Global Pulse

作者： admin

  • US launches fresh strikes on Iran, as Trump warns of retaliation for deaths of soldiers

    US launches fresh strikes on Iran, as Trump warns of retaliation for deaths of soldiers

    Escalating tensions between the United States and Iran have plunged the Middle East into fresh chaos, with the U.S. military confirming it has launched a new round of strikes targeting Iranian assets, aimed at what Washington says is further reduction of Iran’s ability to target commercial shipping in the strategically critical Strait of Hormuz. This latest wave of attacks marks the 10th straight night of military action against Iran, coming directly after former U.S. President Donald Trump pledged harsh retaliation for the recent deaths of American service members, promising Iran would face consequences “many times over” for the killings.

    Trump had previously stated that Iranian targets had already suffered heavy damage in overnight strikes carried out to honor three fallen U.S. soldiers — two killed in Jordan and one in Iraq. Those earlier attacks focused on Iranian military installations and communications infrastructure, according to U.S. officials.

    In a sharp response to the ongoing U.S. assault, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian announced that Iran is now engaged in a “full-scale war” with the United States. Iranian forces have in turn launched counterattacks against sites in Bahrain, Jordan, and Syria, expanding the scope of the conflict beyond Iran’s borders. Despite the collapse of an earlier ceasefire agreement, Tehran confirmed that diplomatic backchannels remain open, with both sides continuing to exchange messages through third-party intermediaries.

    The spillover of conflict has already sparked security crises across neighboring countries. Late Monday, Jordan’s military announced it had successfully shot down three incoming Iranian missiles, triggering air raid sirens across the kingdom as populations braced for incoming fire. Earlier the same day, Kuwait’s armed forces confirmed they had intercepted a fleet of Iranian drones launched toward its territory. Officials in Bahrain reported that Iranian drones had targeted the country’s air navigation systems, but added that commercial air traffic continued to operate without disruption following the attack.

    Following the previous night’s U.S. strikes, Iran’s semi-official Tasnim News Agency reported that multiple Iranian cities had been hit, including major population and infrastructure hubs such as Tabriz, Chabahar, Konarak, Bandar Mahshahr, and Bandar Imam Khomeini. Iranian state media also released reports of two oil tankers exploding while transiting the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s busiest and most economically vital oil chokepoints. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Iran’s elite military force, claimed the vessels exploded after attempting to cross what it labeled an “unsafe and hazardous southern route” through the strait, bringing operations to a halt. U.S. Central Command (Centcom) has publicly disputed Iran’s account of the tanker incident, though it has not yet released its own independent details of what occurred.

  • Exclusive: President of ICC oversight body confirms no finding of retaliation by Khan

    Exclusive: President of ICC oversight body confirms no finding of retaliation by Khan

    A key clarification has emerged in the unfolding disciplinary case against International Criminal Court (ICC) Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan, with the head of the court’s governing Assembly of States Parties (ASP) confirming last week that no retaliation allegations against Khan have been formally upheld by the ASP’s executive bureau.

    In a 17 July letter, Finnish diplomat and ASP President Paivi Kaukoranta made clear that the 21-member executive bureau failed to secure the supermajority vote required to validate any finding of retaliation misconduct. The claims were originally brought forward by two members of Khan’s own office during a UN-led independent probe launched in November 2024, when Kaukoranta made the decision to outsource the full investigation into multiple allegations against Khan to the United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS).

    Alongside three separate retaliation claims, the investigation also included an allegation of sexual misconduct brought by a female staff member, which had already been opened and closed twice previously after the complainant refused to cooperate with internal ICC proceedings. Both the complainant and Khan ultimately cooperated with the OIOS probe, with Khan repeatedly denying all allegations of wrongdoing from the outset.

    Over 12 months, UN investigators collected and assessed evidence to present to a specially appointed panel of judges, which was tasked with evaluating the claims against the strict legal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The OIOS submitted its 150-page final report, accompanied by more than 5,000 pages of supporting evidence, to the judge panel in December 2025. Investigators ultimately dismissed one retaliation claim outright, concluding that the actions in question were a legitimate response to documented work performance concerns, not retaliation.

    The panel of judges spent nearly three months reviewing the UN investigation’s findings before issuing a unanimous conclusion in March 2026: the evidence presented in the probe did not meet the threshold to confirm any misconduct or breach of duty under ICC rules. However, just weeks after the panel cleared Khan, a simple majority of bureau members backed a controversial motion to disregard the judges’ independent findings, opening the door to claims that the process had been politicized.

