Global Pulse

博客

  • Congo’s president warns next elections can’t take place unless the conflict in the east is resolved

    Congo’s president warns next elections can’t take place unless the conflict in the east is resolved

    KINSHASA, Democratic Republic of the Congo — In a nationally televised address that has sparked intense political debate across the country, Congolese President Félix Tshisekedi delivered a stark warning Wednesday: unless the long-running armed conflict rocking the nation’s eastern provinces is resolved and stability is restored, the country will not be able to hold constitutionally mandated general elections when his second and final term concludes in December 2028.

    Tshisekedi’s remarks came amid a devastating escalation of decades of unrest in eastern Congo that began earlier this year. In January 2025, Rwanda-backed M23 rebels launched a major offensive, capturing the strategic eastern city of Goma before seizing the key town of Bukavu the following month as the insurgency pushes to expand its territorial control. The renewed fighting has already claimed an estimated 3,000 lives and dramatically deepened one of the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophes, pushing the total number of displaced people across the country to roughly 7 million.

    Decades of instability in eastern Congo have long been fueled by competition over control of the region’s vast, lucrative mineral reserves, with more than 100 armed groups currently operating in the area, M23 among the most powerful and well-organized. U.S.-brokered peace negotiations and other diplomatic initiatives to halt the violence have so far failed to gain traction, leaving the conflict deadlocked.

    “If we cannot end this war, unfortunately we will not be able to organize elections in 2028,” Tshisekedi stated during the address. The president clarified that the inability to hold the vote would stem from the loss of state control over the two most conflict-affected eastern provinces, not a lack of willingness or resources to administer the poll. “It will not be because I refused to organize them, the resources are there we can do it, but we cannot organize them without North Kivu and South Kivu,” he added.

    In a surprise announcement that has reshaped the country’s political landscape ahead of 2028, Tshisekedi also signaled he would be open to seeking a controversial third term in office, a move that would require amending the nation’s constitution, which currently imposes a strict two-term limit on presidents. “I have not sought a third term, but I tell you: If the people want me to have a third term, I will accept,” he said, noting that any change to term limits would need to be approved by a national referendum first.

    Opposition figures and political critics immediately rejected the president’s comments, accusing Tshisekedi of using the ongoing eastern conflict as a pretext to extend his hold on power. Congolese opposition politician André Claudel Lubaya argued that Tshisekedi was invoking the will of the Congolese people “to justify a fraudulent intention.” Two-time former presidential candidate Seth Kikuni warned via social media platform X that if Tshisekedi follows through on plans to “threaten to seize power” in 2028, the opposition will have no choice but to take drastic action: “to cross the Rubicon and throw the dice.”

    The address also touched on other policy issues, including the ongoing deportation of Congolese migrants from the United States under a bilateral agreement reached with the Trump administration, though Tshisekedi’s comments on elections and the eastern conflict dominated public and political reaction to the speech.

  • Why is Japan rethinking its anti-war stance?

    Why is Japan rethinking its anti-war stance?

    Seventy-eight years after the end of World War II, one of the most defining pillars of Japan’s post-war national identity is facing the most significant challenge to its existence in modern history. The country’s long-standing pacifist constitution, drafted in the aftermath of the global conflict to embed anti-war principles into Japanese politics and society, is now at the center of a fierce national debate, as Prime Minister Fumio Kishida pushes forward an aggressive agenda to revise its iconic Article 9.

    Article 9, the clause that has shaped Japan’s security posture for nearly eight decades, formally renounces war as a sovereign right of the nation and bans the maintenance of offensive military capabilities for use in international conflict. For generations, this constitutional provision has served as both a domestic commitment to peace and a global signal of Japan’s rejection of the imperialist expansion that defined the early 20th century.

    But shifting regional security dynamics, including rising military assertiveness from China in the Indo-Pacific, persistent nuclear and ballistic missile threats from North Korea, and evolving security alliances with the United States, have pushed the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) to frame constitutional revision as a necessary step to adapt Japan to 21st century security realities. Proponents of the change argue that updating the constitution will allow Japan to play a more active role in collective security efforts with its allies, modernize its self-defense capabilities to deter regional aggression, and clarify the legal status of the country’s already expanding military forces.

