分类: politics

  • Brazil convicts Jair Bolsonaro’s son of pursuing US help in father’s legal battle

    Brazil convicts Jair Bolsonaro’s son of pursuing US help in father’s legal battle

    Brazil’s highest judicial body has handed down a guilty verdict against Eduardo Bolsonaro, son of incarcerated former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro, finding him responsible for attempting to secure foreign intervention from the United States during his father’s high-profile coup trial last year. The 41-year-old, a former Brazilian federal congressman, was first charged last year over allegations that he lobbied U.S. officials to enact punitive trade measures, including tariffs and sanctions, against Brazil in a bid to aid his embattled father.

    Eduardo relocated to the United States in 2025, months before the elder Bolsonaro — who held Brazil’s presidency from 2019 through the end of 2022 — was convicted of orchestrating a wide-ranging military coup plot to overturn his 2022 election loss, and ultimately sentenced to 27 years in prison. The conviction is tied to the broader insurrectionist movement that culminated in the January 2023 storming of Brazil’s federal government buildings in Brasilia by thousands of Bolsonaro supporters.

    Taking to social media on Tuesday, the younger Bolsonaro denounced the guilty ruling as “baseless and senseless”, arguing that Supreme Court justices sought only to muzzle his political voice and bar him from standing in future elections. He also claimed violations of due process, saying he never received formal notification of the charges against him and only learned of the case through media coverage. Eduardo has previously told the BBC he is living in “exile” in the U.S., claiming he would face immediate arrest if he returned to Brazilian territory.

    Long a public advocate for his father, Eduardo has openly lobbied the current Trump administration for backing. The Trump administration, which views the right-wing elder Bolsonaro as a key ideological ally, has framed the legal case against the ex-president as a politically motivated “witch hunt”. In July of this year, Trump imposed a 50% tariff on Brazilian goods, a decision that drew sharp rebuke from current Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who called the move “not only misguided but illogical”.

    Tensions escalated further after Eduardo’s conviction, when U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio pledged that Washington would take retaliatory action. Prior to the verdict, on July 30, the Trump administration had already imposed personal sanctions on Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who led the handling of Bolsonaro-related cases, accusing him of human rights abuses in his oversight of the proceedings. Lula condemned the sanctions targeting de Moraes as “unacceptable” interference in Brazil’s independent judicial system, while noting Brazil remained open to trade negotiations with the U.S. The U.S. has since walked back those sanctions.

    The close ideological alignment between Trump and the elder Bolsonaro dates back to Trump’s first presidential term, when the two leaders oversaw overlapping administrations and met for official talks at the White House in 2019. Both men went on to lose their re-election bids, and both refused to publicly concede defeat after their respective losses. Following the younger Bolsonaro’s conviction, Trump issued a statement calling the ruling “nothing more, or less, than an attack on a Political Opponent – Something I know much about!”, a comment for which the elder Bolsonaro later publicly thanked the U.S. president.

  • Trump told Israel to let Syria attack Hezbollah in Lebanon

    Trump told Israel to let Syria attack Hezbollah in Lebanon

    On the sidelines of the G7 Summit held in Evian, France, former U.S. President Donald Trump made a striking and controversial proposal alongside Qatar’s ruling monarch, telling reporters that he believes Syria, under the leadership of Ahmed al-Sharaa, should invade Lebanon to eliminate the Iran-aligned Shia political and paramilitary group Hezbollah. Trump argued that Damascus could carry out the mission far more effectively than Israel, which has been locked in a prolonged, high-casualty conflict with Hezbollah along the Lebanon-Israel border.

    “Israel’s fighting Hezbollah too long and too many people are being killed,” Trump told reporters. “I suggested to Israel to let Syria take care of Hezbollah. He’s very capable. If Israel can’t do the job, without killing everyone else, he’ll do the job. Syria will do the job,” he added, referring directly to al-Sharaa.

    This is not the first time Trump has floated this provocative idea this month. He first raised the prospect of Syrian intervention in Lebanon in comments on June 7, when he claimed al-Sharaa “would love to help” with the operation against Hezbollah. Trump has repeatedly praised the Syrian leader in recent public remarks, framing him as “a very strong leader…a tough guy” who is firmly opposed to the group. “He is very good with Hezbollah; he does not like them,” Trump said of al-Sharaa during the G7 gathering.

    Experts and regional analysts warn that any Syrian military deployment into Lebanon would reignite a decades-old historical tinderbox. Syria first invaded Lebanon in 1976 at the start of the Lebanese Civil War, and maintained a partial military occupation of the country for nearly 30 years before withdrawing all forces in 2005. The proposal also carries major risks of escalating sectarian conflict across the region. Al-Sharaa’s core support base draws heavily from Salafist fighters, an ultra-conservative Sunni Islamist movement that adheres to a literalist interpretation of early Islamic tradition. By contrast, Hezbollah is Lebanon’s largest Shia political and military organization, backed by Iran, and fought alongside former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad throughout Syria’s 13-year civil war.

