分类: politics

  • Why did USS Lincoln turn up in Thailand looking so rusty?

    Why did USS Lincoln turn up in Thailand looking so rusty?

    A surprise wave of public discussion erupted this week after the U.S. Navy’s nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln pulled into a Thai port for a scheduled visit. Social media platforms were quickly flooded with images highlighting extensive visible rust across sections of the vessel’s hull and superstructure, turning a routine diplomatic port call into an unexpected talking point among defense observers and casual onlookers alike.

    What makes the incident notable is the timing and context of the deployment: the Abraham Lincoln has been operating in the Indo-Pacific for months, conducting a series of joint exercises with regional allies and freedom of navigation patrols in contested waterways. Navy officials have noted that extended deployments at sea, far from regular maintenance facilities in continental U.S. bases, naturally lead to the buildup of superficial surface corrosion. Saltwater spray, constant humidity and prolonged exposure to the tropical sun all accelerate the oxidation process on exterior metal surfaces, even on the most advanced modern warships.

    Critics, however, have pointed to the visible wear as a sign of broader systemic strains on the U.S. Navy, which has faced growing budget constraints, maintenance backlogs at domestic shipyards and increased operational tempo to counter growing security challenges in the Indo-Pacific region. For regional observers, the rusty appearance of one of America’s frontline capital ships has sparked quiet speculation about the sustainability of long-term U.S. military presence in Southeast Asia, even as the Navy reaffirms its commitment to regular rotational deployments and partnership with Thailand, a long-standing U.S. ally in the region.

    The port call itself was intended to strengthen diplomatic and military ties between the two nations, allowing for crew rest and recreational activities in Thailand after months at sea. While the rust has drawn unplanned attention, defense analysts emphasize that superficial corrosion does not impact the carrier’s core operational capabilities, and the vessel remains fully mission-capable following its months of deployment in the region.

  • Philippines Vice President Duterte posts bail after arrest order for alleged threats against Marcos

    Philippines Vice President Duterte posts bail after arrest order for alleged threats against Marcos

    In a dramatic development escalating one of the Philippines’ most high-stakes political conflicts, Vice President Sara Duterte has posted bail following the issuance of an arrest warrant on Friday over charges that she plotted to assassinate President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and two other political allies. The 48-year-old vice president, who has repeatedly denied all allegations against her, turned herself in at the Quezon City Regional Trial Court in Metro Manila on Saturday, emerging from the courthouse in a black ensemble to greet throngs of cheering supporters who packed the surrounding streets.

    As supporters chanted her name, Duterte stopped to comfort emotional backers, including embracing one woman who openly sobbed at the scene. She displayed the court document that formally lifted the arrest warrant after she posted bail, noting that her legal team had instructed her to keep the official order on her person at all times. In a candid remark to reporters, Duterte asked journalists to surround her as she walked to her vehicle, saying she did not feel secure amid what she called ongoing harassment from law enforcement.

    “If possible please go with me, because I do not feel safe with all these police personnel who are harassing those at my home, harassing me since 2023,” Duterte told reporters. “What does this administration really want to do with me?”

    Paul Lawrence Lim, one of Duterte’s lead attorneys, confirmed that court officials collected Duterte’s fingerprints before she processed bail totaling 360,000 Philippine pesos, equivalent to roughly $5,740, to cover three counts of grave threats. He reaffirmed that his client has no intention of avoiding legal process and will vigorously challenge the charges through all available legal channels.

    The criminal case stems from incendiary comments Duterte allegedly made during an online news conference earlier in 2024, when she reportedly stated she would arrange the assassination of Marcos, First Lady Liza Marcos, and then-House Speaker Martin Romualdez if she was killed amid their deepening political rift. Duterte insisted at the time her warning was not a joke, though later walked back the remarks to clarify she was only voicing fears for her own personal safety, not issuing a direct threat against the president. The comment sparked an immediate criminal investigation and raised national security alarm across the country.

    The conflict between Duterte and Marcos marks a stunning collapse of a once-powerful political alliance that brought both leaders to power in the 2022 national elections. The pair, who ran as a unified ticket, combined the influence of two of the Philippines’ most dominant political dynasties: Marcos is the son of former authoritarian president Ferdinand Marcos Sr., who ruled the country for more than two decades including a 14-year period of martial law, while Duterte is the daughter of former hardline president Rodrigo Duterte, Marcos’ immediate predecessor.

    That alliance has fractured dramatically over multiple issues in recent years. In a major point of contention, the Marcos administration allowed former president Rodrigo Duterte to be taken into custody by the International Criminal Court in 2025. The former president is currently detained in The Hague, where he is set to go on trial in late November on charges of crimes against humanity linked to his brutal anti-drug crackdown that left thousands of mostly low-income suspects dead. Rodrigo Duterte has denied authorizing extrajudicial killings, though he openly threatened suspects with death during his time in office. Sara Duterte has repeatedly condemned the Marcos administration for turning her father over to an international court, which she argues has no legal jurisdiction over the Philippines.

    The two leaders also hold starkly contrasting positions on key geopolitical issues. Marcos has expanded the Philippines’ longstanding defense partnership with the United States, the country’s treaty ally, as his administration pushes back against growing Chinese assertiveness in the contested South China Sea. Sara Duterte, by contrast, has faced widespread criticism for refusing to condemn Chinese aggressive actions against Filipino coast guard personnel and fishermen in the disputed waters, including recent incidents where Chinese vessels used high-powered water cannons to block Filipino craft.

    The grave threats charges are not the only legal battle Duterte currently faces. In May, the Marcos-dominated House of Representatives voted by an overwhelming majority to impeach Duterte on three additional allegations: unexplained personal wealth, misuse of confidential state funds, and the controversial threats made during the online news conference. The Philippine Senate, convening as an impeachment court, launched the televised impeachment trial in July. A conviction on the current grave threats charges would carry severe political consequences, permanently barring Duterte from holding public office and eliminating her potential bid for the presidency in the 2028 election, when Marcos’ current six-year term concludes.