    Two months later, after granting Khan and the complainants a final opportunity to submit additional testimony, the bureau voted to suspend Khan formally and referred the full case to the full ASP plenary for a final vote. Redacted versions of the OIOS report, the judge panel’s findings, and all related submissions have been distributed to the 125 ASP member states, ahead of a high-stakes plenary vote at UN Headquarters in New York this Friday that will decide Khan’s future as chief prosecutor.

    The bureau’s 8 June 2026 confidential decision did find that evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt Khan had engaged in a sexual relationship with the complainant, arguing the power dynamic between the office head and a subordinate made the relationship inherently inappropriate. Notably, however, the bureau explicitly declined to uphold any findings on the retaliation claims, a detail Kaukoranta’s recent letter confirms aligns with earlier reporting from Middle East Eye (MEE).

    Following the bureau’s decision, some member states pushed to reopen the retaliation claim question and called for a formal clear statement from the ASP leadership, prompting Kaukoranta’s official clarification this week. In her letter, she explained the bureau’s inability to reach a conclusion on the claims from the two whistleblowers, identified only as W06 and W10, stemmed from deep division among members that left the body short of the required two-thirds majority for substantive findings.

    “As the Prosecutor benefits from the presumption of innocence, the legal effect of the Bureau’s statement is that no misconduct in relation to the allegations of W06 and W10 has been established against the Prosecutor,” Kaukoranta wrote. She added that the bureau had chosen not to refer the retaliation claims to the full ASP plenary, and the matter is now officially closed, with the two complainants already notified of the decision on the bureau’s behalf.

    The Friday vote comes amid widespread criticism of the bureau’s handling of the investigation, with prominent global figures already speaking out against the process. Last Saturday, former European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell publicly accused the ASP of preparing a politically motivated vote to oust Khan, rather than honoring the independent judicial findings that cleared him of most wrongdoing.

    Borrell argued that the efforts to remove Khan form part of a broader coordinated offensive against the ICC, pointing to existing U.S. sanctions and threats targeting Khan and other court officials that were imposed after the prosecutor announced plans to seek arrest warrants for Israeli and Hamas leaders over alleged war crimes in Gaza in May 2024.

  • Former UN oversight chief says ICC prosecutor Karim Khan is ‘victim of massive stitch-up’

    Former UN oversight chief says ICC prosecutor Karim Khan is ‘victim of massive stitch-up’