    Al-Sharaa, who is 43 years old, has a well-documented militant background: he spent roughly five years in a U.S. prison after traveling to Iraq to fight against the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, before going on to found al-Nusra Front, al-Qaeda’s official Syrian affiliate. His Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham coalition toppled Assad’s government in December 2024, bringing him to power in Damascus. Despite Trump’s claims, al-Sharaa’s transitional government has publicly stated it has no plans to deploy military forces into Lebanon. Syria remains economically and physically decimated after more than a decade of civil war, and is only in the earliest stages of reconstruction, backed by financial and political support from Gulf states including Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

    Al-Sharaa also faces pressing security challenges on his own country’s southern border. After Assad’s government collapsed, Israel seized control of a UN-monitored buffer zone in southern Syria, and carried out large-scale air strikes that reached as far as central Damascus last summer. Israeli forces have also fortified their position on Mount Hermon, the region’s highest peak, and regional security experts report that Israel has provided arms to local Druze leader Sheikh Hikmat Salaman al-Hajri in a bid to position itself as a protector of Syria’s Druze minority community. Al-Sharaa’s government has also expressed concern that any incursion into Lebanon could trigger retaliatory Iranian missile strikes and spark sectarian unrest among Syria’s own Shia minority; the country has already seen scattered outbreaks of sectarian violence targeting Alawites, Druze, and Christian communities in recent months.

    Trump’s latest remarks stand in direct contradiction to statements from his own senior diplomatic appointee. Tom Barrack, Trump’s ambassador to Turkey and special envoy to Syria, denied a March media report that claimed the Trump administration was lobbying Syria to invade eastern Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah. The original report, first published by Reuters, claimed the U.S. had approved a Syrian incursion into eastern Lebanon, and that Damascus was “cautiously considering” the proposed operation, despite the regime’s wariness of potential Iranian retaliation and domestic sectarian unrest.

    Regional security analysts have already warned that any Syrian military move into Lebanon would worsen already simmering sectarian tensions in the country, which have been significantly inflamed by months of sustained Israeli air and ground attacks on Hezbollah targets across Lebanon.

  • Israeli press casts emerging US-Iran deal as a strategic defeat for Netanyahu

    Israeli press casts emerging US-Iran deal as a strategic defeat for Netanyahu

    In the wake of mounting Israeli backlash against the pending agreement between the United States and Iran, top regional military and security analysts have issued stark warnings that the deal will reshape Middle East power dynamics, cement Iran’s rise as a dominant regional force, and stand as one of the most consequential strategic failures of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s tenure.

    The wave of criticism began Sunday, when Israeli politicians and media figures publicly voiced outrage over the emerging framework. By Monday, veteran military correspondent Alon Ben David of Israel’s Channel 13 News outlined the long-term risks, framing the deal as a paradigm shift that will undo decades of Israeli regional primacy backed by Washington. “This is a dramatic day for Israel and for generations to come,” Ben David said, noting that the agreement marks a permanent turning point for power balances across the Middle East. For years, Israel held the title of the region’s strongest, most dominant power, with unwavering American support. But Ben David argued the pending deal clears an unobstructed path for Iran to overtake that position as the most influential actor in the Middle East.

    A core provision of the deal, Ben David explained, will unfreeze billions of dollars in Iranian assets held abroad, and unlock an additional $300 billion in new revenue for the Iranian government. Those additional funds, he warned, will directly enable Iran to continue financing its regional proxy networks in Lebanon and Yemen — groups that Israel has long identified as existential threats to its national security. Compounding this risk, Ben David added, the deal will leave Israel facing an emboldened, vengeful Iranian regime with growing access to nuclear capabilities. “The agreement could leave Israel facing not only a stronger Iran, but a nuclear Iran,” he said.

    Ben David’s assessment was echoed just a day later by Danny Citrinowicz, a senior fellow at Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies. Citrinowicz argued that the joint Israeli-U.S. military campaign against Iran will end with the Iranian regime not just surviving, but emerging more powerful and formally engaged with Washington than ever before. “The Iranian leadership demonstrated resilience, retained control, and shown a willingness to absorb substantial costs,” he noted, a stark contrast to Israeli goals of weakening the regime.

    Beyond the strategic risks, an independent economic analysis published Tuesday by leading Israeli financial daily Calcalist labeled Israel’s war on Iran a costly failure that has blown a massive hole in the country’s public finances. The outlet pegged total direct costs of the conflict at 50 billion shekels — funds the country did not have allocated in its original budget. A large share of those costs went to bombs and munitions dropped by the Israeli Air Force during strikes on Iran, with another major portion going to replace rapidly depleted stocks of air defense interceptors.

    In the aftermath of the campaign, the Israeli military has already requested an additional 44 billion shekels ($15 billion) to add to its already record-high annual budget, pushing the total defense budget to 188 billion shekels ($64 billion). Calcalist noted that this is almost certainly not the last budget increase the military will request, pointing to Netanyahu’s recent proposal for a 350 billion shekel increase in security spending over the next decade, all earmarked for new military acquisitions demanded by the armed forces.

    The report also cast sharp doubt on the economic plans of Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who joined Sunday’s criticism of the U.S.-Iran deal and vowed Israel would continue its fight against Iran and Iranian proxies in Lebanon. Smotrich has yet to put forward any viable plan to finance the multi-front military conflict Israel is currently fighting across Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran, Calcalist pointed out.