  • Why did Trump meet members of an anti-Zionist Orthodox Jewish group?

    Why did Trump meet members of an anti-Zionist Orthodox Jewish group?

    Weeks ahead of back-to-back critical elections – Israeli national polls and U.S. midterm contests – former U.S. President Donald Trump welcomed a delegation of Haredi Jewish leaders, several of whom hold well-documented anti-Zionist views, to the White House this Thursday, in a pre-Rosh Hashanah gathering that broke from the standard format of typical presidential holiday receptions for religious groups.

    The group of rabbis and community representatives, who traveled to Washington D.C. from the New York and New Jersey region, secured a rare one-on-one meeting with Trump at the Oval Office’s Resolute Desk, where they sat directly across from the former president. Trump’s Jewish son-in-law and former senior advisor Jared Kushner was also present for the discussion. Following the Oval Office audience, the delegation also held talks with Vice President JD Vance and U.S. Congressman Mike Lawler, a New York Republican facing a competitive re-election battle this November in the heavily Democratic-leaning 17th Congressional District.

    Yossi Gestetner, a New York-based political activist and outspoken pro-Israel voice who participated in the meeting, shared the news on social media platform X, writing: “I had the great honor and privilege to introduce 6 Leading Rabbis of the Hasidic Community in the US to @JDVance. I told the @VP that in this room there are the leaders of the most visibly Jewish people in the US, and despite the noise on social media and disagreements, he should know that his role is respected and appreciated by all those in the room.”

    Among the six rabbis in attendance was Aaron Teitelbaum, the Satmar Rebbe and a leading figure in global Orthodox anti-Zionist circles. Teitelbaum leads the ultraconservative Satmar community based in Kiryas Joel, New York – a village that falls within Lawler’s congressional district – and oversees a movement with roughly 100,000 adherents worldwide. Photographs from the meeting show Teitelbaum seated directly across from Trump, reading from a pre-prepared letter during the audience.

    Miko Peled, an Israel-American author and activist familiar with the Satmar movement, told Middle East Eye that Teitelbaum was the most influential religious leader in the visiting delegation. Other anti-Zionist Haredi leaders note that the Satmar community takes a more cautious, nuanced approach to public anti-Zionist advocacy than smaller factions such as Neturei Karta International. “We know that officially it would be politically incorrect for them to meet with people who state unambiguously that [they] call for the entire dismantlement of the Zionist state of Israel,” explained Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss, a prominent Neturei Karta activist who frequently organizes protests against Israeli government policy in New York.

    The unprecedented gathering has drawn mixed reactions from across the political spectrum. Critics of current Israeli policy on social media have praised the meeting, pointing to growing questioning of the longstanding bipartisan U.S. commitment to unrestricted support for Israel among American conservative circles as a sign of potential shifting political alliances.

    According to Peled, the Haredi delegation came to the meeting with two core goals. First, they sought to publicly reaffirm their anti-Zionist positions and clarify that they do not identify as Zionists. Second, they aimed to raise awareness of growing tensions between their global community and the current Israeli government, which has escalated pressure on Haredi communities over longstanding military conscription exemptions. Haredi Jews in Israel have held widespread protests against forced conscription for decades, and demonstrations have frequently been met with violent crackdowns by Israeli police.

    The exemption for Haredi seminary students originated as a limited, temporary exception when Israel first gained statehood, but has expanded into a mass, ongoing dispute as the Haredi population has grown rapidly. Data shows Haredi Israelis made up roughly 10% of the national population in 2009, and that share has climbed to approximately 14% as of 2025. While some Haredi factions agree to work with secular Israeli political coalitions to protect their community autonomy, others remain firmly anti-Zionist, rejecting the legitimacy of the Israeli state entirely.

    A senior White House official confirmed in an email to Middle East Eye that the meeting marked the first gathering of this specific group of Haredi rabbis at the White House since 1979, though some Hasidic leaders have met with former presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton at the executive residence in the years since, leaving it unclear whether the 1979 benchmark refers specifically to anti-Zionist Haredi sects. The official added that the delegation “thanked the President for all he had done in combatting anti-Semitism, advocating for school choice with the Middle-Class Tax Credit, and for fighting for peoples of faith.”

    The official noted that the White House Faith Office regularly hosts religious leaders from across the United States to meet with the president, and that the administration has previously welcomed a range of Jewish representatives including Gaza hostage families, Holocaust survivors, and rabbis from multiple Jewish denominations.

    Peled characterized the meeting as a historic, significant moment, noting that Trump adjusted his own schedule to accommodate delays in the delegation’s private jet travel to Washington, a sign of how important the gathering was to the former president. Political analysts point out that the choice to host the delegation carries clear electoral logic: Kiryas Joel, the heart of the Satmar community in the U.S., falls directly within the congressional district represented by Lawler, a pro-Trump incumbent locked in a tight re-election race.

    Democratic critics have framed the meeting as a nakedly partisan political play. Halie Soifer, a former policy advisor to President Barack Obama and Vice President Kamala Harris who now leads the Jewish Democratic Council of America, argued that the gathering served a narrow partisan goal for the Trump administration and the Republican Party.

    “The selection of just a group of Hasidic men is on brand for Donald Trump,” Soifer told Middle East Eye. “He brought in a very small non-representative sample of Jewish leaders to the White House, and was sure to include a vulnerable Republican incumbent who is likely to lose his seat in November.”

    Soifer emphasized that the American Jewish community is not a monolith, noting that pre-holiday gatherings hosted by the Biden administration routinely included a broad cross-section of Jewish leadership, spanning all major denominations and political perspectives, rather than a narrow, non-representative fringe group.

  • US Congress passes bill punishing universities that boycott Israel

    US Congress passes bill punishing universities that boycott Israel

    On a Thursday vote, the U.S. House of Representatives has advanced a Republican-sponsored bill targeting U.S. universities that participate in boycotts of Israel or restrict student access to Israel-based academic exchange programs, setting up a critical next step for the legislation in the U.S. Senate. The final vote tally for the Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act stood at 237 in favor to 169 against, with unusual cross-party defying the typical partisan line on this deeply divisive issue.