    Despite these arguments from ruling party officials, the push for revision has sparked deep controversy across Japan and drawn sharp criticism from regional neighbors that suffered under Japanese imperial occupation during World War II. Domestic opposition groups argue that revising the pacifist constitution would break the long-standing national commitment to peace, drag Japan into potential foreign conflicts, and undermine the social consensus that has kept the country focused on diplomatic and economic development over military expansion. Critics across East Asia warn that the shift away from post-war pacifism could destabilize regional security and reignite historical tensions over Japanese militarism.

    As the debate continues to unfold, the future of Japan’s anti-war stance remains one of the most consequential political issues facing the country, with implications that stretch far beyond its borders and reshape the security architecture of the entire Indo-Pacific region.

  • ‘Integrity costs something’: Eurovision winners want Israel out of the contest

    ‘Integrity costs something’: Eurovision winners want Israel out of the contest

    For decades, the Eurovision Song Contest’s governing body has insisted that the annual cultural event is strictly apolitical, aiming to unite European artists and audiences through music rather than global conflict. Yet scratch beneath the surface of the glitzy performances and catchy melodies, and politics has been a persistent, defining presence, shaping the event’s history again and again through high-profile controversies rooted in global tensions. One of the most dramatic examples dates back to 1974, when Portugal’s entry *E depois do adeus* was broadcast across the country just as the Carnation Revolution — the uprising that toppled Portugal’s authoritarian dictatorship and cleared the way for independence for its African colonies — was getting underway, turning the song into an accidental revolutionary signal. More recent decades have brought repeated disputes: in 2009, Azerbaijani authorities interrogated 43 citizens who cast votes for neighboring rival Armenia’s entry, while Ukraine and Russia traded barbs for years over Russia’s invasion of Ukrainian territory before Moscow was expelled from the competition entirely in 2022. Today, however, no controversy looms larger than the fierce debate over Israel’s eligibility to compete in the 2026 contest, hosted this year in Vienna, which erupted after the start of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza in October 2023 that has sparked widespread accusations of genocide.

    Emmelie de Forest, the Danish singer who won Eurovision in 2013 with her hit *Only Teardrops*, is among the most prominent past winners speaking out against Israel’s inclusion. In an interview with Middle East Eye, de Forest framed her opposition as rooted first and foremost in the devastating humanitarian crisis unfolding in Gaza, where tens of thousands of civilian lives have been lost. “It’s also about what it means when cultural institutions try to completely separate themselves from political reality. I don’t think music exists outside the world around us,” she explained. De Forest is one of more than 1,000 global artists who have signed the *No Music For Genocide* petition, which calls for a widespread boycott of the 2026 contest. The list of signatories includes other high-profile names: 1994 Irish Eurovision winner Charlie McGettigan, as well as global music stars Peter Gabriel, Bjork, Massive Attack, Macklemore, Brian Eno and Mogwai, among others.

    While Ireland’s national broadcaster RTE has heeded calls to withdraw from the competition, de Forest’s home country of Denmark remains a participant — a decision she called disappointing, but not unexpected. The singer acknowledged that speaking out has cost her personally: she has cut ties with some friends and put her professional income at risk, but argues that standing by one’s principles requires sacrifice. “sometimes integrity costs something,” she said. “What I find most difficult is the idea that Eurovision can somehow be separated entirely from political reality. I simply don’t believe that is possible anymore. Keeping Israel in the competition is also a political decision.”

    The European Broadcasting Union (EBU), which oversees the Eurovision Song Contest, rejected widespread pressure to bar Israel from competing when it ruled in December 2024 that the country would remain eligible for the 2026 event. In response to that decision, Nemo — the non-binary Swiss artist who won the 2024 contest — announced they would return their winner’s trophy, arguing that Israel’s inclusion directly contradicts the core values Eurovision claims to uphold: unity, inclusion and dignity for all people.

    McGettigan, the 1994 Irish winner, quickly announced he would follow Nemo’s lead — until he realized he had never received a physical trophy to return. “So let’s say I returned a virtual trophy!” he joked to Middle East Eye. For McGettigan, the campaign to withdraw from Eurovision has been deeply personal: an avid lifelong fan of the contest, he joined pro-Palestinian campaigners in lobbying RTE to pull out of 2026, and his advocacy helped convince the broadcaster to vote to withdraw. “I’m a not a member of any organisation…it’s just me personally, and thankfully, the management at RTE decided after a vote that they weren’t going to take part and that’s admirable, I think,” he said.

