Global Pulse

作者： admin

  • Brooklyn novelty shop reeling from ‘surreal’ row with Kelly Clarkson over mechanical bird

    Brooklyn novelty shop reeling from ‘surreal’ row with Kelly Clarkson over mechanical bird

    What started as a five-minute shopping stop at a tiny Brooklyn novelty store has exploded into a viral national controversy after Grammy-winning pop star Kelly Clarkson accused the boutique of snubbing her over a one-of-a-kind mechanical bird, triggering mass online outrage and sending shockwaves through the quiet Cobble Hill neighborhood.

    On a rain-soaked Wednesday this week, Art of Play, the family-owned toy and game shop at the center of the storm, looked nothing like its usual quiet self. Reporters outnumbered customers, curious passersby lingered outside trying to catch a glimpse of the famous bird, and foot traffic surged to levels the small store had never seen before. Everyone was asking the same question: “Where’s the bird?”

    The chaos began over the weekend, when Clarkson took to social media to air her grievance about her Saturday visit to the store. The singer claimed staff refused to sell her a singing, dancing mechanical bird named Molly that was mounted on the shop’s wall. What stung more, Clarkson said, was the implication that she could not afford the $15,000 price tag attached to the bird. In a viral post, she drew a parallel to the 1990 romantic comedy *Pretty Woman*, where Julia Roberts’ character is mistreated by shop staff who assume she cannot afford their luxury goods. “Y’all should go check out Art of Play in Brooklyn if you enjoy being treated like Julia Roberts’ character in Pretty Woman,” she wrote. In a follow-up post, Clarkson added that staff offered to find her a “comparable” bird instead of Molly, but did not address the store’s core claim that the piece was never for sale in the first place.

    Art of Play quickly pushed back against Clarkson’s accusations in a series of social media statements. The store explained that Molly has been permanently attached to the shop’s wall as a display piece and was never intended to be sold. During Clarkson’s short visit, a staff member did tell her that an identical Molly could be ordered for $15,000, and the store even offered her an alternative singing mechanical bird imported from a German clockmaker that was available for immediate purchase at $2,000. “Imagine our surprise when our small local business was suddenly attacked by eight million people who have never visited our store,” the shop said. “It’s been a surreal experience to be the focus of such widespread outrage after just one mention by a celebrity.” By Wednesday, the store had added a playful new price tag to Molly: $15 million, with a sign labeling her the “world’s most famous singing bird automata!”

    But the joke on the price tag could not mask the very real fallout the small business has faced. The store’s owner told CBS News, the BBC’s US partner, that Clarkson’s social media post had put his staff and business in danger. Death threats and harassment have flooded the shop, and one man even filmed himself shouting expletives outside the store, falsely accusing staff of racially profiling Clarkson. Clarkson has since defended her decision to call out the store publicly, saying “I never blast people but you my friend were an exception.”

    This week, a local news outlet released grainy, silent surveillance footage from the store that purports to show Clarkson’s visit. The footage shows her wearing a yellow shirt, baseball cap, and backpack browsing the store, stopping to point at Molly and speak with a staff member before exiting, then returning to speak animatedly to the cashier. The video does little to resolve the he-said-she-said at the heart of the controversy, however.

    For many regular customers and local residents, the entire incident has come as a shock. Longtime neighbor Kiran Ramineni described Art of Play as a “very nice small mom and pop store” that has been a staple of the community for years. Emily Trantanella, a frequent shopper, echoed that sentiment, saying “I feel like a pretty woman and I’ve always been treated very well here. I really like it here.” Even out-of-town visitors caught up in the media scrum said they had no idea about the controversy before arriving. Now, as the viral storm rages on, the shop has stopped commenting on the incident and is simply trying to return to business as usual, with Molly the mechanical bird still hanging on the wall, now more famous than ever.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • British Museum faces scrutiny over sponsor’s links to illegal Israel settlement

    British Museum faces scrutiny over sponsor’s links to illegal Israel settlement

    London’s iconic British Museum is now under growing pressure to re-evaluate a major £5 million sponsorship deal for its landmark Bayeux Tapestry exhibition, after newly released internal documents exposed gaps in the institution’s due diligence process regarding the sponsor’s ties to a project in an illegal Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank.