    With U.S. and Iranian negotiators set to finalize the full text of the agreement this Friday, Haaretz senior military analyst Amos Harel went a step further Wednesday, calling the deal the worst failure of Netanyahu’s leadership since the October 7, 2023 attacks by Hamas. Harel wrote that “the Iran affair is emerging as the second-worst fiasco in Netanyahu’s long history,” with only the October 7 assault — which killed more than 1,200 Israelis — ranking as a greater disaster. “The agreement will apparently satisfy only a small fraction of the expectations Netanyahu had,” Harel explained, adding that the dispute has also opened a growing rift between Netanyahu and U.S. President Donald Trump.

    Even as details of the final agreement remain unconfirmed, Harel noted that Iran has already emerged from the war stronger and more determined than it was before hostilities began. Backing for this view can be seen among pro-Netanyahu Israeli media outlets, which have already accused Trump of betraying Israeli interests. Beyond the strategic shift toward Iran, Harel argued that the outcome of the war and the pending deal reveal just how much damage Netanyahu has inflicted on Israel’s global standing since 2023, with the Iranian regime remaining fully intact despite months of joint military pressure. In a sharp rebuke of Israeli political culture, Harel added that Netanyahu would have already been forced to resign over these failures in any other democratic country, but Israel currently lacks any meaningful culture of political accountability for senior leaders.

    This report was published by Middle East Eye, a media outlet that provides independent, in-depth coverage of the Middle East, North Africa and global affairs connected to the region.

  • London’s Met Police not investigating Great Israeli Real Estate Event

    London’s Met Police not investigating Great Israeli Real Estate Event

    A diplomatic and legal controversy has erupted in the United Kingdom after London’s Metropolitan Police confirmed it will not launch a domestic investigation into a Sunday real estate event that advertised properties in illegally occupied Israeli settlements, according to exclusive reporting from independent outlet Middle East Eye (MEE).

    The confirmation of the police’s position comes just days after British Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper announced that government ministers had referred the event, hosted at London’s Edgware United Synagogue, to the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) for formal investigation. The controversy first gained public traction this Monday, when MEE published first-hand details of the event’s promotional materials, which explicitly listed properties located in Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank—territory deemed illegal under international law.

    MEE has since confirmed that the Metropolitan Police did receive a formal referral over the event, but has added it to the broader set of submissions the force has categorized as connected to the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict. A spokesperson for Counter Terrorism Policing (CTP), which houses the national War Crimes Team responsible for reviewing such referrals, clarified the force’s current stance in a public statement. “The Counter Terrorism Policing War Crimes Team has received around 240 referrals relating to the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict since 7 October 2023,” the spokesperson said. “At this time, there is no UK-based investigation into any matters relating to this particular conflict.”

    The spokesperson declined to comment on the specific details of individual referrals, noting that all submissions are reviewed in line with joint War Crimes/Crimes Against Humanity Referral Guidelines agreed upon by UK police and the Crown Prosecution Service.

    The event sparked widespread cross-party criticism well before the police’s confirmation. Last Friday, London Mayor Sadiq Khan publicly stated his opposition to the gathering, saying: “I share concerns about the Great Israeli Real Estate Event taking place in our city, which I oppose, and that’s why I’ve discussed this directly with the Met Police. I’m informed that any allegations of criminality relating to the potentially unlawful sale of property at the event would be assessed by the Met with a view to investigation.”

    On the same day MEE published its initial reporting, the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP), a UK-based legal advocacy organization, submitted physical evidence—including photographs of promotional brochures and leaflets advertising illegal settlement properties—to the Metropolitan Police. Orlaith Roe, the ICJP’s public affairs and communications officer, criticized both Israeli policy and the UK government’s response to the event. “This is a question not only about political will but also about the blatant disregard of international law, not only by Israel via promoting the purchase of properties in illegal settlements as part of their sovereign territory, but also by the UK government which positions itself time and again as a champion of international law,” Roe said.

    The debate moved to UK Parliament this Tuesday, where Green Party Member of Parliament Ellie Chowns pressed the Foreign Secretary over the government’s inaction. Chowns told parliament that Cooper had been notified of the planned event the previous week and had promised to review the issue. “That event took place. At that event, properties in illegal settlements were being marketed on British territory,” Chowns said. “The government has been sent the evidence about this. How is it that this government fails even to prevent the marketing of illegal property in this country and still fails to take action?”

    In her response, Cooper reaffirmed the government’s opposition to commercial activity tied to illegal settlements, saying: “we have been very clear that not only should no businesses be engaging in trade and marketing around the illegal settlements, they certainly should not be doing so on UK soil. And that is why my colleague, the minister for the Middle East and North Africa, and also the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport, have raised this directly with the advertising standards agency because we take this so seriously. We have asked them now to urgently look into this and to reassure us that if there is any evidence of the advertising or promotion of property in illegal settlements at this or any other events, they will uphold the law, regulations and guidance that apply.”

  • Watch: Why is Trump furious with Netanyahu over strikes on Lebanon?