    A high-stakes controversy has erupted at the International Criminal Court (ICC) after a veteran former United Nations investigations chief publicly condemned the ICC’s governing bureau for suspending Prosecutor Karim Khan over misconduct claims, calling the action a coordinated, unfair “stitch-up” that undermines fundamental principles of justice. \n\nBen Swanson, who previously served as UN Assistant Secretary-General and deputy head of the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) — and previously led OIOS’ Investigations Division — has submitted four successive expert opinions to the 21-member bureau of the ICC’s Assembly of States Parties (ASP) over the past year. All four opinions, commissioned by Khan’s legal defense team, criticize the procedural irregularities that have marred the misconduct probe and the bureau’s subsequent handling of the case. \n\nSwanson’s most recent submission, dated June 28 and obtained by Middle East Eye via independent sources, directly challenges the bureau’s June 8 decision to suspend Khan, which came after a majority of bureau members ruled he had committed \”serious misconduct.\” Critically, this ruling directly contradicts the unanimous finding of a three-judge independent panel appointed by the bureau itself, which concluded in March that the evidence collected by the UN-led investigation did not prove misconduct or breach of duty under ICC rules. \n\nAfter reviewing both the judges’ panel report and the bureau’s final decision, Swanson wrote, \”I am of the opinion that the Prosecutor is the victim of a massive ‘stitch-up’ and given what has happened since the release of the Panel’s Report I doubt whether justice will be done or seen to be done.\” \n\nSwanson accuses the bureau of adopting a \”dystopian method\” of justice and pursuing an \”activist agenda\” to remove Khan from office. After the independent judicial process the bureau established failed to deliver the outcome it sought, he argues, the bureau usurped both judicial and fact-finding roles to reach its desired conclusion. \”It is clear that an activist agenda is being pursued to remove the Prosecutor from his post, at all costs, by the weaponisation of such scant evidence that may exist, by ignoring the wealth of countervailing evidence available to the Bureau and by failing to take account of the wisdom of three international Judges,\” he added. \n\nThe 125-member ASP, which consists of diplomatic representatives from ICC member states, is set to vote on Khan’s future at UN Headquarters in New York this Friday, bringing the months-long dispute to a decisive head. \n\nThe misconduct process was launched in November 2024, when ASP President Paivi Kaukoranta authorized the probe and outsourced investigative work to OIOS, after the complainant who brought allegations against Khan refused to cooperate with the ICC’s internal investigative body. The probe centered on four allegations: a claim of \”unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature\” and abuse of authority from a female staff member in Khan’s office, plus three separate allegations of retaliation against other office employees. Khan has repeatedly denied all claims of misconduct or breach of duty. \n\nThe bureau’s ruling did not find Khan responsible for any of the three retaliation claims. Instead, the confidential decision obtained by MEE states the bureau found \”the evidence establishes beyond reasonable doubt\” that Khan had a sexual relationship with the complainant, and argued that \”in the context of that power imbalance a sexual relationship could never be appropriate.\” The bureau concluded this conduct amounted to improper use of ICC authority against the complainant. \n\nThis finding marks a significant shift from the original allegations: Khan denies any sexual relationship occurred, while the complainant’s original claim centered on non-consensual sexual conduct. In her first public interview on the case with CNN last week, the complainant reaffirmed her non-consensual conduct allegation. Swanson argues the bureau’s reframing of the claim creates a new allegation that was never part of the original investigation, and was never proven. \”What is charged reads as if the Prosecutor and [the complainant] have indulged in an inappropriate, consensual, workplace romance. That was not what was alleged and in any case has not been proven either,\” he wrote. \n\nAnother core point of criticism from Swanson is the bureau’s decision to conduct its own independent credibility assessment of witnesses and evidence, after both OIOS and the three-judge panel declined to confirm the credibility of the complainant and her evidence. Swanson notes that after the panel issued its report, the bureau had four legitimate procedural options: close the case, request OIOS conduct additional investigation to address open questions, restart the probe from scratch, or launch a formal adjudicated process that would allow for cross-examination of witnesses to properly establish credibility. \n\nKhan’s legal team formally requested an adjudicated process in a letter to the ASP president dated July 30, 2025, but the bureau rejected all such requests, including a demand for an adjudicative hearing before the judicial panel. Swanson argues that by disregarding the panel’s unanimous finding and conducting its own unilateral credibility assessment to reach a finding of serious misconduct, the bureau violated basic procedural fairness. \n\n\”The Bureau in determining credibility did not act with the same legal restraint as the Panel, declaring themselves unrestricted, and by using semantic gymnastics promptly used the same material as was available to the Judges, with the addition of more submissions from the Prosecutor and [the complainant], although they discounted the latter’s, to enable them to make credibility assessments,\” Swanson wrote. He added that the bureau also failed to assess the credibility of evidence itself, a step he says is just as or more important than assessing the credibility of the witness presenting it, and that the bureau applied a blatantly biased standard: it framed the complainant and all her testimony as credible, while dismissing every statement, evidence and testimony from Khan and other witnesses that contradicted her account. \n\nSwanson concluded that the bureau’s finding is \”unsafe and should not be relied upon as a proper basis for disciplinary action,\” and urged ICC member states to give \”decisive weight\” to the three-judge panel’s unanimous conclusion when they vote on July 24. \n\nSwanson is not alone in raising concerns about the legality and integrity of the bureau’s process. Earlier this month, MEE reported that Sir James Eadie KC, the United Kingdom’s First Treasury Counsel, had submitted a private legal opinion to the ASP president last November warning that granting the bureau authority to make a final finding of misconduct was illegal under ICC rules. Eadie argued that any proper process must be judicial in nature, requiring an oral hearing before a panel of judges to test allegations and confirm facts beyond reasonable doubt. \n\n\”It is entirely inappropriate for the determinative function to be undertaken by executive or political bodies,\” Eadie wrote. He added that the approach proposed by the ASP president — which treated OIOS’ investigative findings as fact without an adjudicated process, and only allowed the prosecutor to participate in a limited hearing before the bureau — threatens the core independence and institutional integrity of the ICC.