    The documents, obtained via a freedom of information (FOI) request from campaign group Culture Unstained and shared exclusively with Middle East Eye, lay bare the rapid timeline of negotiations that secured the sponsorship from Igor Tulchinsky, a US-based billionaire hedge fund founder and avowed Israeli supporter. What makes the deal particularly controversial is that the courtship of Tulchinsky by museum leadership continued even as he visited the illegal Efrat settlement to open a so-called “therapy yurt” he funded, just two weeks after the museum’s chair signed off on due diligence that had cleared Tulchinsky of any red flags.

    Tulchinsky, who launched investment firm WorldQuant in 2007 after 12 years at New York hedge fund Millennium Management, traveled to Efrat – part of the expanding Gush Etzion settlement bloc southeast of Jerusalem – on November 13, 2025 to inaugurate the facility, which he reportedly dedicated to what he called “Israel’s heroes.” During his remarks, he described the yurt as “Israel’s inner Iron Dome” and paid tribute to “Israel’s brave warriors and their families.”

    The sequence of emails reveals that the deal originated from direct intervention by George Osborne, former UK Chancellor of the Exchequer and current chair of the British Museum’s board of trustees. In early October 2025, Osborne connected the museum’s development director Charlotte Appleyard to a contact at Millennium Management, the hedge fund with extensive overlapping business ties to Tulchinsky. WorldQuant currently manages roughly $9 billion in assets on behalf of Millennium, and the two firms share a single chief communications officer.

    By October 30, Appleyard sent Osborne a summary of the museum’s due diligence findings, noting “moderate concerns” about Millennium that she framed as typical for a large financial firm, but “no concerns” regarding Tulchinsky. The internal due diligence document includes a partially redacted section labeled “Key Due Diligence Flags,” and an entirely redacted section on Tulchinsky’s personal interests, redacted under FOI exemptions for commercial interests. Just 80 minutes after receiving the report, Osborne greenlit negotiations to proceed.

    Two weeks later, Tulchinsky made his visit to Efrat. Only another two weeks after that, Appleyard notified Osborne that Tulchinsky had formally committed to the sponsorship. The £5 million deal was finalized and publicly announced in February 2026, and Tulchinsky has been a central figure in the museum’s marketing for the landmark exhibition – the first time the 11th-century Bayeux Tapestry, which chronicles the Norman invasion of England, has been displayed in London. He appeared alongside King Charles III, French President Emmanuel Macron, and British Prime Minister Andy Burnham at the opening ceremony last month, and the museum has opened a dedicated Igor Tulchinsky members’ room with a commissioned portrait of the billionaire on display for the exhibition’s run. Tulchinsky is also set to host the museum’s high-profile annual fundraising gala this coming Saturday, an event expected to draw a host of top dignitaries and celebrities.

    The recent revelations come at a moment when the UK government has hardened its official stance on Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Last month, Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband announced new sanctions targeting individuals and entities that support settlement expansion, and confirmed the UK now accepts the International Court of Justice’s ruling that Israel’s entire occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem is illegal. This new policy framework has amplified calls for the museum to revisit the sponsorship deal.

    Culture Unstained’s spokesperson argues that the museum’s current acceptance of Tulchinsky’s funding not only contradicts UK government policy but may also violate the Museums Association’s Code of Ethics. The group is calling for an urgent review of Tulchinsky’s ties to the institution. The International Centre of Justice for Palestinians has echoed those calls, urging the UK’s Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) – which regulates the British Museum, an independent public institution – to address the concerns quickly, and has called for a national ban on British cultural institutions accepting donations from individuals linked to activity in illegal settlements.

    Senior political figures have already raised formal objections: Green Party leader Zack Polanski has called for a full independent investigation into the deal, while Liberal Democrats culture spokesperson Anna Sabine questioned the government in parliament about whether the sponsorship aligns with the UK’s new sanctions regime. In a written response this week, DCMS minister Ian Murray noted that national museums like the British Museum operate with operational independence from government, and decisions around sponsorship and donations are the sole responsibility of the institution’s board of trustees, which adopted a new donations policy in July 2026. Murray confirmed the government has no plans to change that existing governance structure, and that no government ministers will attend Saturday’s fundraising gala.