    Watch: Why is Trump furious with Netanyahu over strikes on Lebanon?

    A new public rift has emerged between former U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, centering on a recent wave of airstrikes carried out by Israeli forces in Lebanon that has left Trump openly furious. In public comments, Trump has labeled the strikes as “vicious”, drawing sharp attention to the unexpected fracture in what has long been framed as a close political alliance between the two leaders. The BBC’s senior Middle East correspondent Tom Bateman has unpacked the context behind the U.S. politician’s sharp reaction, digging into the strategic and political calculations that may be driving Trump’s unusual public rebuke of the Israeli leadership. Regional observers note that the escalation of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah along the Lebanese border has sparked growing international concern, with major global powers pushing for de-escalation to prevent a full-scale regional conflict. For Trump, who positioned his presidency around brokering historic Middle East deals and avoiding new foreign conflicts, the current escalation runs counter to the foreign policy legacy he has sought to build. This public criticism also comes amid shifting dynamics in U.S. domestic politics, where Trump is navigating competing viewpoints within his base on Middle East policy, making his reaction as much a domestic political calculation as a response to the military actions themselves. Bateman’s reporting breaks down the overlapping layers of geopolitics and domestic politics that have led to this rare public show of anger from Trump toward one of his most prominent international allies, highlighting how the ongoing instability in the Middle East continues to roil politics both in the region and beyond.

  • Brazil’s top court convicts son of former President Bolsonaro for coercion

    Brazil’s top court convicts son of former President Bolsonaro for coercion

    SAO PAULO – In a landmark ruling that deepens Brazil’s ongoing political upheaval stemming from the 2022 presidential election crisis, Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court has found former federal lawmaker Eduardo Bolsonaro, son of ex-president Jair Bolsonaro, guilty of criminal coercion linked to the high-profile 2024 coup attempt trial that ended with his father receiving a 27-year prison sentence. On Tuesday, the court handed down a sentence of four years and two months of imprisonment to the younger Bolsonaro, with all five justices on the ruling panel unanimously agreeing that he engaged in illegal interference by lobbying the U.S. government to pressure Brazilian judicial officials into halting the trial against his father.

    Justice Alexandre de Moraes, the same magistrate who led the previous coup case against the former president, emphasized in his ruling that Eduardo Bolsonaro’s position as a sitting federal legislator “is not to lobby overseas against his own country.” This ruling comes against a backdrop of pre-existing tensions: de Moraes and his spouse were targeted with U.S. government sanctions back in July 2024.

    Legal representatives for Eduardo Bolsonaro have rejected the guilty verdict outright, arguing that prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to support the conviction. Notably, the former lawmaker has resided in Texas, United States, since February 2025, and has not issued any public statement regarding the Supreme Court’s decision.

    Beyond the domestic political fallout, this conviction intersects with shifting trade and diplomatic dynamics between Brazil and the U.S. under current U.S. President Donald Trump. Last year, Trump imposed a steep 50% tariff on Brazilian goods in direct response to the prosecution of Jair Bolsonaro, who was convicted of orchestrating a coup to overturn his 2022 electoral loss to current Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

    Diplomatic relations appeared to thaw briefly in early May 2025, when Lula traveled to Washington for a White House meeting with Trump, and the Brazilian leader told reporters he shared official documentation during the visit proving the U.S. actually maintains a trade surplus with Brazil. That detente proved short-lived, however: in June 2025, the U.S. administration unveiled a new proposal for 25% tariffs on Brazilian imports, repeating unsubstantiated claims that Brazil, the world’s 10th largest economy, engages in unfair trade practices.

    The legal ruling also lands ahead of Brazil’s upcoming October general election, where Jair Bolsonaro’s elder son, Sen. Flávio Bolsonaro, is positioned as the leading opposition challenger to incumbent Lula. Eduardo Bolsonaro is currently campaigning on behalf of his brother’s candidacy, which has recently been rocked by a corruption scandal tied to an improper payment to a disgraced former banker. Just weeks before the conviction, Eduardo and Flávio Bolsonaro traveled to Washington to meet with senior U.S. officials, including former president and current incumbent Trump.

  • Smotrich cancels Hebron Protocol, ending Palestinian control in occupied city

    Smotrich cancels Hebron Protocol, ending Palestinian control in occupied city

    On a Monday earlier this year, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich made a provocative announcement that sent shockwaves across the occupied West Bank: the decades-old Hebron Agreements, a core component of the 1990s Oslo Accords peace framework, are formally canceled. The move immediately strips the Palestinian-administered Hebron Municipality of all its legal authority over construction and urban planning across large swathes of the occupied city, transferring full control to the Israeli state.

    Speaking at an inauguration ceremony for a new illegal Israeli settlement outpost in the southern Mount Hebron region, Smotrich framed the cancellation as a long-overdue correction, claiming that for decades, planning powers for Jewish settlements in Hebron had absurdly rested with what he called Hebron’s “terror municipality.” The policy change was not a spontaneous announcement: following months of advocacy led by Smotrich, Israel’s security cabinet approved the measure in principle back in February, and the country’s Higher Planning Council — the governing body that oversees all construction in occupied West Bank territories — gave the decision final approval on the same night of Smotrich’s public announcement.