  • Trump and Burnham: Can the two leaders work together?

    Trump and Burnham: Can the two leaders work together?

    When Keir Starmer took office as the United Kingdom’s new prime minister this week, he inherited a long list of domestic priorities – from reforming the National Health Service to tackling the housing crisis. But one of his most high-stakes and delicate immediate challenges lies not in Westminster, but across the Atlantic: building a functional working relationship with former U.S. President Donald Trump, who is set to return to the Oval Office in January 2025.

    The relationship between the British prime minister and the U.S. president has long been billed the “special relationship,” a cornerstone of both nations’ global security and economic cooperation. But for Starmer, a center-left Labour leader who has never held executive office at Downing Street while Trump was in the White House, this partnership is off to an uncertain start. In her analysis for the BBC, senior Scotland correspondent Sarah Smith unpacks the layers of complexity that will define this critical bilateral dynamic in the months ahead.

    Unlike Starmer’s predecessor, Rishi Sunak, who had established limited but cordial working ties with Trump during his first term and maintained connections through transatlantic conservative networks, Starmer spent years as the leader of the Labour opposition criticizing Trump’s policy agenda, from his trade tariffs to his approach to NATO and the war in Ukraine. Early diplomatic rumblings already hint at friction: Trump has made public comments calling into question the UK’s commitment to global security, while Starmer’s team has walked a fine line between respecting the U.S. democratic process and defending Labour’s progressive policy priorities.

    Smith notes that the stakes could not be higher. A breakdown in trust between the two leaders could impact everything from post-Brexit trade negotiations to coordinated Western support for Ukraine against Russian aggression. At the same time, both leaders have practical incentives to find common ground: Starmer needs U.S. economic and security cooperation to deliver on his domestic campaign promises, while Trump has a long history of seeking friendly ties with UK leaders to bolster his own image as a global statesman.

    The question that now hangs over transatlantic diplomacy is not whether the two leaders will interact – they will, out of geopolitical necessity – but whether they can set aside personal and ideological differences to advance shared interests. As the world watches the new UK government settle in and the U.S. transition of power unfolds, this budding relationship will be one of the most closely watched international political storylines of the coming year.

  • Tate brothers will fight extradition to the UK. But the law makes it difficult to win

    Tate brothers will fight extradition to the UK. But the law makes it difficult to win

    For brothers Andrew and Tristan Tate, currently facing a request to send them from the United States to the United Kingdom to face criminal charges, their fate will unfold through a multi-stage legal process defined by a decades-old bilateral extradition treaty. Legal experts say that while the final call on any handover falls to the U.S. State Department, the overwhelming majority of valid extradition requests from U.S. treaty partners end in approval, even when the accused mount a vigorous legal defense. The U.S. and U.K. have operated under an extradition agreement that requires two core conditions to be met for a handover: first, that the alleged offenses in question would count as criminal acts under U.S. law, and second, that the requesting party provides sufficient evidence to establish a reasonable basis for prosecution. Official records from the U.K. Parliament show that since 2020 alone, U.S. authorities have approved the extradition of more than 20 individuals facing a range of criminal charges in the U.K. The Tate brothers are accused of committing rape, human trafficking, and organized assault between 2010 and 2017 in southeastern England, allegations their legal team has repeatedly and categorically denied. “They have never done anything wrong. They should not be extradited for crimes they did not commit,” stated Joseph McBride, the lead defense attorney for the pair. The first step of the legal process kicks off with a review by a U.S. federal judge, who will assess arrest warrants, investigative filings, and all supporting documentation submitted by U.S. prosecutors acting on behalf of the U.K. government. Unlike a full criminal trial, this extradition hearing does not determine guilt or innocence — it only assesses whether the request meets the legal requirements laid out in the bilateral treaty. “A partial victory for the defense might mean securing a reduction in the number of charges that the brothers are extradited on,” explained Jacques Semmelman, a New York-based extradition expert and attorney at the law firm Katten Muchin Rosenman. “But a full victory — blocking extradition entirely — is extraordinarily difficult to achieve.” Semmelman added that structural advantages heavily favor the government in these proceedings: extradition rules of evidence allow prosecutors to submit virtually any evidence they choose, leaving defense teams with very limited room to challenge the request. If an accused person chooses to fight the ruling through every available appeal, the entire process can stretch on for multiple years, legal observers note. If a federal judge upholds the extradition request and all subsequent appeals are rejected, the final decision passes to U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio (or his successor in the role), who holds broad discretionary authority over the final approval. “In the vast majority of cases, the secretary of state will sign the extradition warrant,” Semmelman said. While successful challenges to extradition are rare, they are not unheard of, and historical examples offer context for how the process can unfold. In 2015, a U.S. judge rejected an extradition request for an art dealer, ruling that there was insufficient evidence to prove the dealer knew a 18th-century painting — looted from a Polish museum by Nazis during World War II — was stolen when he inherited it. A more high-profile case came in 2020, during the first Trump administration, when the U.S. government declined to extradite Anne Sacoolas, an American woman who killed a young British man in a car crash while living in eastern England. Sacoolas, the wife of a U.S. intelligence officer, returned to the U.S. shortly after the incident, and ultimately pleaded guilty to the charge via video link from the U.S. in a U.K. court years later.