    Legal advocates point out that the terms of the sponsorship agreement itself give the museum grounds to terminate the deal if new information emerges that would cause significant reputational damage. Jolyon Maugham, director of the Good Law Project, notes that the contract requires the museum to continue monitoring the sponsor’s activities and permits termination if future actions harm the institution’s reputation. “Obviously, in practice, it is easier to refuse to take the money than to give it back once you have taken it,” Maugham added.

    Beyond the settlement yurt, additional public records show Tulchinsky has longstanding pro-Israel commitments and extensive business activity in the country. He confirmed in a March 2026 interview with the *Jerusalem Post* that he provided financial support to the Israeli military following the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks and the subsequent Gaza war. Earlier this year, he launched a Tel Aviv-based defense technology venture capital fund led by a recently retired Israeli army commander who has been linked by human rights monitors to alleged war crimes in Gaza. There is no indication that museum leadership was aware of Tulchinsky’s Efrat visit or his funding of the yurt during the 2025 sponsorship negotiations.

    As of this reporting, the British Museum, DCMS, WorldQuant, and Millennium Management have all declined to comment on the revelations.

  • UK threatens to ban Eritreans over migrant return policy

    UK threatens to ban Eritreans over migrant return policy

    The United Kingdom has escalated diplomatic pressure on Eritrea over the east African nation’s ongoing refusal to accept the return of its citizens who are irregular migrants and convicted foreign national offenders, with Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood issuing a stark ultimatum: a total ban on Eritrean citizens entering the UK if Asmara does not reverse course.

    Starting this Thursday, new restrictions will come into force that limit all Eritrean diplomats to travel within a 60km radius of London. Any movement beyond that zone will require explicit advance permission from UK authorities. Beyond movement curbs, the UK government is also suspending fast-track visa processing for Eritrean high-level and VIP visitors. A Home Office spokesperson noted that the new travel rules mirror existing restrictions that Eritrea has long imposed on British diplomatic personnel based in Asmara, the Eritrean capital.

    In comments announcing the measures, Mahmood emphasized that Eritrea has been given repeated opportunities to resume cooperation on returns, but has refused to engage unlike other nations that have reached agreements with the UK. She added that the UK government would not hesitate to expand similar punitive measures to any other non-cooperating countries that refuse to accept the repatriation of their citizens who have no legal right to remain in the UK.

    According to the UK government, Eritrean authorities abruptly ended all cooperation on migrant returns earlier this year. Data from the House of Commons Library shows that Eritrean nationals were the largest group of irregular migrants arriving in the UK via small boats across the English Channel in the 12-month period ending in June 2025, accounting for 18% of all arrivals during that timeframe.

    This is not the first time the UK has used visa and diplomatic restrictions to force cooperation on returns. Earlier this year, London threatened similar measures against Angola, Namibia and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Restrictions imposed on the DRC last year were fully lifted after Kinshasa improved its cooperation on repatriation, while both Angola and Namibia agreed to revised cooperation frameworks before any punitive measures came into effect.

    The latest measures align with a broader asylum and migration policy Mahmood outlined in November, when she announced that visa penalties would be systematically applied to countries that refuse to cooperate with UK repatriation rules. Those penalties include what the government calls an “emergency brake” on visa issuance for nations with high numbers of unresolved asylum claims from their citizens in the UK, which remains in place until the country agrees to take back its irregular residents.

    Recent Home Office data shows that irregular small boat arrivals to the UK have dropped 40% year-on-year in 2026, with just over 20,400 arrivals recorded since January. At the same time, total returns and deportations from the UK increased by 8% year-on-year in the 12 months from July 2025 to June 2026, hitting more than 40,600. Of those returned, fewer than 6,000 had been convicted of a criminal offense in the UK.