    The Hebron Protocol, originally signed in 1997 by then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and late Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat as an extension of the Oslo Accords, established a split governance structure for the contested city. The larger H1 zone, covering roughly 80% of Hebron’s total territory, was placed under the full civil control of the Palestinian Authority. The smaller H2 zone, which encompasses Hebron’s historic Old City, the revered Ibrahimi Mosque (a site holy to both Muslims and Jews), and multiple southern residential neighborhoods, was designated to remain under exclusive Israeli military control, while the Palestinian municipality retained planning and construction jurisdiction for Palestinian communities and holy sites within the zone.

    Smotrich’s cancellation of the protocol erases that long-standing arrangement, meaning even planning and development projects at the Ibrahimi Mosque now fall outside Palestinian municipal jurisdiction. The site has already been a decades-long flashpoint of tension: shortly after the protocol was signed, illegal Israeli settlers seized control of roughly half of the mosque compound, and the site remains a top target for settler takeover efforts.

    Earlier this year, the Israeli military had already begun rolling back Palestinian control of the holy site, issuing a 15-day entry ban that barred the mosque’s director Mu’taz Abu Sneineh and its head custodian Hammam Abu Murkhiya from accessing the compound. Local observers have widely interpreted this sequence of moves as a deliberate effort to shift full control of the Ibrahimi Mosque from the Palestinian Hebron Municipality to the settler religious council of the nearby illegal Kiryat Arba settlement.

    For more than 25 years, Israel has enforced a tight closure on the roughly one-square-kilometer area surrounding the Ibrahimi Mosque, installing more than 120 permanent checkpoints and access gates to restrict Palestinian movement. The closed zone is home to approximately 7,000 Palestinian residents, alongside multiple established illegal Israeli settlement outposts.

    In recent months, Israeli forces have ramped up military operations across occupied Hebron, carrying out frequent raids on Palestinian residential neighborhoods, imposing multi-day consecutive curfews, blocking Palestinian access to work and commercial spaces, and deploying military vehicles and bulldozers to seal off neighborhood entrances. During these curfews, high-profile Israeli far-right officials regularly enter the occupied city under heavy military protection. Just one week before Smotrich’s announcement, far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir led a heavily guarded military convoy through Hebron’s streets in a deliberate show of force.

    Local Palestinian residents say the string of recent escalations and the cancellation of the Hebron Protocol are part of a clear, long-term strategy: to expand illegal Israeli settlement outposts across Hebron, connect isolated outposts into contiguous blocs of Israeli control, and permanently entrench a dominant settler presence across the entire southern occupied West Bank.

    The controversial move comes as Smotrich faces potential international legal consequences for his actions in the occupied territories. Independent outlet Middle East Eye has confirmed that prosecutors at the International Criminal Court based in The Hague submitted an application for an arrest warrant for Smotrich back in April. The warrant application charges Smotrich with multiple crimes under international law, including forced displacement classified as a crime against humanity and war crime, the transfer of Israel’s own civilian population into occupied territory — a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention classified as a war crime — and charges of persecution and apartheid as crimes against humanity.

  • Photos prove London event marketed illegal Israeli settlement properties

    Photos prove London event marketed illegal Israeli settlement properties

    A contentious real estate exhibition hosted at a UK synagogue has ignited widespread legal and political scrutiny, after new documentation revealed multiple Israeli firms openly advertised residential properties in illegal Israeli settlements across occupied Palestinian territory. The Great Israeli Real Estate Event, held Sunday at London’s Edgware United Synagogue, is now the subject of three separate official probes following the release of promotional materials obtained by Middle East Eye (MEE).

    Within 24 hours of the event closing, UK Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper confirmed that government ministers had formally requested the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) launch an urgent investigation into the exhibition’s activities. This official action came after MEE published first-hand evidence of the illegal settlement advertising on Monday.

    The same day, the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP), a London-based legal advocacy group focused on Palestinian rights, submitted a formal complaint to the Charity Commission for England and Wales, the UK’s official charity regulator. The complaint targets Edgware United Synagogue itself, a registered charity, for its decision to host the event. The ICJP stated it holds irrefutable documented proof that multiple participating exhibitors marketed residential properties located exclusively in Israeli settlements built illegally on occupied Palestinian land, and is calling for an immediate regulatory compliance case to be opened against the synagogue and its trustees. In the complaint, the group argues that hosting an event that promotes illegal settlement property amounts to a clear violation of the institution’s legal obligations as a registered UK charity.

    The promotional materials published by MEE name multiple high-profile Israeli real estate developers and agencies that advertised in illegal settlements. One exhibitor, developer Harey Zahav, promoted two separate West Bank settlements: Kfar Eldad, located south of Bethlehem, and Teneh Omarim, situated near Hebron — both established illegally in occupied territory. Leading Israeli agency Tivuch Shelly marketed a new residential development in Ma’ale Adumim, a large illegal settlement in the central West Bank, touting the project’s proximity to Jerusalem and its established English-speaking expat community in its brochure. Jerusalem Real Estate (JRE) featured projects in French Hill and Ramat Eshkol, two illegal settlements in occupied East Jerusalem, positioning the neighborhoods as desirable locations for foreign property buyers. Another firm, Africa Israel, which has a long track record of development work in illegal settlements across the West Bank and East Jerusalem, advertised a residential project in West Jerusalem’s Katomon neighborhood at the event.