    McGettigan said he could no longer stay silent after seeing relentless footage of the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, where official counts put the Palestinian death toll at more than 72,000, with thousands more still missing and presumed dead under rubble, and the vast majority of the enclave’s infrastructure reduced to ruin. Even after a US-brokered ceasefire took effect in mid-January 2025, hundreds more Palestinians have been killed, just one week before Israel was formally confirmed as a 2026 contestant. McGettigan added that his awareness of the link between Eurovision and Israeli policy dates back to 2018, when Israel won the contest just days after Israeli forces killed 62 Palestinian civilians, including six children, during the peaceful Great March of Return protests in Gaza. “Now if that had happened in our country, and if 62 people had been murdered like that, we certainly wouldn’t be celebrating winning Eurovision,” he noted.

    Like de Forest, McGettigan rejects the long-held claim that Eurovision should remain strictly apolitical, pointing to the centuries-long tradition of musicians using their platforms to advance social change and call out injustice. “When you look back at people like Pete Seeger from the 1960s, Woody Guthrie, Bob Dylan, Joan Baez, all these artists have used their music to promote peace, to draw attention to injustice,” he said. “There are two strains of thought there, some countries just see this as entertainment, and they don’t see entertainment as having any place for politics – but I do.”

    So far, Spain is the only member of Eurovision’s “Big Five” (the group of largest funding countries that automatically qualify for the final, including the UK, France, Germany and Italy) to announce its withdrawal. After Spain confirmed its exit, Middle East Eye requested comment from the UK’s Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which declined to comment and deferred to the BBC, the UK’s national Eurovision broadcaster. The BBC also declined to comment, and requests for comment from the representing artists for the UK, France and Germany had not been answered by the time of publication.

    As the 70th Eurovision Song Contest prepares to kick off in Vienna next Tuesday, protests are already planned to mobilize outside the competition venue. Austrian police confirmed at a recent press conference that they expect roughly 3,000 demonstrators, with both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel groups planning gatherings, and anticipate attempts to blockade sites and disrupt the event. To maintain security, drones will be banned within a 1.5-kilometer radius of all contest-related sites, and the US FBI has established a dedicated cyber security task force that Austrian authorities can contact around the clock to address potential threats. Adding extra symbolic weight to the protests, the 15 May, the eve of the Eurovision grand final, also marks Nakba Day — the annual commemoration of the 1948 displacement and massacre of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians that accompanied the founding of the State of Israel.

    For her part, de Forest emphasized that her criticism is directed at the EBU and its institutional decision to allow Israel to compete, not at individual participating artists or ordinary Eurovision fans. She says she would not feel comfortable attending the 2026 event, but still values the sense of cross-cultural connection and community that the contest has long fostered for fans around the world. Still, she argues that audiences cannot ignore the ongoing crisis in Gaza: “At the same time, I think people should continue speaking openly, asking difficult questions and refusing to simply move on as if nothing is happening. Fans have more influence than they sometimes realise, especially collectively.”

  • ‘Enjoy the show. Ignore the war’: Venice Biennale faces backlash after including Russia

    ‘Enjoy the show. Ignore the war’: Venice Biennale faces backlash after including Russia

    One of the art world’s most prestigious global gatherings, the Venice Biennale, has been roiled by high-profile demonstrations and bitter political division ahead of its official public opening, centered on the controversial decision to allow Russia to return to the event for the first time since Moscow launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

    Two prominent activist groups – Russian protest punk collective Pussy Riot and Ukraine-founded women’s rights movement FEMEN – teamed up for a dramatic, attention-grabbing demonstration outside the Russian national pavilion. Dressed head-to-toe in black with eye-catching fluorescent pink balaclavas, the activists charged through the Biennale’s iconic canal-side gardens, chanting loudly directly outside the glass-doored pavilion venue. As security personnel scrambled to slam the pavilion’s doors shut to block the protest, the demonstrators ignited colored smoke flares, raised their fists in defiance, and shouted slogans including, “Russia kills! Biennale exhibits!” One prominent protest poster carried a searing message: “Curated by Putin, dead bodies included.”

    Nadya Tolokonnikova, a founding member of Pussy Riot, framed Russia’s reinstatement to the Biennale as a deliberate component of Moscow’s broader hybrid warfare campaign against the West. “They’re drinking vodka and champagne inside their pavilion, soaked in the blood of Ukrainian children,” Tolokonnikova said in an interview. “This isn’t just about tanks, drones, murder and rape in Ukraine. It’s also about culture, art, language – it’s how Russia tries to conquer the West, and you all just opened the doors for them.”

