residents of Jerusalem, however, the anxiety surrounding the decision goes far beyond the specific properties at risk, reflecting broader fears of the steady erosion of Palestinian presence and identity around Al-Aqsa Mosque and across the Old City as a whole. The inter-ministerial working group is scheduled to deliver its recommendations for implementing the confiscation orders within the coming months.

  • Alex Murdaugh sues court clerk over jury tampering after murder convictions overturned

    Alex Murdaugh sues court clerk over jury tampering after murder convictions overturned

    The high-profile legal saga of disgraced South Carolina attorney Alex Murdaugh has entered a new chapter, days after the state’s Supreme Court threw out his 2023 convictions for the murders of his wife Maggie and son Paul. On Wednesday, Murdaugh filed a civil lawsuit against Colleton County Clerk of Court Rebecca Hill, the court official at the center of the judicial misconduct that invalidated his original guilty verdict.

    Last week, the South Carolina Supreme Court issued a unanimous 5-0 ruling ordering a new trial for Murdaugh, concluding that Hill had deliberately undermined his constitutional right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. The high court documented multiple inappropriate interactions between Hill and seated jurors during the six-week 2023 trial, including statements where she urged jurors not to be swayed by evidence presented by the defense.

    Within months of the guilty verdict, Hill released a commercially published tell-all book about the high-profile proceedings, which drew international media attention and drew crowds of true crime observers to the televised trial. In his new civil filing, Murdaugh’s legal team argues that Hill’s improper jury interference was driven entirely by personal financial gain. Court documents allege Hill sought a guilty verdict specifically to boost book sales, with the end goal of purchasing a lake house. The suit quotes the Supreme Court’s own finding that Hill believed a conviction would maximize profits from her planned publication.

    Murdaugh is seeking monetary damages to cover the hundreds of thousands of dollars he spent on his criminal defense during the first trial, totaling $600,000 in claimed compensation for the harms he suffered as a result of Hill’s actions. This is not Hill’s first run-in with legal consequences: Last December, she pleaded guilty to multiple felony charges including misconduct in public office, obstruction of justice, and perjury connected to unrelated allegations that she misappropriated public funds during her tenure as clerk and leaked sealed court records to a journalist.

    Murdaugh, once a prominent member of a powerful local legal family, has maintained his complete innocence in the 2021 killings of Maggie and Paul Murdaugh. Prosecutors have announced plans to retry the double murder case, though no new trial date has been scheduled. He is currently serving consecutive 27-year and 40-year sentences for separate state and federal convictions for financial crimes, including years of stealing millions of dollars from his law firm and clients to fund an opioid addiction and extravagant lifestyle. Prosecutors argued at the original trial that the killings were an attempt to cover up this years-long pattern of financial corruption. The case has drawn global public interest, spawning multiple documentaries, podcasts, and book deals long before Hill entered the publishing space.

  • Jury tosses Elon Musk’s lawsuit against OpenAI and its boss Sam Altman

    Jury tosses Elon Musk’s lawsuit against OpenAI and its boss Sam Altman

    In a landmark legal ruling that closes one chapter of a high-stakes feud over the future of artificial intelligence, a California jury has delivered a unanimous verdict dismissing Elon Musk’s major lawsuit against OpenAI and its chief executive Sam Altman. The case was thrown out entirely on the grounds that Musk filed his legal claims well after the legally mandated statute of limitations for such disputes had expired.

    Musk, one of the original co-founders of OpenAI, launched the suit accusing Altman of breaking a foundational non-profit agreement that guided the company’s early days. When OpenAI was launched in 2015, Musk contributed $38 million in initial funding to support the organization’s stated mission: developing AI technology for the collective benefit of humanity, rather than private profit. Musk alleged that Altman deliberately deceived him by accepting his charitable seed funding, then abandoned the original non-profit mission to transition OpenAI—the creator of the wildly popular ChatGPT—into a for-profit entity. He also named Microsoft and its CEO Satya Nadella as co-defendants, claiming the tech giant aided in what Musk framed as a breach of agreement.

    Over the course of three weeks, jurors pored over thousands of pages of internal OpenAI correspondence and heard testimony from all key parties to the dispute. Both Musk and Altman took the stand to present their competing accounts of the company’s origins and trajectory, while Nadella also appeared as a witness to address Musk’s allegations against Microsoft. Following the close of evidence, jurors deliberated for roughly two hours on Monday before reaching their unanimous decision to dismiss the case.