    Thirty-three Democratic members, most of whom are facing competitive re-election races this cycle and hold long-standing pro-Israel voting records, broke with their party to support the measure. Only two Republican lawmakers voted against the bill. The legislation’s scope is limited to postsecondary institutions that participate in federal student aid programs; it requires universities receiving federal funding for international study and foreign language initiatives to submit annual verification confirming they do not bar domestic students from joining Israel-based programs, nor block Israeli students from enrolling in programming on their own campuses.

    The debate over the bill comes against the backdrop of the ongoing Israel-Gaza war, which has reshaped U.S. political discourse around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and amplified campus activism. The conflict erupted after Hamas-led attacks on October 7, 2023 killed roughly 1,200 people in southern Israel. Since that date, Israeli military operations in Gaza have killed more than 73,000 Palestinians, per official counts from the Palestinian Ministry of Health. In response to the humanitarian crisis unfolding in the enclave, student and faculty coalitions at dozens of top U.S. universities have stepped up pressure on institutional leadership to join the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement targeting Israel. To date, the vast majority of university administrations have either ignored these demands or rejected them outright.

    House Republican supporters of the bill framed the legislation as a necessary check on anti-Israel discrimination on taxpayer-funded campuses. “Our universities should not use taxpayer-funded federal programs to discriminate against Israeli students, faculty, institutions, or businesses simply because they are Israeli,” Tim Walberg, Republican chair of the House education committee, told colleagues ahead of the final vote. House Republican Conference leader Virginia Foxx went further, characterizing ongoing anti-war protests on college campuses as inherently antisemitic, arguing that “the antisemitic rot that has corroded college campuses must be eradicated.” She added: “Today, the House sent a clear message: if an institution of higher education chooses to capitulate to the caustic BDS movement, there will be consequences – starting with this bipartisan legislation.”

    Democratic opponents of the bill pushed back against this framing, arguing the legislation unnecessarily infringes on First Amendment protections for peaceful protest and political expression. Bobby Scott, the top Democratic member of the House education committee, argued the bill is unnecessary on its face and dangerous for free speech. “No college or university has embraced the BDS movement anyway. So, we should combat antisemitism wherever it occurs, but we should not do so by punishing protected speech or conflating a student’s view with university policies,” Scott said on the House floor. Even some lawmakers who publicly oppose BDS voted against the measure, citing core free speech principles. New York Democratic Congressman Jerrold Nadler explained ahead of the vote that while he rejects the BDS movement, he could not support the bill because protecting the right to dissent is critical to safeguarding all expression: “It is the only way to ensure speech I do agree with is equally protected,” Nadler said.

    Pro-Palestinian activists have long pushed back against claims that campus protests and BDS organizing are inherently antisemitic, arguing that critics deliberately blur the line between criticism of the Israeli government’s policies and anti-Jewish bigotry to silence legitimate dissent. Bill supporters have countered that the legislation does not target individual speech, but rather seeks to prevent discriminatory institutional practices supported by federal public funds.

    Political analysts have noted the House vote comes as partisan tensions over Israel policy have exposed deep rifts within the Democratic caucus, just ahead of a critical midterm election that will determine which party controls Congress for the final two years of the current presidential term. Some observers view the bill as a deliberate effort by House Republicans to amplify these divisions and appeal to swing voters ahead of the vote. Just months earlier, in July, more than 100 House Democrats backed a separate bill that would cut portions of U.S. military aid to Israel, a vote that laid bare the competing ideological currents within the party on Middle East policy. For now, the fate of the Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act rests with the Senate, where it faces an uncertain path forward.

  • Indian state gives taxi and tuk-tuk drivers a year to learn local language

    Indian state gives taxi and tuk-tuk drivers a year to learn local language

    A contentious new regulation mandating basic conversational Marathi for taxi and tuk-tuk drivers in India’s western state of Maharashtra has triggered widespread pushback, prompting state authorities to delay enforcement by 12 months and reigniting decades-old tensions over language, migrant labor and regional identity.

    The policy, which aimed to require all commercial passenger vehicle drivers to demonstrate basic proficiency in Maharashtra’s official language, launched its first round of testing on August 20. Under the original framework, drivers who failed the oral assessment faced a one-month grace period to re-test, after which their operating licenses could be suspended or revoked entirely. State officials framed the rule as a practical public safety measure, arguing that improved communication between drivers and local passengers would reduce confusion and create safer journeys for all road users.

    But the mandate immediately sparked outcry from drivers’ unions, who warned that forcing working drivers into a high-stakes test threatened to put thousands out of work overnight. A large share of commercial drivers in Maharashtra are internal migrants, who relocated to the state from other parts of India – most notably the populous Hindi-speaking states of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar – in search of stable employment. Many of these drivers have been out of formal education for decades, leaving them little time or flexibility to study a new language while working full time to support their families.

    Amid growing public protests, Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis announced the one-year extension last week, acknowledging that most migrant drivers needed far more time to build basic conversational skills. State Transport Minister Pratap Sarnaik added that further extensions could be granted down the line, after the full year of learning is completed.

    Maharashtra is home to nearly 979,000 active taxi and tuk-tuk permits, with almost half of those concentrated in the bustling Mumbai metropolitan region, one of India’s largest commercial and population hubs. For drivers who faced immediate risk of losing their livelihoods, the extension has delivered much-needed relief. “We were worried that if our licences were suspended, our daily income would be affected,” explained Lakhan Pandey, a Mumbai-based taxi driver. “Now we feel somewhat relieved.”

    Beyond the immediate policy dispute, the row has dragged into the open a political debate that has shaped Maharashtra’s public life since the state’s founding. The state was created in 1960 following a years-long mass campaign for a separate Marathi-speaking state. As Mumbai grew into India’s financial capital, it attracted wave after wave of internal migrants from across the country, and language quickly became tied to fierce disputes over access to jobs and economic opportunity for native Marathi speakers.