    The BBC has reached out to the Eritrean Embassy in London to request a response to the new UK measures, but has not yet received comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Student protesters attack government buildings in Tirana

    Student protesters attack government buildings in Tirana

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

  • Israel’s 2026 election: Who are the main leaders and where do they stand on the key issues?

    Israel’s 2026 election: Who are the main leaders and where do they stand on the key issues?

    Scheduled for 27 October, Israel’s upcoming national election stands as one of the most consequential votes in the nation’s 78-year history. Marking the first national election since late 2022, and unfolding in the aftermath of the 7 October 2023 Hamas-led attacks, the ongoing Gaza conflict, and the recent Israeli campaign against Iran, the vote is shaping up to be a defining referendum on years of controversial policy and failed security strategy. At its center is long-serving Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is seeking a seventh term in office while facing widespread international isolation and fierce domestic backlash over his handling of multiple concurrent conflicts. Beyond the war and security crises, the election is also being fought over deeply divisive domestic issues: ongoing settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank, the decades-long debate over compulsory military conscription for ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) Jewish communities, and the future of judicial independence. Unlike presidential systems, Israel elects 120 members of its Knesset, the unicameral national legislature, through a proportional representation system. Since the state’s founding in 1948, no single party has ever secured the 61-seat majority required to form a government alone, forcing all ruling administrations to emerge from post-election negotiations and multi-party coalition deals. This election cycle is no exception, with pre-election polling consistently pointing to a parliamentary deadlock, meaning small niche and fringe parties will once again hold outsized power to dictate the shape of the next government. One of the most striking inequities of this election is the disenfranchisement of millions of Palestinians. For nearly 60 years, Israel has occupied the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza; Palestinian residents of these territories hold no Israeli citizenship and are barred from voting, a right that is extended to all Israeli settlers living in the same occupied areas. For Palestinian citizens of Israel – the roughly 2.1 million people descended from Palestinians who remained within Israel’s 1948 borders – the path to political participation has been fraught this cycle. In September, all major Arab-led parties were initially banned from competing over unsubstantiated claims they rejected Israel’s identity as a Jewish and democratic state, a ban that was only overturned by the Supreme Court earlier this month. Historically, Arab voter turnout has lagged well below the national average, driven in part by widespread boycotts of a political system that has systematically marginalized Palestinian citizens. However, pre-election polls indicate a significant jump in turnout this cycle, with the Palestinian-led Joint List projecting a 70% turnout among its base, marking a major shift in political engagement. Below is a breakdown of the key parties and candidates vying for power in this historic election: 1. Likud (Incumbent, 32 current seats) Led by Benjamin Netanyahu, who first won election as prime minister in 1996 and has held the office for 20 of the past 30 years, this election marks the toughest challenge of his decades-long political career. Netanyahu has built his political brand on hawkish, uncompromising stances against Israel’s perceived adversaries, championing aggressive expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and consistently blocking all efforts to establish an independent Palestinian state. His current governing coalition, formed after 2022, is the most right-wing administration in Israeli history, and Netanyahu faces an active arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court (ICC) over allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity tied to Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. Domestic critics have repeatedly questioned Netanyahu’s decisions in the lead-up to the 7 October 2023 attacks, including his policy of dividing Palestinian factions by playing Hamas against Fatah to weaken the Palestinian Authority, as well as widespread allegations he ignored repeated intelligence warnings of an impending large-scale attack that ultimately killed roughly 1,200 people. Netanyahu has repeatedly refused to allow an official independent commission of inquiry into the attacks. Netanyahu’s broader security agenda has also faced widespread criticism: the Israeli-US military campaign against Iran failed to deliver a decisive victory, and tens of thousands of Israelis