  • Thousands of websites taken down for illegal World Cup streams

    Thousands of websites taken down for illegal World Cup streams

    A coordinated multinational law enforcement operation targeting intellectual property violations tied to the FIFA World Cup has resulted in the blocking or seizure of nearly 3,000 websites illegally streaming tournament matches, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has confirmed. The joint action, carried out under the codenames Operation Offside and Operation Red Card, saw U.S. authorities take down more than 1,000 illicit domains within the country, while Colombian law enforcement blocked a comparable number of sites operating from its territory. Additional enforcement across five other South American nations and the Dominican Republic removed 830 more illegal platforms, marking one of the largest anti-piracy operations tied to a global sporting event in recent years.

    Overseen primarily by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which houses the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center (NIPRCC), the operation frames illegal sports streaming not just as a copyright violation, but a threat tied to transnational criminal activity. “Unauthorized broadcasting of World Cup matches violates intellectual property rights and fuels criminal organizations,” NIPRCC Director Ivan J. Arvelo noted. This latest round of seizures expands on an earlier action taken at the end of last month, which removed 400 infringing webpages from public access.

    A. Tysen Duva, assistant attorney general for the DOJ, emphasized that the sustained crackdown underscores the U.S. administration’s commitment to protecting intellectual property ahead of the 2026 FIFA World Cup, which will be co-hosted by the United States, Canada and Mexico. “The sustained effort to seize more than a thousand domains dedicated to illegally streaming the World Cup confirms the administration’s commitment to intellectual property rights and to the success of the 2026 FIFA World Cup,” Duva said.

    Industry analysts have long warned that sports piracy, particularly for globally popular events like men’s and women’s football, operates at an industrial scale. The widespread availability of illegal streams costs legitimate broadcasters and rights holders an estimated billions of dollars in lost revenue annually. As the cost of purchasing tournament broadcast rights has skyrocketed in recent decades, consumers have faced higher subscription prices for legal access, pushing some price-sensitive fans to seek out unlicensed streams to avoid the financial burden of multiple paid services.

    The Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE), a global industry coalition dedicated to combating digital piracy that partnered with law enforcement on the operation, confirmed that large-scale live sporting events are a prime target for criminal piracy networks. “The World Cup is the kind of global live event that piracy networks move quickly to exploit,” ACE chairman Charles Rivkin said Monday. FIFA, the governing body of international football that derives the majority of its revenue from selling broadcast rights to global media outlets, joined the effort alongside major media companies including beIN Media Group, NBC Universal, Warner Brothers, and sports entertainment firm Ultimate Fighting Championship. None of the partnering rights holders or organizations issued immediate public comment beyond their support for the enforcement action.

    In addition to blocking illegal streaming platforms, Colombian authorities made several arrests tied to the operation, including taking four members of the alleged cybercriminal group Los Ciberinfiltrados into custody. The group is accused of illegally obtaining access to World Cup matches and distributing that access to unauthorized users across the internet. Colombian law enforcement also expanded the operation beyond digital piracy, conducting nationwide search-and-seizure raids targeting the production and distribution of counterfeit World Cup-branded sports apparel. To date, 11 people in Colombia have been arrested and convicted on charges related to the fake merchandise ring.