    In 1966, the regional nationalist party Shiv Sena was founded on a “sons of the soil” platform, which argued that Marathi speakers were being displaced from work by incoming migrants. The party went on to become one of the most dominant political forces in the state, with Marathi identity at the core of its political appeal. Today, Maharashtra’s ruling coalition is led by Fadnavis’ Bharatiya Janata Party and a faction of Shiv Sena that split from the original party in 2022, while the rival Shiv Sena faction and the regional Maharashtra Navnirman Sena both continue to prioritize Marathi identity politics.

    Political analysts note that while widespread support exists for encouraging migrants to learn basic Marathi, the issue is often amplified for political gain. “The issue is not simply about communication between drivers and passengers, but about Marathi identity, migration and employment,” said Prakash Akolkar, a veteran journalist, author and political analyst. “Ordinary people do not always treat language with the same intensity as political parties. Parties have often raised the issue when it suits the political circumstances.”

    Some advocates for Marathi promotion take a firmer stance, however. Deepak Pawar, a political scientist and head of the Marathi Abhyas Kendra, a center that promotes Marathi language learning, argued that any person who has lived and worked in Maharashtra for years should have already acquired at least basic familiarity with the language. Refusing to do so, he said, amounts to “linguistic arrogance”.

    Similar tensions have played out across other Indian states, including neighboring Karnataka, where local language activists have raised alarms that Kannada is being sidelined as many migrants rely exclusively on Hindi or English to get by.

    Under the revised Maharashtra policy, drivers are not required to read or write Marathi, or achieve fluency – only a basic working knowledge for routine work conversations. To support drivers, the state government has organized targeted training courses focused on common phrases drivers need for work: asking for passenger destinations, discussing fares, and sharing basic directions.

    Thus far, state transport department data shows that roughly 166,000 drivers have completed the training and passed the required oral test. Munawar Sheikh, a 58-year-old tuk-tuk driver, was among those who completed the course at a training center in Thane, just outside Mumbai. Over four days of classes, Sheikh and his peers learned 16 high-frequency phrases and questions, from “Where do you want to go?” to “the fare will be according to the meter.” Sheikh said the course left him confident enough to hold basic conversations with Marathi-speaking passengers.

    For many drivers, however, the biggest barrier remains finding the time to learn while working full time. Ajay Singh, a Mumbai taxi driver, said he is eager to learn Marathi but cannot afford to take time off work to attend classes. “From the time we wake up until late at night, we have to drive. Otherwise, there is no food on the table. Taking a few hours out of the day for a class is financially difficult for me,” he explained. Singh earns between 1,500 and 2,000 rupees (roughly $17 to $23) per day, and says losing even a few days of wages would leave him unable to cover rent and his children’s school fees. Instead, he is learning on the job, listening to Marathi radio during his shifts and practicing phrases with native-speaking passengers.

    Like many other migrant drivers, Pandey said he never opposed learning Marathi – he only asked for enough time to learn without putting his livelihood at risk. The one-year extension has addressed that core concern. “We live here, we work here. Of course we should learn Marathi,” Pandey said. “Just give us the time to learn it without putting our livelihoods at risk.”

  • Egyptian detainees issue call for government to apply new caps to pretrial detention

    Egyptian detainees issue call for government to apply new caps to pretrial detention

    As Egypt prepares to implement a long-awaited reform to its criminal justice system next month, hundreds of pretrial detainees held for years behind bars are making an urgent plea: they want the new statutory pretrial detention limits to apply to their ongoing cases, which have dragged on for years in many instances.

    The reform in question, the revised Criminal Procedure Code, was approved by Egyptian authorities in November last year and is scheduled to enter into force in October 2025, with the key change being a formal cap on the total length of time a defendant can be held in detention before their trial concludes. In an open letter addressed to the Egyptian government and obtained by Middle East Eye (MEE), an anonymous coalition of long-term pretrial detainees expressed cautious support for the new legislation, while calling for full inclusion of their cases.

    “We hope that it will allow us once again to enjoy freedom and the rights of citizenship,” the letter reads. “And that each of us may return to making a positive contribution, with dedication and sincerity, to the advancement of our country and society in every sphere of life, within what is possible and legally permitted.” The letter also notes that detainees have moved past past circumstances, and are ready to rejoin society if granted release.

    One prominent example highlighted by an anonymous source (who requested anonymity out of fear of government retaliation) is a 70-year-old physician who has been held in pretrial detention for more than six years. During his detention, his health has declined sharply after undergoing open-heart surgery; he now remains confined to his cell, suffering from extreme weakness, weight loss, and limited mobility, with no access to the consistent specialized medical care he requires. A second signatory, a man in his mid-30s, has already spent 11 years in pretrial detention, according to Saif Alislam Eid, a political researcher and former prisoner who maintains contact with the detainee coalition.

    Shortly after the first letter was circulated, a second group of detainees from multiple Egyptian prisons issued a separate statement titled “Enough is enough,” which takes a harder stance on systemic detention abuses. The statement calls for the immediate release of all detainees, and condemns a long list of pervasive practices: prolonged pretrial detention, the arrest and imprisonment of women and children, extrajudicial detentions, enforced disappearances, and the widespread practice known locally as “tadweer,” or charge recycling, where authorities file new or identical charges against prisoners immediately after their release or completion of a sentence, trapping them in indefinite detention. Eid confirmed to MEE that the coalition plans to launch a coordinated prison strike if the government fails to address their demands.

    Human rights defenders have publicly thrown their support behind the detainees’ call for inclusion. Samar Elhussieny, executive director of the Egyptian Human Rights Forum, told MEE that detainees are proactively pushing to guarantee they do not get locked out of the reforms they have waited years for. “They’re trying to get a step ahead,” Elhussieny explained. “They’re saying we’re committed to doing whatever you want, just don’t exclude us from the pretrial detention cap.”