in northern Israel remain displaced by ongoing cross-border attacks from Hezbollah in Lebanon. A controversial government push to weaken the independence of the Israeli judiciary, which sparked mass nationwide protests last year, has largely been shelved amid political infighting. Despite these controversies, Netanyahu and Likud retain strong, loyal support among Israel’s hardline right-wing electorate, where he is framed as a no-nonsense defender of Israeli security. He and his party have pledged to fully disarm Hamas and maintain permanent Israeli “security zones” in southern Lebanon, and the administration continues to push forward with the controversial E1 settlement project east of Jerusalem, a plan that would permanently split the West Bank into disconnected segments and draw widespread global condemnation. 2. Yashar (New Party) Leading the anti-Netanyahu opposition bloc, known as the Change Bloc, is former Israeli military chief of staff Gadi Eisenkot, the 66-year-old founder of the newly launched Yashar (meaning “Honest” in Hebrew) party. Eisenkot has served as a Knesset member since 2022, and only held brief ministerial experience during the eight-month emergency unity government formed after 7 October 2023. Of Moroccan Jewish heritage, Eisenkot would be Israel’s first Mizrahi prime minister if elected; raised in the southern coastal city of Eilat, far from the country’s dominant Tel Aviv and Jerusalem political elite, and known for his halting English, he has cultivated a strong image as a political outsider. Eisenkot’s personal story is widely known across Israel: his son Gal and two of his nephews were killed in fighting in Gaza between 2023 and 2024, and Gal’s nationally televised funeral resonated deeply with Israeli audiences. Politically, Eisenkot positions himself as a moderate alternative to Netanyahu, and has been critical of the prime minister’s mismanagement of the Gaza war and the stalled negotiations to release the remaining Israeli hostages held by Hamas. However, human rights campaigners and Palestinian observers have raised deep concerns over his military background: during Israel’s 2006 invasion of Lebanon, he developed the controversial Dahieh Doctrine, which explicitly advocated for the use of “disproportionate force” against civilian areas to deter adversary attacks. On core policy issues, Eisenkot rejects the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which he argues is no longer viable after 7 October, and also opposes the formal annexation of the entire West Bank, which he argues would only worsen Israeli security. While he has currently leads in pre-election polling and serves as the de facto leader of the Change Bloc, he will almost certainly need to secure coalition agreements with smaller parties to form a government. Eisenkot has set three core conditions for potential coalition partners: recognition of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, a commitment to universal mandatory military service for all communities, and a shared commitment to dismantling Hamas. His requirement for universal conscription effectively rules out any alliance with the major Haredi parties, which have long fought to maintain draft exemptions for their communities. While Eisenkot has explicitly ruled out relying on Arab-led parties for a governing majority, his pledge to form a government “even if we don’t have 61 seats” has left open the possibility of some form of informal cooperation with Palestinian factions. 3. Otzma Yehudit (6 current seats) Once shunned as too extreme for mainstream Israeli politics, Otzma Yehudit (or “Jewish Power”), led by Itamar Ben Gvir, has pulled the entire Israeli political spectrum sharply to the right over the past four years as a key coalition partner for Netanyahu. In September, the party narrowly avoided an attempt by the Central Election Committee to bar it from competing in the election, and pre-election polls predict the faction will gain seats in the new Knesset. Otzma Yehudit draws its core support from hardline Israeli settlers in the West Bank, and openly advocates for the full annexation of the territory; Ben Gvir, 50, is a resident of the Kiryat Arba settlement outside Hebron. Relations between Ben Gvir and Netanyahu have been strained for decades, and Ben Gvir claimed recently that the prime minister intends to form a government without his party. A Knesset member since 2021, Ben Gvir became national security minister in 2022 after his party won an unexpected seven seats, despite prior criminal convictions for incitement to racism and support for terrorist groups. He has been sanctioned by multiple European governments, including the UK and France, for his open support of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. He has repeatedly led provocative incursions into Jerusalem’s al-Aqsa Mosque compound, where he claims exclusive Jewish sovereignty, and has publicly taunted detained Palestinian and international activists. The party openly advocates for the “voluntary emigration” of all Palestinians from Gaza, and its political rallies regularly feature chants of “death to Arabs”. While in government, Otzma Yehudit has pushed for harsh judicial overhauls and legislation to introduce the death penalty for Palestinians, and junior ministers from the party have publicly discussed the option of nuclear strikes against Gaza. Like other hardline factions, Otzma Yehudit supports universal military conscription, putting it at odds with the major Haredi parties. 