    The cross-border collaboration between U.S. and South American law enforcement reflects a growing global push to curb digital piracy ahead of major sporting events, as rights holders and governments work to protect billions of dollars in broadcast and merchandise revenue. While the crackdown has removed thousands of illegal platforms, industry observers note that criminal networks often rapidly re-establish operations on new domains, requiring sustained enforcement to keep piracy levels in check.

  • Misleading posts about Trump at World Cup final viewed by millions

    Misleading posts about Trump at World Cup final viewed by millions

    In the lead-up to and aftermath of one of the world’s most-watched sporting events, the 2022 FIFA World Cup final, misleading social media content centered on former U.S. President Donald Trump and rising Spanish soccer star Lamine Yamal spread rapidly across major platforms, reaching millions of viewers in just days.

    The false content, which ranks among the most viral misleading posts connected to the tournament, framed a false narrative linking Trump to an incident or interaction with the 16-year-old prodigy at the final match held in Qatar. Fact-checking organizations quickly stepped in to debunk the claims, confirming that no such interaction ever took place and that the posts relied on heavily edited footage, out-of-context clips, and fabricated captions to generate engagement.

    The rapid spread of this misinformation highlights a growing ongoing challenge: how major social media platforms manage false content surrounding high-profile global events that draw billions of eyeballs. Soccer fans around the world shared the posts without verifying their authenticity, amplifying the false narrative to their own networks and helping the misleading content rack up views in the multi-millions before fact-checkers could flag most instances of the post.

    Experts on digital misinformation note that posts combining polarizing political figures like Trump with popular young sports stars are particularly prone to going viral, as they tap into existing partisan engagement and widespread interest in global soccer to drive shares and clicks. Many platforms have implemented misinformation policies designed to limit the reach of false content, but these policies often fail to catch viral misleading posts before they reach massive audiences, especially during fast-moving live events like the World Cup.

  • UK consulate in Palestine account suspended on X

    UK consulate in Palestine account suspended on X

    In an unexpected development that has drawn diplomatic attention, X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, has suspended the official account of the British Consulate in Jerusalem, the UK government’s diplomatic mission serving occupied Palestinian territories. As of Monday, 24 hours after the suspension was first reported, the @UKinJerusalem account remains inaccessible, displaying standard platform notifications that read “Account suspended” and note that X removes or restricts accounts found to violate its internal community rules.

    At the time of reporting, no official clarification has been released by either X or British authorities regarding the specific cause of the suspension, nor which platform policies are alleged to have been broken. The UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office confirmed to independent outlet Middle East Eye that diplomatic teams have already reached out to X leadership to resolve the issue and restore access to the account as quickly as possible. Middle East Eye has also contacted X for additional comment on the incident, with no response received as of publication.

    Per the British Consulate’s official public description, the mission carries out core work advancing the UK’s political, commercial, security, and economic bilateral interests with Palestine. It also delivers critical consular support to British citizens residing in occupied East Jerusalem, the Israeli-occupied West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.

    Investigation into the timeline of the suspension reveals that the account’s last major public activity, shared just hours before it was taken offline, was a coordinated joint statement thread with multiple other international diplomatic missions criticizing Israel’s long-standing practice of administrative detention for Palestinian detainees.

    In the public post, the consulate outlined context for the criticism: “Over 9,000 Palestinians are detained in Israeli prisons, including thousands held without charge or trial. Human rights organisations describe prison conditions for Palestinians as severe and life-threatening, citing inadequate food, denial of medical care and systematic abuse. We are deeply concerned by reports regarding the deterioration of Dr Abu Safiyah’s health.”

    Hussam Abu Safiyah, the detainee named in the statement, is a Palestinian paediatrician and director of Gaza’s Kamal Adwan Hospital. Israeli forces abducted Abu Safiyah on December 27, 2024, and he has been held without formal charges or a public trial ever since his detention.

    The joint statement concluded by reaffirming international standards for detention: “Detainees have the right to be informed about the charges underlying any detention, must be granted access to legal assistance, and be subject to a fair trial. We call upon Israel to uphold its human rights obligation towards detainees under international law, including by granting the ICRC immediate access to all detention facilities.”