    Despite the limited progress of the new pretrial detention cap, Elhussieny and other rights advocates remain deeply skeptical that the new law will lead to large-scale releases of the estimated 60,000 political and pretrial detainees currently held in Egyptian prisons. The original draft of the code faced intense pushback from global and local rights groups, the Egyptian Lawyers’ Syndicate, Journalists’ Syndicate, and independent UN experts, leading President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi to send the bill back to parliament for revisions in September 2024. Critics of the initial draft warned that it would vastly expand police and prosecutorial power, and entrench existing human rights violations including arbitrary detention, restricted access to defense lawyers, prolonged travel bans, and expedited, unfair trials.

    Elhussieny argues that the revised, final version of the code approved last November remains just as flawed, with the pretrial detention cap being the only genuinely positive amendment. “When Sisi sent the draft bill back we were expecting a better version. This didn’t happen,” she said. “It was more of a gesture from the president that I’m listening to your concerns. This law was supposed to be fixing the issues in the current law, but it’s actually more problematic.” Key unaddressed issues include the persistent practice of charge recycling, which allows authorities to keep detainees imprisoned indefinitely, and a provision that allows police to conduct interrogations without a defense lawyer present – a direct violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees access to legal counsel at every stage of the criminal justice process.

    Furthermore, in the months leading up to the law’s passage, between October 2024 and January 2025, the Egyptian government referred thousands of detainees to formal trial, which reclassified them to remove their status as pretrial detainees – a move widely seen as a tactical workaround to avoid applying the new detention limits to thousands of long-held prisoners. “The Egyptian government for many years now has been manipulating this idea of releasing pretrial detainees,” Elhussieny said. She added that the detainees’ urgent plea is a clear sign of their desperation to avoid being excluded from the impending reform.

    Previous Egyptian government efforts to address the crisis of prolonged pretrial detention, such as the establishment of a Presidential Pardon Committee that periodically announces small batches of releases, have done little to resolve the crisis. Elhussieny notes that the committee has only facilitated the release of dozens of detainees, while roughly 60,000 pretrial detainees remain behind bars. While the Egyptian government does not publish official data on the size of its pretrial detainee population, a 2022 estimate from the U.S. State Department placed Egypt’s total prison population at around 120,000, with pretrial detainees accounting for one-third of that total. Rights groups have also criticized the pardon committee for a pervasive lack of transparency, accusing the body of circulating “fake pardon lists” that claim to release political detainees who actually have had their detention extended by prosecutors.

    Elhussieny argues that the new legislation was largely introduced as a diplomatic gesture to ease international pressure from the European Union and United Nations, which have repeatedly raised concerns about Egypt’s growing pretrial detainee population. The final installment of a large EU economic aid package meant to shore up Egypt’s struggling economy and reduce migration flows to Europe is scheduled to be disbursed in December 2025, two months after the new law takes effect. Rights activists have heavily criticized the aid package, accusing the EU of making major concessions on human rights to clear the package for approval. Elhussieny noted that the EU is likely to review pretrial detention numbers before approving the final disbursement, creating a small incentive for the Egyptian government to implement visible reforms.

    The detainees’ appeals come as the Egyptian government has enforced a near-total information blackout on prison conditions across the country. Since mid-2024, after reports of widespread hunger strikes at the notorious Badr prison and a sharp rise in prisoner deaths, authorities have cracked down on detainees’ rights advocates and family members of detainees. Elhussieny described Egypt’s prisons as a “black box,” with almost no outside communication allowed. “Lawyers don’t have any access, families of detainees that are deemed to be a risk are banned from visiting,” she said.