    Controversy over Russia’s return has stretched far beyond the activist protest. The European Commission has issued a strong condemnation of the decision, threatening to withdraw €2 million in core funding for the Biennale. Brussels argues that allowing an aggressor state like Russia to showcase its art on this global platform directly violates the ethical standards tied to the grant. Italy’s national culture minister has also joined the boycott, announcing he will skip the opening of the fair this Saturday. However, high-profile Italian politician Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini – who drew international attention in 2014 for visiting Moscow’s Red Square wearing a Vladimir Putin-branded t-shirt – has rejected calls for a boycott, stating that “No pavilion should be excluded.” Sources familiar with the European Commission’s position indicate Brussels is unimpressed by Rome’s refusal to back the exclusion.

    The political friction at the 61st Venice Biennale is not limited to Russia’s participation. Last week, the entire international jury for the event resigned in protest after a reference was made to countries whose leaders face arrest warrants from the International Criminal Court for suspected war crimes – a designation that covers both Russia and Israel. On Wednesday morning, a separate group of demonstrators targeted the Israeli pavilion, covering the entrance floor with rain-soaked leaflets branding the space a “Genocide Pavilion.” Israel’s foreign ministry has previously hit back, accusing a “political jury” of turning the Biennale into a venue for “anti-Israeli political indoctrination.”

    Venice Biennale president Pietrangelo Buttafuoco, a right-wing former journalist who has publicly expressed admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin, has broken his near-silence on the growing controversy to push back against critics. He slammed calls for the exclusion of Russia and Israel as a “laboratory of intolerance,” dismissing the demands as censorship and exclusion. “If the Biennale began to select not works but affiliations, not visions but passports, it would cease to be what it has always been: the place where the world meets,” Buttafuoco told reporters before walking out of the press conference without taking questions.

    But critics say Buttafuoco’s argument ignores the harsh reality of the war in Ukraine, highlighted by a series of striking posters pasted across Venice this week. The advertisements promote an “Invisible Biennale,” featuring imaginary events by Ukrainian artists and writers killed during the Russian invasion. One entry highlights Volodymyr Vakulenko, a Ukrainian author shot by Russian troops after they occupied his village; each poster is stamped with the line: “Cancelled. Because the author was killed by Russia.”

    Held every two years, the Venice Biennale’s national pavilions are widely viewed as one of the most high-profile platforms for countries to project soft power globally, a role that is particularly significant for authoritarian states seeking to shape international perception. After Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, the curators of the Russian pavilion pulled out in protest, and the space was loaned to Bolivia for the 2024 edition. For this year’s event, a Russian team has filled the pavilion with an installation centered on an upside-down tree paired with experimental sound performances.

    When asked if Russia deserved a place at the Biennale amid its ongoing war in Ukraine, pavilion commissioner Anastasia Karneeva dismissed the question entirely. “This is our house, we come to our place,” she said. “I don’t think about the protests. I am very busy.” Karneeva is the daughter of a deputy head of Rostec, Russia’s massive state-owned weapons producer that is currently under international sanctions; she declined to comment on that connection and ended the interview shortly after.

    Notably, Russia’s participation this year is only partial: the pavilion is set to close after this week’s pre-opening events, and it remains unclear whether the early closure is a response to protests or the impact of ongoing international sanctions. The planned performances, however, have been recorded and will be screened on an outdoor screen for the duration of the fair. The audio from these screenings will carry just a short distance down the garden path – directly toward Ukraine’s official pavilion, located steps away from the main entrance.

    Ukraine’s contribution to the 2026 Biennale carries its own powerful, haunting message. Hanging suspended by thick steel straps from a crane just outside the entrance is a concrete cast of an origami deer, created by Ukrainian artist Zhanna Kadyrova. The sculpture was originally installed in Pokrovsk, a city in eastern Ukraine’s Donbas region, when the frontline with Russian forces was still 40 kilometers away. As Russian troops advanced on the city in 2024, Kadyrova made the decision to evacuate the work to save it from destruction or occupation.

    “We have a destroyed city that does not exist now. I hope this message is clear and people who visit the Biennale can understand it,” Kadyrova explained in a recent interview from her Kyiv studio. The deer has become a poignant symbol of displacement, mirroring the fate of millions of Ukrainians forced to flee their homes by the invasion. “Pokrovsk is now an occupied city. A lot of people were killed there. But we saved this artefact. The question is how many artefacts were not saved in this war? How many other kinds of heritage were destroyed?” she asked. “This was a lively city. And it does not exist now because Russia came.”