4. Religious Zionist Party (7 current seats) Once a marginal far-right fringe faction, the Religious Zionist Party (RZP) rose to power as a key partner in Netanyahu’s ruling coalition after the 2022 election. RZP ran on a joint electoral list with Otzma Yehudit in 2022, but the two factions have split to compete separately this cycle, despite repeated pleas from Netanyahu for the far-right to re-unite. The party is led by 46-year-old Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, the son of an Orthodox rabbi, who draws support from a more religiously observant base than Ben Gvir. Smotrich has said that Jewish religious law (halacha) forms the foundation of his policy agenda, and has served as finance minister since 2022. Smotrich openly supports a full judicial overhaul to weaken the judiciary, the full abolition of the 1993 Oslo Accords, the dismantlement of the Palestinian Authority, and the expansion of Israeli settlements into all of Gaza and the West Bank. He has publicly described himself as a “proud homophobe”. Like Netanyahu, Smotrich is the subject of an active ICC arrest warrant on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity against Palestinians in the West Bank. While RZP formally supports universal conscription for Haredi communities, the party has repeatedly backed Haredi legislative priorities while part of Netanyahu’s coalition, including voting for laws that halt arrests of Haredi draft dodgers. 5. B’Yachad (24 current seats) Former prime ministers Naftali Bennett, who held office from 2021 to 2022, and Yair Lapid, who served as prime minister for the second half of 2022, announced a joint electoral ticket in April of this year, branding the new alliance B’Yachad, or “Together”. If the alliance wins enough seats to form government, Bennett will serve as prime minister. The pair, who first joined forces to unseat Netanyahu in 2021, have maintained an on-again off-again political partnership for more than a decade. Bennett, 54, is a right-wing former software millionaire who previously served as head of the Yesha Council, the leading umbrella group for West Bank settlers, and is a longtime opponent of Palestinian statehood. He served as Netanyahu’s chief of staff from 2006 to 2008, before the pair had a high-profile falling out. Lapid, 62, a former television host and author, founded the centrist secular party Yesh Atid in 2012. Like most mainstream centrist and right-wing Israeli politicians, Lapid opposes Palestinian statehood and supports the settlement movement in principle, while distancing himself from the extremism of Ben Gvir and Smotrich. In announcing the alliance, Lapid described Bennett as “a clear right-winger, but he is a liberal, decent, law-abiding right-winger, who did not sell his values – neither to Haredi extortion nor to corruption.” Both Bennett and Lapid oppose the Haredi military draft exemption, and have pledged to establish an independent commission of inquiry into the failures leading up to the 7 October 2023 attacks. 6. The Democrats (4 current seats) Formed in 2024 from a merger of the center-left Labor Party and the smaller left-wing Meretz faction, The Democrats brand themselves as a “liberal-democratic Zionist party”, and are led by 64-year-old Yair Golan, one of the few major Israeli politicians to publicly criticize the mass killing of Palestinians in Gaza, which he once described as a “national psychosis”. Golan, a former deputy chief of staff of the Israeli military who re-enlisted on 7 October 2023 and is credited with saving multiple Israeli civilians during the initial attacks, faced massive domestic backlash for his comments, and later clarified that he blamed the sitting government, not the Israeli military, for the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The party led mass public protests against the government’s 2023 judicial overhaul, opposes the annexation of the West Bank, and openly supports the two-state solution. It includes Arab candidate Soumaya Bashir on its list, and is the only major Jewish-led party that has openly committed to including Arab-led parties in a governing coalition. 