  • Germany’s far-right AfD bids for first taste of power in eastern vote

    Germany’s far-right AfD bids for first taste of power in eastern vote

    As Germany prepares for this weekend’s critical state election in Saxony-Anhalt, the entire nation is holding its collective breath. Polls currently place the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) and its lead candidate Ulrich Siegmund on track to win an outright parliamentary majority – a result that would mark the first time a far-right party has claimed full state-level power in post-war German history, a shift that could reshape the country’s political trajectory for decades to come.\n\nFor AfD leadership, a decisive victory in this eastern German state would be far more than a regional win: it would act as a critical stepping stone toward their long-held goal of gaining national power. For the party’s opponents, however, an AfD majority represents an existential threat to Germany’s post-war democratic order.\n\nThe election also casts fresh uncertainty over the future of embattled conservative Chancellor Friedrich Merz, leader of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU). Plagued by poor public approval and booing at recent public appearances, Merz is widely seen as a liability for center-right candidates on the campaign trail. Many political observers note he may already regret his public pledge to halt the far-right’s rise, a promise that has been undermined by the AfD’s growing momentum across the country.\n\nAt the center of the election campaign is 35-year-old Siegmund, a charismatic AfD figure who has dominated media coverage and energized grassroots support in the state. Labeled “Germany’s Most Dangerous Man” by leading German magazine Der Spiegel, Siegmund has pushed back against widespread reports that neo-Nazi affiliates hold influential positions in his inner circle, often presenting a populist, relatable public image across social media – sharing content of himself interacting with adoring supporters and riding a retro East German scooter.\n\nThe AfD’s surging popularity in eastern Germany, its long-standing stronghold, has been fueled by two overlapping forces: lingering nostalgia for the pre-reunification East German era and widespread public anger at the status quo. Voters across the state have voiced deep frustration over a range of issues, including unmanaged immigration, perceived public safety failures, Germany’s stagnant national economy, skyrocketing energy costs, and billions in aid sent to Ukraine. For many committed supporters, the AfD represents the only party offering meaningful, radical change, with Siegmund framed as a leader who has restored hope for disillusioned voters. Even more hesitant backers say they have abandoned decades of support for mainstream parties, which they see as unresponsive to working-class needs. As one AfD legislator put it, a turn to regional governance would prove to voters that “the sky won’t fall in” if the party takes power.\n\nDetractors argue that the AfD’s policy platform for Saxony-Anhalt is deeply controversial and incompatible with Germany’s democratic and social values. Key planks include segregating child refugees into separate schooling, on the grounds that their stay in Germany is temporary; the party’s manifesto also condemns what it calls the aggressive promotion of “sexual deviations and non-reproductive lifestyles” over “normal family structures,” calling for a ban on LGBT rainbow flags in public schools and a curriculum that reduces focus on Nazi history and emphasizes more “positive” elements of German national history. On immigration, the party has proposed creating a dedicated task force to detain and deport migrants who lack legal residency, while calling for an immediate end to what it labels “illegal, culturally alien” mass migration.\n\nThe AfD has also faced repeated scrutiny over its well-documented pro-Russia sympathies, leading to warnings that the party cannot be trusted with sensitive state intelligence. Just this week, Berlin publicly blamed Moscow for a failed drone attack on Leipzig/Halle Airport, a claim the Kremlin has denied. The controversy comes amid reports of a Russian military mug displayed in the office of senior AfD state figure Hans-Thomas Tillschneider, who dismissed the item as a simple souvenir, adding “it’s not our war.” German security officials have also warned of escalating Russian-backed disinformation campaigns targeting AfD’s political rivals, a charge Moscow dismisses as “anti-Russian hysteria.”\n\nWidespread concerns over extremism within the party are not limited to foreign policy. Saxony-Anhalt’s AfD branch is officially classified as a right-wing extremist movement by German domestic intelligence, which accuses the local organization of being rooted in “racist ideology” and holding anti-constitutional goals. During a recent AfD rally covered by the BBC, an attendee was spotted wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with “Arisch” – the German term for Aryan, the white supremacist racial category weaponized by the Nazis to promote their ideology of a master race. While it remains unclear whether the man was a party member, supporter, or casual attendee, the incident has reinforced long-standing concerns about extremist influence within the movement. The AfD, which frames itself as a conservative libertarian movement, rejects all extremism claims as politically motivated smears and rejects any comparison to National Socialism. If elected to a majority, Siegmund has even refused to rule out dissolving the state branch of Germany’s domestic intelligence agency (BfV), the body that monitors the party’s extremist activities.\n\nGermany’s mainstream parties have maintained a long-standing “Brandmauer” (firewall) policy, ruling out any formal or informal coalition with the AfD. This political blockade means the party must win an outright parliamentary majority to take power, rather than forming a coalition with smaller parties. Its path to victory therefore depends heavily on whether smaller competing parties manage to clear the 5% vote threshold required to gain seats in the state parliament – a mathematical reality that could work heavily in the AfD’s favor if smaller rivals fail to qualify.\n\nUnlike past regional elections where the AfD has only managed to crack the mainstream firewall, this vote could see the party bypass it entirely. If the AfD secures a majority, it will face an unprecedented test: for years, the party has built its support on anti-establishment rhetoric, blaming Berlin for all of Germany’s problems. Once in power, it will no longer be able to solely rail against incumbents – it will have to deliver on its promises, facing the same governing pressures that have frustrated mainstream parties for decades.\n\nState governments in Germany wield significant authority over key policy areas including local education, policing, and cultural policy, and their delegates hold seats in the Bundesrat, the federal government’s upper legislative chamber. An AfD-led state government would therefore be able to implement its controversial policy agenda at the regional level while gaining a far louder voice in national politics. Currently, the AfD not only leads polls in most eastern states but also holds a lead in national polling, making this regional election a critical bellwether for the country’s future.\n\nThough Saxony-Anhalt is a small state by population, its upcoming election is one of the most consequential political moments in modern German history, with outcomes that will ripple across the entire nation and European politics as a whole.

  • Brazilian Supreme Court justices at odds as election and probe into failed bank loom

    Brazilian Supreme Court justices at odds as election and probe into failed bank loom

    SAO PAULO — Brazil’s highest judicial body has slid deeper into a damaging institutional crisis, after two high-profile Supreme Court justices delivered competing demands for severe disciplinary action against one another this Friday. The public feud has sent shockwaves through Brazil’s political landscape just months ahead of the country’s October general elections, raising urgent questions about the integrity of the nation’s judiciary.

    The conflict centers on two justices with starkly different political and ideological backgrounds. Alexandre de Moraes, 57, rose to national prominence last year after leading the high-profile prosecution that resulted in the imprisonment of former far-right President Jair Bolsonaro on charges related to the 2022 attempted coup d’état. His adversary on the bench, 53-year-old Andre Mendonca, made history as the Supreme Court’s first self-identified evangelical Christian justice, a direct appointment by Bolsonaro during his presidential term.

    The roots of their escalating animosity trace back to a sprawling federal investigation into large-scale financial fraud linked to the collapsed Banco Master, a once-prominent Brazilian financial institution led by disgraced ex-banker Daniel Vorcaro. The sprawling probe has already tangled multiple sitting politicians, making it an especially explosive issue ahead of the upcoming October elections.

    The crisis escalated rapidly earlier this week, when Mendonca ordered the unsealing of a portion of federal police intercepted communications between Vorcaro and third parties. The released documents include dozens of private messages from the fallen banker that suggest he repeatedly sought personal guidance from de Moraes. The revelations compound existing suspicions against de Moraes, after federal investigators uncovered that de Moraes’ wife had provided legal consulting services to Banco Master under a 130 million reais (approximately $25 million) contract.

    These disclosures have sparked a growing wave of calls for de Moraes’ resignation from across Brazil’s political sphere, media outlets, and leading legal experts. Even Flávio Bolsonaro, a presidential candidate and the son of the former president, who has himself been drawn into the Banco Master scandal over allegations he received roughly $21 million to produce a hagiographic film about his father’s political career, joined the chorus demanding de Moraes step down. In one intercepted message, Vorcaro wrote to a contact, “I am grateful to you for my life,” while in another, he pleaded, “For the love of God, see if you can block all these evil (measures against Banco Master).