  • Iran considering US proposal to end war, official says

    Iran considering US proposal to end war, official says

    Diplomatic efforts to end ongoing conflict between the United States and Iran have entered a new phase this week, with Tehran confirming it will deliver its formal feedback on a US peace framework to Pakistani mediators once internal review is complete. The development follows widespread reports that the two longstanding adversaries may be moving closer to a preliminary agreement, even as hardline rhetoric from both sides and continued regional clashes cast uncertainty over the outcome.

    Earlier this week, US-based news outlet Axios broke the story that the White House is closing in on a 14-point draft memorandum of understanding with Iran, a document that would lay the foundation for future, more in-depth negotiations over Iran’s contested nuclear program. Citing four unnamed sources briefed on the closed-door talks, Axios reported the one-page draft includes three core preliminary provisions: a temporary pause on Iranian uranium enrichment, the rolling back of crippling US economic sanctions on Tehran, and the full reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to global commercial shipping. All draft terms are conditional on a final binding agreement being reached, the sources added.

    The Axios report was later corroborated by two separate sources familiar with the Pakistan-mediated talks who spoke to Reuters, though the full text of the proposal has not been released to the public. Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Esmail Baghaei confirmed the status of Tehran’s review in a statement to the Iranian Students’ News Agency (ISNA), noting: “The American proposal is still being reviewed by Iran and after concluding, it will inform the Pakistani side of its opinion.” Pakistan, which has stepped in as the neutral mediator for the talks, has already signaled its commitment to locking in a durable peace. Pakistani Foreign Minister stated his nation is working to turn the existing ceasefire into a permanent end to hostilities.

    Not all figures within Iran’s government have signaled openness to the US proposal, however. Ebrahim Rezaei, spokesperson for the Iranian Parliament’s national security and foreign policy commission, dismissed the draft as nothing more than a US “wish list” in a post on X. He doubled down on Iran’s hardline stance, warning that “The Americans will not gain anything in a war they are losing that they have not gained in face-to-face negotiations.” Rezaei added that Iran “has its finger on the trigger and is ready,” threatening a “harsh and regret-inducing response” if Washington refuses to surrender and make the required concessions.

    US President Donald Trump has echoed the bellicose rhetoric while also expressing cautious optimism about a deal. In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump warned that if Iran rejects the agreement, “the bombing starts, and it will be, sadly, at a much higher level and intensity than it was before.” At the same time, he claimed the US had held “very good talks with Iran in the last 24 hours” and said a final agreement is well within reach. “They [Iran] want to make a deal. We’ve had very good talks over the last 24 hours and it’s very possible that we’ll make a deal up there,” Trump said, adding “I think we won.” He also repeated an unconfirmed claim that Iran has already agreed to abandon any pursuit of a nuclear weapon, a core sticking point in decades of tensions between the two nations.

    Trump recently announced a pause to Operation Project Freedom, a US mission launched days earlier to escort stranded commercial vessels out of the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz, designed to restore global oil flows and stabilize the global economy. The announcement came after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared that the earlier US-Israeli offensive Operation Epic Fury against Iranian targets had concluded after achieving its core objectives. Trump added that Operation Epic Fury would remain over “assuming Iran agrees to give what has been agreed to.”

    Iran has not yet officially responded to Trump’s pause of the escort mission, but the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has previously hinted the strait would reopen if all aggressive threats from the US and its allies are withdrawn. The strategic waterway, which carries roughly 20% of the world’s global oil and liquefied natural gas supplies, has been effectively closed to most commercial traffic since the US and Israel launched their offensive against Iran in late February. A ceasefire agreed between Washington and Tehran in early Africa paused Iranian drone and missile strikes on Gulf nations including the United Arab Emirates, but very few commercial vessels have been able to safely transit the strait in the months since. The US has also imposed its own naval blockade on Iranian ports, and US Central Command confirmed Wednesday it had fired on and disabled an Iranian-flagged oil tanker in the Gulf of Oman that attempted to break the blockade.

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed Wednesday that there is full strategic coordination between his government and the Trump administration on Iran policy. “There are no surprises. We share common goals, and the most important objective is the removal of all enriched material from Iran and the dismantling of Iran’s enrichment capabilities,” he said. Netanyahu’s comments came shortly after Israeli forces carried out their first strike on Beirut, the capital of Lebanon, since the April ceasefire between Israel and the Iranian-backed militia Hezbollah. Netanyahu wrote on social media that the strike targeted a senior Hezbollah commander responsible for rocket attacks on Israeli civilian settlements and the deaths of IDF soldiers.