7. Yisrael Beiteinu (6 current seats) Led by its 68-year-old founder Avigdor Lieberman, an immigrant from the former Soviet Union, the right-wing Yisrael Beiteinu draws its core support from Israel’s 1.5 million strong community of Russian-speaking immigrants. The party has never finished higher than third in national elections, but has served as a coalition partner in seven of the past 10 Israeli governments. Yisrael Beiteinu supports universal conscription, expanded West Bank settlements, and aggressively hawkish policies toward Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah. Lieberman has held nearly every senior cabinet position, including deputy prime minister, and has faced repeated investigations over alleged corruption and plots to assassinate political opponents; he was convicted of physically assaulting a 12-year-old boy in 2001. Known for his brash, confrontational political style, Lieberman was once a close ally of Netanyahu, but their relationship has deteriorated sharply, and Yisrael Beiteinu is currently not part of Netanyahu’s ruling coalition. Lieberman claims he warned both Netanyahu and Eisenkot of an impending Hamas attack in the months leading up to 7 October 2023. 8. Joint List (5 current seats) Three of Israel’s four major Arab-led parties – Hadash, Ta’al, and Balad – are running together on a unified Joint List, led by Hadash leader Yousef Jabareen, 54. Like other Arab parties, the Joint List was initially banned from competing by the Central Electoral Committee in September, before the Supreme Court overturned the ban earlier this month. Balad leader Sami Abu Shehadeh was forced to drop out of the race after the court signaled it would uphold a personal ban against him over an article he wrote that was deemed to celebrate the 7 October attacks. All three parties in the alliance are secular, and advocate for expanded civil and political rights for Palestinian citizens of Israel, particularly around issues of crime and policing. The Joint List unanimously condemns Israeli policy in Gaza and settlement expansion in the West Bank, and supports the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. Jabareen has made the bloc’s priority clear in public statements: “Removing the threat called the Netanyahu-Ben Gvir-Smotrich government is our central goal, and we will act in every possible way to send this criminal government home.” Despite past internal ideological splits that have broken previous unified lists, the bloc is hoping to gain enough seats to become a decisive powerbroker in the next Knesset. However, no Arab-led party has ever been invited to join a governing coalition in Israeli history, and nearly all major Jewish-led parties have publicly ruled out working with the Joint List. 9. Ra’am (5 current seats) Ra’am, the United Arab List, is led by Mansour Abbas, a 52-year-old Palestinian citizen of Israel. It is the only Arab-led party to have ever served in an Israeli governing coalition, as part of the short-lived 2021-2022 Bennett-Lapid unity government. Like the Joint List, Ra’am was initially banned from the election in September, before the Supreme Court overturned the ban. Rooted in political Islam, Ra’am is socially conservative, and criticizes Israeli policy in Gaza and illegal settlement expansion in the West Bank, but takes a more moderate stance on engagement with the Israeli state than the Joint List, making it more acceptable to many Jewish Israeli politicians. Abbas has stated that his core priority for any potential coalition partnership is advancing the civil rights of Palestinian citizens of Israel, rather than focusing primarily on the situation of Palestinians in the occupied territories. For the first time in the party’s history, Ra’am has included a Jewish candidate on its electoral list: former police chief and ex-Yesh Atid lawmaker Yoav Segalovitz. 10. Shas and United Torah Judaism (11 and 7 current seats, respectively) Two major parties draw their core support from Israel’s Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) community, which makes up roughly 14% of Israel’s population, and both prioritize embedding religious authority into Israeli political life. Shas, the larger of the two, draws most of its support from Sephardic and Mizrahi Haredi communities, and has served in seven of the past 10 Israeli governments, including the current ruling coalition. In recent years, the party has shifted sharply to the right, aligning itself closely with Ben Gvir and the far-right. It is led in the Knesset by 67-year-old Rabbi Aryeh Deri, who has held 10 different cabinet positions since the 1980s, and served two years in prison for bribery convictions in the early 2000s. Shas’s core policy priority is protecting Haredi exemptions from military conscription and securing generous state funding for Haredi religious institutions and welfare programs; more than half of working-age Haredi men do not enter the workforce, instead prioritizing full-time Torah study. In exchange for policy concessions, Shas has consistently backed Netanyahu on key issues including the Gaza campaign and West Bank settlement expansion. In 2025, Shas ministers resigned from Netanyahu’s cabinet over the prime minister’s plan to end Haredi draft exemptions, though the party continued to back Netanyahu on other key votes. The second major Haredi party, United Torah Judaism (UTJ), draws most of its support from Ashkenazi Haredi communities, and is a union of two separate factions, the Hasidic Agudat Yisrael and the Lithuanian Degel HaTorah. Like Shas, UTJ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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