    The controversy reached the UK Parliament on Tuesday, where Green Party Member of Parliament Ellie Chowns pressed the government on its inaction ahead of the event. Chowns told lawmakers that officials were notified of the event and its planned promotion of illegal settlement property the week before it took place, but no preventive action was taken. “How is it that this government fails even to prevent the marketing of illegal property in this country and still fails to take action?” Chowns asked in parliamentary questioning.

    In response, Foreign Secretary Cooper reaffirmed the UK government’s clear stance: no commercial entities should engage in marketing or trade related to illegal settlements, and such activity is particularly unacceptable when it occurs on UK soil. She confirmed that the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa, alongside officials from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, had directly raised the issue with the ASA, and requested the regulator conduct an urgent review to ensure all applicable laws, regulations and guidance are enforced if evidence of illegal advertising is confirmed.

    ICJP Public Affairs Officer Orlaith Roe emphasized the stakes of the situation for UK charity regulation. “If charities can use their premises and resources to host events connected to illegal settlement activity without scrutiny or consequence, public trust in charity regulation is seriously undermined,” Roe said. She called on both the Charity Commission to launch an urgent probe and the UK government to match its public commitment to upholding international law with concrete action. In addition to its complaint to the Charity Commission, the ICJP has also shared its full set of photographic evidence of the illegal advertisements with London’s Metropolitan Police Service.

    In the lead-up to the event, organizers dismissed allegations that they would feature settlement property, telling Jewish News that “all exhibitors, without exception, will provide information about properties and projects within the Green Line,” the 1949 armistice line that marks Israel’s pre-1967 border. Organizers went further, claiming the allegations were “motivated by anti-Israeli and terrorist supporters, seeking only excuses to attack Jews in general and the State of Israel in particular.”

    As of Tuesday, MEE has reached out to the Charity Commission, Metropolitan Police, event organizers, and Edgware United Synagogue for comment on the controversy. None of the parties contacted had issued a public response as of publication. Last week, the UK government had already announced it would explicitly issue formal guidance advising UK businesses against all economic and financial activity linked to illegal Israeli settlements.

  • From Gaza to Bogota: The election that could reshape Colombia’s relationship with Israel

    From Gaza to Bogota: The election that could reshape Colombia’s relationship with Israel

    Colombia heads to the polls this Sunday for a high-stakes presidential runoff that will not only shape the country’s domestic future but also reverberate across global geopolitics, particularly when it comes to the ongoing crisis in Gaza. The race pits two candidates with starkly opposing visions against one another: left-wing senator and lifelong human rights advocate Ivan Cepeda, who is tasked with carrying forward the progressive agenda of incumbent President Gustavo Petro, and right-wing populist lawyer and businessman Abelardo de la Espriella, a Trump-endorsed candidate who campaigned on a hardline platform to “rebuild the miracle homeland.”

    De la Espriella claimed a narrow lead in the first round of voting held on May 31, securing 43.7 percent of the vote compared to Cepeda’s 40.9 percent, setting the stage for one of the most consequential elections in modern Colombian history. Core domestic issues driving voter turnout include the country’s decades-long unresolved internal armed conflict, entrenched systemic political corruption, and mounting economic and environmental challenges. But unlike many previous elections, the future of Colombia’s relationship with Israel has also emerged as a defining dividing line between the two candidates.

    Since October 2023, Latin America’s left-leaning “pink wave” has sparked a region-wide groundswell of pro-Palestine solidarity, and no country has taken a harder public stance against Israel’s actions in Gaza than Colombia. Under Petro’s leadership, Bogota has recalled its ambassador to Israel, suspended arms sales, halted coal exports, severed full diplomatic ties, and co-founded the Hague Group, a multilateral coalition advancing international legal action against Israel over its conduct in Gaza.

    “It is difficult to overstate the significance of Colombia’s stance internationally,” noted Francesca Emanuele, senior international policy associate at the Centre for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), speaking to Middle East Eye. “Colombia helped create political space for other governments to take stronger positions on Gaza and contributed to the growing international isolation of the Netanyahu government.”

    Yet the future of this bold pro-Palestine policy remains far from guaranteed. Recent election shifts in Chile, Bolivia and Honduras have shown that pro-solidarity stances can be reversed if right-wing candidates take power, making Colombia’s runoff a critical test of the region’s commitment to Palestinian rights. To help voters understand where each candidate stands on the issue, BDS Colombia has developed a digital monitoring tool called the Sionistometro, which tracks formal and informal ties between candidates and Israeli-affiliated groups and institutions.