    Hezbollah opened its campaign against Israel in early March, launching strikes to retaliate for Israel’s attacks on Iran as part of Operation Epic Fury. Despite the ceasefire agreement reached in April, both sides have repeatedly accused one another of violating the terms and continued low-intensity clashes. Most Israeli airstrikes have targeted southern Lebanese territory, while Hezbollah has regularly launched rocket and drone attacks on Israeli troops along the border and northern Israeli civilian areas.

  • Under rubble and rain, Gaza women try to save rare books in centuries-old library

    Under rubble and rain, Gaza women try to save rare books in centuries-old library

    Against the backdrop of relentless conflict and widespread destruction across Gaza, a small, determined group of Palestinian women volunteers is waging a quiet, urgent battle to save one of Gaza’s most significant cultural treasures from total loss. Their mission centers on the centuries-old library of the Great Omari Mosque, a historic institution reduced to rubble by repeated Israeli bombardment amid the ongoing Gaza genocide.

    Raneem Mousa, a 35-year-old master’s graduate in Arabic language, is one of the volunteer leads on this improvised rescue effort. As she carefully dislodges a water-damaged volume from a war-shattered shelf, she uses a simple hand brush to sweep away decades of dust mixed with rubble and shrapnel before passing the text to a teammate for a gentle wipe down. The recovered book is then carried to the group’s self-designated “safest corner” — a tiny, makeshift holding space tucked away in the damaged mosque, where all salvageable texts are stored.

    When Mousa first arrived at the site after the most recent strikes, the scene was one of total devastation. “The library was filled with shrapnel, rubble, and dung from stray animals taking shelter,” she recalled in an interview with Middle East Eye. “Hundreds of shattered books and torn papers were scattered on the ground, covered in stones.”

    The volunteers, all affiliated with Gaza City’s Eyes on Heritage Institute, have framed their work as a “first-aid mission” to stabilize and preserve whatever can be saved from the library’s irreplaceable collection. Working without any specialized conservation tools, professional cleaning supplies, or formal institutional support, the group has relied on the most basic of materials: dry cloths, simple household brushes, and open air to dry waterlogged volumes damaged by seasonal rain.

    The Great Omari Mosque itself carries profound historical weight: as Gaza’s largest and oldest place of worship, it sits on a site that has hosted sacred structures for millennia, evolving from a Philistine temple to a Roman place of worship, then a Byzantine church, before being converted to a mosque in the 13th century. Its library, ranked the third-largest in all Palestine, once held roughly 20,000 volumes, including 187 rare manuscripts, some of which dated back more than 500 years. Over the course of the ongoing conflict, Israeli forces have bombed the mosque at least three times, leaving the structure in ruins and the library’s collection decimated.

    Despite the crippling challenges of ongoing siege, mass displacement, and a total lack of resources, Mousa and her teammates refuse to abandon their work. For them, this effort is about far more than saving old books: it is a defense of Palestinian identity and historical claims to their land. “This library has an educational and historical value that underscores the Palestinian historical right to their home,” Mousa explained.

    Time is not on their side. Months of exposure to Gaza’s humid, wet winter conditions have accelerated decay, with fungi growing on paper pages and the ink slowly eroding away. “Every time a page crumbles in my hand, I feel a pang of guilt, as if a witness to history is dying,” Mousa said.

    Every step of the rescue work is an exercise in improvisation and sacrifice. Coordinated via a simple WhatsApp group chat, volunteers must arrange trips to the mosque amid conditions that have made travel across Gaza nearly impossible: most of the territory’s population is displaced, nearly all vehicles have been destroyed, and fuel is so scarce that even short journeys cost more than most Gazans can afford. Mousa herself lost her home in Jabalia, northern Gaza, to an Israeli strike, and now lives in a makeshift tent in Deir al-Balah — a displacement that leaves her constantly worried about being able to afford the trip to continue her work.

    The group also lacks safe storage for the books they recover. All volunteers live in overcrowded temporary shelters, so there is no space to move salvaged volumes off-site. The small corner they have set aside in the damaged mosque remains under constant threat from the elements. “We often have to clean them again because the building is still in ruins and offers no real protection,” Mousa noted. “We are racing against the weather; the winter rain and wet wind are just as much an enemy as the bombs were.”