    But the narrative shifted just as quickly, when Brazilian media outlets reported on Wednesday that Mendonca had held a private, off-the-record meeting with Vorcaro last year. In an official statement, Mendonca defended the gathering, framing it as a routine informational meeting similar to conversations other Supreme Court justices held on the same case. He later confirmed last Thursday that he held a second, more recent meeting with the jailed banker. What makes the encounter controversial is that Mendonca interrogated Vorcaro without the required authorization from the full Supreme Court — a mandatory step when investigating a sitting member of the court — and did not allow any federal police officers or public prosecutors to attend the questioning.

    Mendonca has justified his actions by saying Vorcaro claimed he had been subjected to mistreatment while in police custody, a claim that Brazil’s national attorney general has already formally rejected as unsubstantiated.

    By late Thursday, de Moraes had responded with swift and unprecedented action: he formally submitted a request to Supreme Court Chief Justice Luiz Edson Fachin to open a full investigation into Mendonca’s conduct. De Moraes blasted his colleague’s actions as politically motivated, and argued that Mendonca’s unauthorized, secretive interrogation of Vorcaro meets the legal standard for an impeachable offense. De Moraes is pushing for the Brazilian Senate to ultimately consider removing Mendonca from the bench.

    Brazil’s Senate, which holds the constitutional authority to initiate impeachment proceedings against sitting Supreme Court justices, currently has dozens of pending impeachment requests targeting de Moraes, with only a small handful of similar requests filed against Mendonca to date. By Friday, Brazilian media confirmed that Mendonca had submitted his own counter-request to Chief Justice Fachin, asking that de Moraes be suspended from all Supreme Court duties while the graft allegations against him are adjudicated.

    Chief Justice Fachin, speaking Friday morning at an official ceremony held at the presidential palace in the presence of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva — who has publicly stated no individual should be exempt from judicial investigation — announced his next steps. Fachin said he will request formal written clarifications from Mendonca, de Moraes, Attorney General Paulo Gonet (who is also mentioned in Vorcaro’s intercepted messages), and Federal Police Director Andrei Rodrigues. Without explicitly naming the public feud between his two colleagues, Fachin said he would “do what is right, in the time and in the shape that the legal order requires.” He added, “The institutions of the Republic must be preserved, overall in moments of the biggest tension.”

    Witnesses confirmed that de Moraes and Mendonca did not exchange a single word during two full Supreme Court sessions held Wednesday and Thursday. The two justices, who sit adjacent to one another on the court bench (seating is ordered by the date each justice was appointed), are set to gather again for official business next week.

  • Jewish groups back stronger measures on Israel in letter to Andy Burnham

    Jewish groups back stronger measures on Israel in letter to Andy Burnham

    As the new Andy Burnham-led UK government prepares to unveil a sweeping package of policy measures targeting Israeli activity in the occupied West Bank—headlined by a proposed ban on goods imported from illegal Israeli settlements—the British political landscape has been split by a stark divergence of views among UK Jewish community leaders. Just days after major establishment Jewish organizations met the prime minister at Downing Street to lobby against the import ban, a coalition of progressive Jewish groups has thrown its full weight behind tougher action against Israel, while demanding the government protect the right to hold pro-Palestinian protests.

    On Monday, UK Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis met Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband to warn that any form of economic sanctions targeting Israel would carry harmful consequences for British Jewish communities across the country. The Jewish Leadership Council and the Board of Deputies of British Jews, two of the most prominent institutional Jewish groups in the UK, doubled down on this opposition during their Downing Street meeting with Burnham, arguing that restrictions on settlement goods would damage the longstanding cultural and religious ties between British Jews and sites in the occupied territories.

    But just four days later, a competing open letter organized by three progressive Jewish organizations—Holocaust Survivors and Descendants against Gaza Genocide (HSD), Jewish Voice for Liberation (formerly Jewish Voice for Labour), and Jews for Justice for Palestinians—reached the prime minister’s desk, taking a directly opposite stance. The letter counts two Holocaust survivors, Stephen Kapos and Agnes Kory, among its signatories, and pushes back hard against the claim that institutional Jewish groups speak for all UK Jewish people on the issue of Israel.

    “There are several Jewish ‘communities’ and a wide diversity of views on Israel among Jewish people in the UK and we trust that you will meet with us and other members of the Jewish Bloc in the near future,” the letter, which was reviewed by Middle East Eye (MEE), states. The signatories also welcomed Burnham’s earlier commitments to stronger action against Israel and his public apology for the previous Keir Starmer-led Labour government’s slow response in calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.

    The groups make clear that their members regularly join the large Jewish Bloc contingent in national pro-Palestine marches, where they publicly condemn what they frame as an ongoing genocide of Palestinians in Gaza. They also reject widespread claims that pro-Palestine protest movements are hubs of antisemitism, noting that signatories have only experienced goodwill and solidarity from fellow pro-Palestine demonstrators. Any antisemitic hostility at protest events, they argue, has originated from pro-Israel counter-demonstrators, not pro-Palestine organizers or attendees.

    This advocacy builds on a similar effort earlier this year, when 44 Holocaust survivors and their descendants sent an open letter to then-Prime Minister Keir Starmer urging him to abandon proposed restrictions on repeated pro-Palestine marches. Starmer had floated the restrictions after an antisemitic stabbing attack that injured two Jewish men in Golders Green, a majority-Jewish neighborhood in northwest London. Then-Policing Minister Sarah Jones responded to that 2024 letter by affirming that the right to peaceful protest is a core pillar of British democracy, but defended new expanded police powers to impose restrictions on intimidating protests near houses of worship, as well as a new requirement for senior officers to weigh the cumulative impact of repeated protests when approving conditions for demonstrations.

    In their new letter to Burnham, the progressive Jewish groups reiterate this call, demanding the new prime minister block any future efforts to restrict or shut down pro-Palestine marches. They also criticize the Starmer-era Labour Party’s handling of antisemitism allegations, which saw roughly 70 Jewish Labour members publicly or internally accused of antisemitism for their pro-Palestine views. The letter argues that this pattern of disciplinary action has given Israel unwarranted political cover for its military actions in Gaza and the West Bank, while eroding core rights to free speech and peaceful protest in the UK.