    The tool’s analysis found Cepeda has no documented economic or political connections to Zionist-aligned companies, organizations, or the Israeli state itself. The candidate has publicly pledged to “decisively oppose the genocide” in Gaza and has voiced full support for Petro’s landmark policy shifts. Still, BDS Colombia notes that Cepeda has not yet released any new independent policy proposals of his own to advance the current government’s stance, a silence that the group calls concerning, particularly as Colombia retains some residual arms, trade, and cultural ties with Israel. Adopting a more low-profile approach, with his campaign centered on ending Colombia’s long-running internal conflict, political analysts do not expect Cepeda to match Petro’s level of global activism on the issue.

    “I don’t think he is likely to be as active on the global stage as Petro,” said Alexander Main, CEPR’s director of international policy, speaking to Middle East Eye. “He is in the shadow of Petro, and that makes it hard for him to distinguish himself.”

    De la Espriella, by contrast, has positioned his pro-Israel stance as a core pillar of his national security agenda. During a December 2024 meeting with Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar, de la Espriella emphasized “the urgent need for Colombia to strengthen its ties of friendship and cooperation with Israel.” According to BDS Colombia’s analysis, the candidate maintains formal political and social ties to the Confederation of Jewish Communities of Colombia, a prominent Zionist organization in the country.

    Most recently, de la Espriella outlined a plan to “renew” a “strategic alliance” with both the United States and Israel, including expanded exchange of counterterrorism technology, advanced weapons, drones and artificial intelligence to target domestic criminal groups in Colombia. “A collaboration with Israel would allow these resources to be applied directly to combating criminal structures within the national territory,” his plan reads.

    Like other right-wing candidates across Latin America in recent elections, de la Espriella’s pro-Israel stance is heavily shaped by efforts to court the country’s fast-growing conservative evangelical voter base, where Christian Zionist theology, advanced by groups like the Israel Allies Foundation and Philos Latino, has become increasingly influential. His pledge to relocate the Colombian embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem mirrors a move first made by Trump for evangelical voters in 2018, a clear signal of his ideological alignment with U.S. conservative politics.

    De la Espriella also has deep established ties to the South Florida Republican political establishment, with confirmed connections to pro-Israel Congressmembers Maria Elvira Salazar and Carlos A Gimenez, both of whom have publicly supported Israel’s military campaign in Gaza and received campaign funding from major pro-Israel lobbying groups, according to data from TrackAIPAC.

    Main argues that de la Espriella’s platform embodies the shared ideological core of the new Latin American right: “a hyper pro-US vision, extreme security policy, a common war on narco-terror, and common adoration for Israel, or what it represents. De La Espriella is adopting that whole mantle.”

    The ties between Israel and Colombian politics run far deeper than this election cycle, and are deeply intertwined with the darkest chapters of the country’s recent history. During the peak of Colombia’s decades-long armed conflict between successive governments and left-wing guerrilla groups including the FARC and the ELN, Israeli weapons, military training, and security cooperation were deeply embedded within Colombian state security forces during a period marked by widespread extrajudicial killings and human rights abuses, Emanuele explained.

    The human cost of that history is personal for Cepeda: his father was murdered by state-sponsored paramilitaries in August 1994, as part of a systematic extermination campaign against the Patriotic Union, a left-wing political party co-founded by the FARC and the Colombian Communist Party. Nearly 6,000 Patriotic Union members were killed in the campaign carried out by state actors and allied paramilitary groups, a atrocity that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights formally ruled Colombia responsible for in a landmark 2023 decision. For decades after his father’s death, Cepeda has dedicated his political career to documenting these crimes, supporting victims, and demanding accountability, and has served as a lead facilitator for peace talks between the Colombian government, the FARC, and the ELN.

    By contrast, de la Espriella has a well-documented history of providing legal defense for political figures accused of collaborating with right-wing paramilitary groups. In 2005, he founded the Foundation for Peace Initiatives, which provided a public platform for former paramilitary commanders at university events and lobbied to block extradition requests for accused paramilitary leaders. Most recently, on June 11, 2026, Cepeda filed a formal criminal complaint against de la Espriella over his alleged ties to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), a far-right paramilitary coalition that has been linked to retired Israeli colonel and mercenary Yair Klein, who trained AUC fighters in the 1980s.

    “One day, the army and government of Israel will ask forgiveness from us for what their men did on our land,” Petro wrote in October 2023. “We do not support genocides.”

    Under Petro’s leadership, Colombia’s stance on Gaza extended far beyond symbolic condemnation, with concrete policy changes that have directly impacted Israel’s economy and military. In August 2024, Petro signed a decree banning all coal exports to Israel, and a year later he signed an even stricter order banning all thermal coal exports without exception, including honoring existing contracts. The policy shift has already had a dramatic impact: between October 2023 and August 2024, Colombia supplied 51 percent of Israel’s total thermal coal imports, which Israel relies on to power illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank and fuel its military operations in Gaza. That share dropped to 34 percent in July 2025, and fell to just 6 percent by March 2026. South Africa, another lead critic of Israel’s actions at the International Court of Justice and co-founder of the Hague Group, has since replaced Colombia as Israel’s top thermal coal supplier.