    During his opening testimony on the first day of the trial, Musk appeared in court in a dark suit and tie, framing his legal action as a defense of the principle of charitable giving. When asked by his legal team to explain the core of his complaint, Musk told the court: “It’s actually very simple. It’s not OK to steal a charity… If it’s okay to loot a charity, the entire foundation of charitable giving will be destroyed.”

    Altman pushed back forcefully against Musk’s narrative during his own testimony, arguing that Musk not only supported the push to convert OpenAI to a for-profit structure—he also pushed for long-term personal control of the company. Altman recalled a pivotal early meeting where Musk’s stance on control became clear, telling jurors: “A particularly hair-raising moment was when my co-founders asked, ‘If you have control, what happens when you die?’ He said something like, ‘maybe it should pass to my children.’”

    Following the jury’s ruling on the claims against OpenAI, Musk’s remaining allegations against Microsoft were also dismissed as a matter of law. The long-running rift between Musk and Altman dates back to 2018, when Musk stepped down from OpenAI’s board after co-founders rejected his request for full control over the organization. The dismissal of the suit brings a definitive legal end to this particular clash between two of the most influential figures in global AI development, though ongoing industry competition between their respective AI projects is expected to continue.

  • Canada beats Denmark and Crosby tallies 4 assists in third-period surge at hockey worlds

    Canada beats Denmark and Crosby tallies 4 assists in third-period surge at hockey worlds

    The 2024 IIHF Ice Hockey World Championship delivered two dramatic contrasting results on Monday, as Canada seized revenge for a stunning 2023 upset with a late-game breakout against Denmark, while defending champion United States suffered a third straight defeat at the hands of a red-hot Finnish side.

    In Group B action hosted in Fribourg, Switzerland, Canada entered the match with unfinished business against Denmark. Twelve months prior, the heavily favored Canadian squad saw their bid for a 29th world title cut short when Denmark pulled off one of the biggest upsets in tournament history to beat them 2-1 in the quarterfinals. This year’s rematch followed a familiar script for most of the contest: Canada controlled possession and peppered the net with 28 shots, but could not find a way past Denmark rookie goaltender Nicolaj Henriksen, who put on a spectacular performance in his first senior world championship appearance.

    That all changed in the opening minutes of the third period, when legendary Canadian forward Sidney Crosby sparked an unprecedented scoring surge that turned a scoreless deadlock into a dominant 5-1 win. Just 28 seconds into the final frame, Porter Martone slotted home the opening goal off a crisp cross-crease pass from Crosby, breaking the seal for the tournament favorites. Three minutes later, Gabriel Vilardi doubled Canada’s lead, and 31 seconds after that, Denton Mateychuk buried a rebound off another Crosby setup to put Canada up 3-0 before the third period was even seven minutes old. Ryan O’Reilly and Parker Wotherspoon closed out the scoring for Canada, each finding the back of the net after Crosby located them unmarked in front of the goal, giving the future Hall of Famer four assists on the night’s five goals. Teenage Canadian captain Macklin Celebrini added two assists of his own, while goaltender Jet Greaves turned aside 15 of 16 Danish shots. Nick Olesen scored Denmark’s only goal late in the contest.

    The win marks Canada’s third consecutive victory to open the tournament, following previous wins over Sweden (5-3) and Italy (6-0). Canada is set to return to the ice against Norway on Thursday.

    In Group A play in Zurich, meanwhile, defending champion United States continued to struggle at this year’s event, falling 6-2 to Finland, who notched their third straight win to open the tournament. The U.S. came into the match on rocky footing, having dropped their opener to host Switzerland 3-1 before picking up their only win so far against Great Britain 5-1.

    Finland got on the board early, when Lenni Hameenaho fired a wrist shot past U.S. goaltender Joseph Woll just over six minutes into the first period, capitalizing on an American turnover. The U.S. responded quickly, with Matt Coronato knocking in a one-timer to equalize just 98 seconds later. From that point on, Finland dominated the scoreboard, ripping off four consecutive goals to pull away. Patrik Puistola and Aatu Raty found the back of the net before the end of the first period, and Hameenaho notched his second of the night on a power play early in the second, followed 31 seconds later by a strike from Saku Maenalanen. The outburst forced the U.S. to pull Woll, who had allowed five goals on just 10 shots, and bring in backup Devin Cooley.

    The U.S. got one goal back in the third period from Ryan Leonard, but Anton Lundell closed out the scoring for Finland to seal the 6-2 win. The U.S. will look to get back on track when they face Germany on Wednesday, while other matches on Monday’s slate included host Switzerland facing Germany in Zurich, and Sweden taking on Czechia in Fribourg.