  • White House: Trump to fly old Air Force One for about a month as Qatari-gifted jet gets ‘upgrades’

    White House: Trump to fly old Air Force One for about a month as Qatari-gifted jet gets ‘upgrades’

    WASHINGTON – In an official announcement from the White House, former President Donald Trump will transition back to the legacy Air Force One aircraft for a four-week period, while the newer jet donated by Qatar undergoes scheduled technical modifications and system improvements. The controversial Qatari-gifted plane, painted in a bold red, white and navy blue livery, has been mired in scrutiny since it first entered service, with questions raised on two key fronts: its origins as a gift from a foreign government, and critical gaps in its defensive capabilities compared to the older fleet.

    Controversy over the jet intensified earlier this month, when Trump departed the NATO summit in Istanbul aboard the older, iconic baby blue Air Force One instead of the new aircraft, making an unplanned stop at Royal Air Force Mildenhall in the United Kingdom before transferring to the Qatari-gifted jet. The unscheduled plane swap immediately sparked widespread speculation about undisclosed security flaws in the new aircraft.

    White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt issued a public statement on Monday seeking to quell these concerns, emphasizing that the newly donated plane remains completely safe for presidential travel. “The new Air Force One is perfectly safe for the President’s travels, but will receive additional upgrades and enhancements in the fall which will take approximately one month to complete,” Leavitt said, confirming that the older aircraft will handle all of Trump’s travel during the modification period.

    Leavitt’s statement expands on remarks Trump made to reporters Sunday evening as he returned to Washington, where he described the new jet as heading in for major upgrades to bring its capabilities to peak performance. Earlier this month, Trump defended the unplanned UK stop, claiming it was arranged solely to allow U.S. service members stationed at Mildenhall to view the new aircraft. He repeatedly denied that the plane swap was prompted by security vulnerabilities, even as he acknowledged he faces constant threats, noting that he remains the top target of Iran.

  • Merger deal between Paramount and Warner Bros paused by judge

    Merger deal between Paramount and Warner Bros paused by judge

    In a major antitrust development shaking the global media industry, a United States federal judge has issued a temporary restraining order halting the planned $110 billion merger between entertainment heavyweights Paramount Skydance and Warner Bros. Discovery, blocking the combination for 14 days. The ruling comes in response to a high-stakes lawsuit filed by a coalition of 12 US states, led by California and New York, which argues that the proposed merger would cripple market competition and force higher costs for consumers across the country. Prosecutors representing the state coalition warned that merging two of Hollywood’s most prominent studios would inflict widespread harm on multiple stakeholders, from independent movie theater operators and basic cable distribution networks to the general audiences that consume their content. Lawyers for the two media conglomerates have pushed back against the claims, countering that state regulators have misjudged the current media landscape, and that merging their operations would unlock greater efficiency for their streaming platforms, which have faced mounting pressure in a crowded, highly competitive market. US District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín issued the 14-day injunction on Monday, one week after hearing oral legal arguments from both sides in the case. The court order explicitly prohibits either company from completing the merger or beginning any process of integrating their business operations during the two-week period. In her written ruling, Judge Martínez-Olguín emphasized that the coalition of states had raised substantial, credible questions about how the proposed merger would disrupt the existing ecosystem for motion picture distribution. She noted that if the court allowed the merger to move forward before reaching a final verdict, undoing the combination later would be functionally near-impossible, comparing it to the difficulty of “unscrambling the egg” once an egg has been broken and mixed. The judge also rejected the media companies’ core arguments, stating that the public’s critical interest in enforcing antitrust regulations to preserve competitive markets outweighs any disruption caused by a temporary pause to the merger process. She added that both Paramount Skydance and Warner Bros. Discovery remain fully operational, independent companies that can compete effectively in the open market while the legal process plays out. If the merger were to ultimately receive final approval, it would bring to an end a century of fierce head-to-head rivalry between two of Hollywood’s most iconic and successful entertainment creators. The combined company would control an unparalleled catalog of legendary entertainment franchises, ranging from *Harry Potter*, Batman, *Mission: Impossible* and *Top Gun* to major cable news and entertainment networks including CNN, MTV, and Nickelodeon. Industry analysts estimate that a merged Paramount-Warner Bros. entity would be responsible for more than a quarter of all major theatrical film releases in the United States, giving it unprecedented leverage over distribution and pricing across the sector. Monday’s ruling marks a significant early setback for the two companies, which have been pushing for the merger as a strategy to better navigate the ongoing upheaval and intense competition that defines the modern streaming landscape. The next court hearing to evaluate the case has been scheduled for August, where both sides will present further arguments ahead of a final ruling on whether the merger can proceed.