    Jenny Manson, co-chair of Jewish Voice for Liberation and a former Labour Party member who left the party in 2023, told MEE that establishment Jewish groups have long been granted regular access to UK government leaders, while alternative Jewish voices critical of Israel are sidelined. “Generally, the diversity of Jewish communities and Jewish views is largely ignored. We are not given any audience by the government, unlike the Jewish establishment bodies which are regularly welcomed in Whitehall,” Manson said.

    She added, “We ask that Andy Burnham recognise that the mass marches in support of Gaza are a legitimate expression of the widespread horror felt in Britain at Israel’s war crimes and ethnic cleansing in Gaza and the West Bank. Many Jews feel this anger and misery too.” Manson also called on Burnham to act on the core demand of pro-Palestine protesters: an immediate end to all UK arms sales to Israel.

    The upcoming policy announcement from the Burnham government was first teased last month by Miliband, who confirmed the government would unveil new measures in response to Israel’s advancement of the E1 settlement project east of Jerusalem. If completed, the E1 development would cut the occupied West Bank into two disconnected parts, effectively ending any possibility of a contiguous Palestinian state.

    Alongside the opposition from institutional Jewish leaders, another UK-based anti-occupation Jewish group, Na’amod, has publicly welcomed the proposed measures, framing them as the bare minimum appropriate response to Israel’s ongoing expansion of illegal settlements and military activity in the occupied territories. As of Thursday evening, MEE has reached out to Downing Street for official comment on the progressive groups’ letter, and has not yet received a response.

  • UN nuclear agency members draft resolution reporting Iran to the UN Security Council

    UN nuclear agency members draft resolution reporting Iran to the UN Security Council

    Diplomatic sources confirmed Thursday that the United States, Britain, France and Germany have finalized a draft resolution for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors that would formally bring Iran’s ongoing noncompliance with nuclear nonproliferation rules before the United Nations Security Council, a move that comes after months of stalled diplomacy and heightened regional conflict over Tehran’s atomic program.

    Under the terms of the global Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran bears a legal obligation to fully disclose all nuclear material and activities to the IAEA, and grant the Vienna-based watchdog’s inspectors unimpeded access to verify that no nuclear resources are diverted toward weapons development. For decades, this framework has formed the foundation of international oversight of Iran’s nuclear program, but cooperation collapsed dramatically this year amid escalating military activity.

    The push for a formal referral dates back to June 2025, when the IAEA Board of Governors issued its first formal finding of Iranian noncompliance in 20 years — a ruling that came just one day before the U.S. and Israel launched coordinated military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. For months, action on a referral was paused to give diplomatic efforts a final chance to resolve the standoff, but senior Western officials say that path has been exhausted.

    “The IAEA board has to follow its mandate and act now,” a senior Western diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the negotiations, told reporters. “Not only has Iran refused to cooperate, all meaningful communication has ceased.”

    Since the June 2025 strikes that came amid a 12-day open conflict between the U.S., Israel and Iran, Tehran has blocked IAEA inspectors from accessing nuclear sites damaged in the bombings, despite its legal requirements under the NPT. The watchdog has also been unable to verify the current status of Iran’s stockpile of near-weapons-grade uranium, a challenge compounded by the broader ongoing war that began when the U.S. and Israel launched large-scale strikes on Feb. 28, with fresh exchanges of fire between the two sides continuing this week.

    In a confidential IAEA report obtained by the Associated Press this Tuesday, the agency warned that Iran’s continued refusal of access and failure to cooperate on material verification constitutes a critical “proliferation risk” that must be “addressed with the utmost urgency.”

    Current IAEA data puts Iran’s stockpile of uranium enriched to 60% purity at 440.9 kilograms (972 pounds). Enrichment to 90% purity qualifies as weapons-grade material, meaning 60% enrichment is just one short technical step from a weapons-capable material. IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi warned in an AP interview last year that this stockpile is large enough to allow Iran to build up to 10 nuclear bombs if it chooses to pursue weaponization — though he emphasized this does not mean Tehran currently possesses a nuclear weapon.

    The Tuesday report also confirmed that the IAEA has made no progress on its long-running investigation into unexplained uranium traces found at multiple undeclared sites across Iran. Western intelligence officials suspect these traces could indicate Iran ran a secret nuclear weapons program prior to 2003, a claim Iran has consistently denied. Tehran has repeatedly maintained that its entire nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, including energy production and medical research.

    A referral to the Security Council would shift oversight of the dispute to a higher international body with the authority to impose legally binding punitive measures, including sweeping economic sanctions and asset freezes. However, substantive UN action is widely expected to face an immediate block: Iran’s allies Russia and China both hold permanent veto power on the Security Council, and have previously blocked punitive measures against Tehran.

    The draft resolution, which was first reported by Reuters and reviewed by the AP, requests that Grossi transmit the text, alongside all previously adopted IAEA resolutions on Iran’s noncompliance, to all IAEA member states, as well as the UN Security Council and General Assembly, in line with the IAEA’s founding statute. Even in the face of expected Security Council gridlock, Western powers argue that a formal referral carries significant diplomatic weight.

    Notably, the draft also reaffirms the co-sponsors’ commitment to a negotiated end to the standoff. The text “stresses its support for a diplomatic solution to the challenges posed by the Iranian nuclear programme and its implications for regional peace and stability leading to an agreement that addresses all international concerns related to Iran’s nuclear activities, and encourages all parties to constructively engage in diplomacy.”

    Diplomats caution that the draft remains in active negotiation, and has not yet been formally submitted to the 35-member IAEA Board of Governors. The text could still be amended before a vote, which is scheduled to take place during next week’s Board meeting in Vienna.

    Iran has long rejected international pressure to restrict its nuclear program, and has repeatedly criticized IAEA investigations as politically motivated by Western powers.