    Mousa says the group’s long-term hope is to secure international funding for proper storage shelves, professional conservation materials, and the equipment needed to digitize the entire surviving collection, preserving these texts digitally even if the physical copies are lost. “People in Gaza have always taken pride in education and culture,” she said. “If we, the educated generation, do not protect these books, who will preserve them for those who come after us?”

    Haneen al-Amasi, 33, director of the all-women Eyes on Heritage Institute, founded the organization in 2009 with a core mission: to rescue, restore, and digitize rare books, manuscripts, and historical documents across Gaza, to safeguard Palestinian cultural heritage for future generations. It was not until a brief ceasefire in March 2025 that al-Amasi was able to visit the Great Omari Mosque library for the first time since the current conflict began — and she said she was unprepared for the scale of the destruction. “Entire archives of books, manuscripts and historical documents were burned or shattered in Israeli attacks,” she told Middle East Eye. “Many others were damaged, eaten by rodents, or taken by displaced people to be used as fuel amid severe gas shortages in Gaza.”

    Many of the lost and damaged texts are irreplaceable: original documents recording centuries of Palestinian life, including scholarly works on jurisprudence, geography, and social customs, with many capturing unique details of life in the Palestinian territories before the 1948 Nakba.

    Al-Amasi argues that the deliberate targeting of libraries and cultural institutions is part of a broader Israeli campaign to erase Palestinian collective memory by destroying the physical evidence of their history and connection to the land. This is not the first time the institute has lost its work to Israeli strikes: during the 2014 Gaza offensive, the group’s original office in eastern Gaza City was bombed, killing five volunteer women who had fled their homes in Shujaiya and taken shelter in the building, and destroying hundreds of books and manuscripts that the team had already archived.

    After that attack, the devastated but determined team rebuilt their operations in a new location, and over the following years managed to recover and digitize hundreds more rare manuscripts, some dating back to the medieval period. In September 2025, that second office was also destroyed in an Israeli air strike. “Once again, we lost our library,” al-Amasi said simply.

    Even after repeated loss, the group has refused to end their work. “We feel it is our duty to keep striving to preserve and revive Palestinian cultural heritage in Gaza,” al-Amasi said. She has reached out to multiple international humanitarian and cultural organizations to request support, but says most global actors prioritize immediate needs like food and medical care in Gaza, ignoring the crisis facing Palestinian cultural heritage. “I believe cultural heritage is just as important,” she emphasized. “Future generations in Palestine will ask what we did to preserve our history.”

    Back at the Great Omari Mosque, the volunteers continue their slow, painstaking work, even as violence and crisis unfold around them. Al-Amasi recalls a time before the current war, when Gaza’s schoolchildren took part in regular reading competitions at the mosque library, an event that drew eager crowds of young learners. Today, Gaza’s children spend their days queuing for food aid and clean water, growing up surrounded by constant trauma from war. “By saving these books, we are trying to ensure that when the war ends, our children have something to read other than news of death,” al-Amasi said.

  • Holders PSG edge Bayern Munich to reach Champions League final

    Holders PSG edge Bayern Munich to reach Champions League final

    Defending UEFA Champions League champions Paris Saint-Germain (PSG) have secured their place in a second consecutive final of the competition, defeating six-time winners Bayern Munich 6-5 on aggregate following a tense 1-1 draw in the second leg at Munich’s Allianz Arena on Wednesday. The French giants will now lock horns with Premier League leaders Arsenal in the May 30 final hosted in Budapest, bidding to become only the second club since 1990 to lift back-to-back Champions League titles, a feat last achieved by Real Madrid.

    The match got off to a blistering start, just as the first leg in Paris — a 5-4 PSG win widely hailed as one of the most thrilling contests in the tournament’s history — did. Just two-and-a-half minutes in, PSG struck on a clinical counter-attack. Fabian Ruiz, who was a forced replacement for injured defender Achraf Hakimi in the only enforced starting lineup change between the two legs, played a pinpoint through ball down the left flank to Georgian winger Khvicha Kvaratskhelia. He surged past his marker before cutting the ball back to Ballon d’Or winner Ousmane Dembele, who slotted home the opening goal to put PSG ahead on the night and 2-0 up on aggregate.