    Two of the largest mining companies operating in Colombia, U.S.-based Drummond and Anglo-Swiss multinational Glencore, were the primary suppliers of Colombian coal to Israel. Glencore, which operates the massive El Cerrejon mine in La Guajira, has recently been embroiled in controversy after an investigation by Raya Revista found that union representatives at the mine allege company leadership pressured workers to attend campaign events and vote for de la Espriella to protect their mining jobs. Even after Colombia halted coal exports to Israel, Glencore’s ongoing mining operations in La Guajira and Cesar continue to displace and harm Indigenous communities including the Yukpa and Wayuu peoples, sparking a wave of international solidarity protests that have spread from Bogota to London and Johannesburg.

    For many Colombians, the connection between the struggle for Palestinian rights and their own fight for justice against state violence and displacement is not a new one. “From Guajira to Gaza, territory is the material and spiritual base of the people,” explained Javier Marin, a sociologist with Colombian human rights advocacy group Asociacion Minga. Pointing to overlapping patterns of territorial dispossession and systematic human rights violations, Marin noted “we share the same historical condition as the Palestinian people.”

    “Palestine has been at the centre of popular movements in Colombia for a long time,” Marin told Middle East Eye. For the past three years, that grassroots solidarity has been reflected in official Colombian government policy—but after Sunday’s election, that policy’s future hangs in the balance.

  • Hot mics at the G7 capture world leaders’ chats between weighty topics

    Hot mics at the G7 capture world leaders’ chats between weighty topics

    EVIAN-LES-BAINS, France — While the top leaders of the world’s wealthiest democracies gathered this week at a scenic lakeside French resort to hash out solutions to pressing global crises, unfiltered open microphones have pulled back the curtain on the far more casual, unplanned side of high-level diplomatic summits. Between formal sessions focused on topics from the Ukraine conflict to global trade tensions, world leaders found time to swap jokes, discuss personal milestones, debate sports, and trade lighthearted quips that would never make it into official communiques.

    One of the most viral unscripted moments came Tuesday, when Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni opened up about a major personal lifestyle change. After German Chancellor Friedrich Merz asked if she had already snuck in a cigarette that morning, Meloni proudly revealed she had kicked the habit entirely, quitting cold turkey starting May 1. The announcement drew immediate warm congratulations from fellow leaders spanning Canada, the United Kingdom, Japan, and the European Union, with Meloni raising her hands in a playful victory lap. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, ever practical, quickly followed up with a question about cessation tools: “Do you have a patch?” he asked, gesturing to his own arm to clarify.

    With the 2026 FIFA World Cup already underway across North America, soccer dominated much of the off-agenda small talk among the gathered leaders. As the group assembled for a working lunch, French President Emmanuel Macron joined in the chatter, with attendees bursting into the iconic French national team cheer “Allez les bleus!” Other leaders weighed in on recent club football, discussing Paris-Saint Germain’s recent Champions League triumph.

    U.S. President Donald Trump steered the sports conversation toward mixed martial arts, highlighting the UFC cage fight event he hosted at the White House this past Sunday — an event that doubled as an informal 80th birthday celebration for the president, who sat ringside for the bouts. Trump spoke warmly of UFC CEO Dana White, praising the event organizer in his off-the-cuff comments. U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer also offered his take on a surprising World Cup upset, marveling at Cape Verde’s unexpected 0-0 draw against defending World Cup champion Spain. “Quite remarkable, I have to say,” Starmer commented of the underdog result.

    The most intriguing unscripted moment came when Trump’s brief chat with European Council President António Costa caught on open mics. After a pause and a steady look at Costa, Trump simply said: “You understand? … Greenland.” The full context of the exchange was cut off by the microphone placement, leaving the full meaning unclear. The offhand comment references a long-running point of tension: European politicians have repeatedly pushed back against Trump’s past public threats to acquire Greenland, a semi-autonomous Danish territory that holds significant strategic and natural resource value.

    Another moment of levity unfolded after French President Emmanuel Macron accidentally left his watch behind at the conclusion of the working lunch. Carney first pointed out the abandoned timepiece, telling the group “He’s left his watch here. We’ve got his watch.” Trump quickly jumped in with a playful quip, drawing laughs from the room when he joked “Give me it if he left, gimme.”

    The summit also included several examples of traditional gift-giving diplomacy, another staple of high-level global gatherings. According to Union Cycliste Internationale President David Lappartient’s social media posts, Macron gifted each of his six fellow G7 counterparts a custom personalized bicycle, chosen to promote the 2027 Cycling World Championships scheduled to be held in the French Alps. There was no immediate on-the-record reaction from Trump, who is not known for cycling and has previously joked that he keeps his exercise routine limited to regular golf outings.

    Merz followed the bicycle gift with a birthday-themed present of his own for Trump: a German national soccer jersey emblazoned with Trump’s last name and the number 47, referencing Trump’s status as the 47th U.S. President. Trump held up the jersey to pose for a smiling photo before setting it aside. Merz later shared the photo of the exchange to his social media channels, adding a carefully worded message that struck a conciliatory tone after the two leaders recently sparred over policy toward the war in Iran: “After all, we’re on the same team.”

    This report featured contributions from AP correspondent Joe Binkley, reporting out of Washington, and AP writer Sam McNeil, who contributed from Brussels.