    The early goal left Bayern visibly stunned, mirroring their shaky start against Real Madrid in the quarter-finals where they conceded inside 36 seconds. While they fought back to win that tie, the Bavarian side struggled to find their rhythm in the opening half-hour. Key attackers including Michael Olise, Harry Kane and Joshua Kimmich coughed up possession on multiple promising build-ups, and the hosts grew increasingly frustrated with first-half refereeing calls. Bayern surrounded referee Joao Pinheiro to demand a penalty just after the 30-minute mark when a Vitinha clearance deflected onto Joao Neves’s arm inside the penalty area, but their appeals were rejected. Tensions boiled over even earlier, when home players protested that PSG full-back Nuno Mendes avoided a second yellow card for an earlier handball offense.

    PSG came close to doubling their advantage just before half-time, but a close-range header from Neves was tipped inches wide of the post by Bayern captain and legendary goalkeeper Manuel Neuer. Bayern finally began to find their attacking rhythm in the closing minutes of the first half: Jamal Musiala forced a spectacular low save from PSG keeper Matvey Safonov before firing the rebound over the crossbar.

    In the second half, PSG shifted to a more pragmatic, defensive-minded game plan, dropping deep to absorb wave after wave of Bayern pressure while retaining their threat on the break. Neuer pulled off two critical saves to keep Bayern in the tie, denying Kvaratskhelia and substitute Desire Doue in quick succession. The Bavarians dominated both possession and territory for most of the second half, but they lacked cutting edge in the final third, with Olise turning in a particularly underwhelming performance after his standout showing in the first leg.

    Kane, who has been in sensational form in this season’s competition, finally broke the deadlock for the hosts in stoppage time, scoring in his seventh consecutive Champions League match to level the score on the night. But the goal came too late to change the tie’s outcome: after the restart, referee blew the full-time whistle, confirming PSG’s progression.

    The result brings a disappointing end to Bayern’s European campaign, extending their drought reaching the Champions League final — they have not advanced that far since they defeated PSG in the 2020 Lisbon showpiece. Both clubs headed into the second leg having already played 51 matches across all competitions this season, with only PSG making a forced change to their starting XI from the first leg; unlike the fresh-looking visitors, Bayern looked visibly weary throughout the contest. This defeat marks just Bayern’s fourth loss across all competitions this season, a campaign that has already seen them secure the Bundesliga title, but the elimination will still cut deep for a club with title ambitions in every tournament they enter. For PSG, the result cements their status as favorites to lift the trophy for a second straight year, returning to the Allianz Arena — the venue where they lifted their first ever Champions League title against Inter Milan last season — and proving their big-match pedigree in a competition they spent decades chasing unsuccessfully.

  • Gas tax: How beer fuelled a debate on Australia’s energy giants

    Gas tax: How beer fuelled a debate on Australia’s energy giants

    In a surprising revelation that has electrified Australian political discourse, a senior treasury official confirmed during a February Senate hearing that Australia generates more annual government revenue from beer excise taxes than it does from levies on its multibillion-dollar offshore gas exports. The exchange, captured on video and shared widely across social media, has amassed nearly 10 million views on Instagram alone, catapulting a long-simmering debate over resource taxation into the national spotlight.

    Independent Senator David Pocock, who pressed the official for clarity, summed up widespread public frustration in his question: “How do we live in a country, one of the biggest gas exporters in the world, and we’re getting more tax from beer?” The viral moment has reignited a grassroots campaign led by Pocock, political commentator Konrad Benjamin, and other advocates to implement a 25% tax on Australian gas exports, a policy that has drawn fierce pushback from multinational energy companies operating in the country.

    As Australia grapples with skyrocketing cost-of-living pressures and soaring domestic gas prices, exacerbated by the global fuel crisis triggered by the ongoing US-Israeli conflict with Iran, the debate has dominated front pages just one week ahead of the release of the country’s annual federal budget. Despite broad public support for the policy, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has already ruled out its inclusion in next week’s budget, but the issue shows no signs of fading from the political agenda.

    Former Australian Treasury Secretary Dr Ken Ken Henry, who first proposed a broad mining tax 16 years ago that was ultimately defeated after a massive industry lobbying campaign, has thrown his weight behind the current push. He argued that if the earlier mining tax had been implemented, Australia would have collected tens of billions of dollars in extra revenue that could have been seeded into a intergenerational sovereign wealth fund to fund long-term public services. Henry drew a blunt analogy to explain the current unfairness of Australia’s gas taxation regime: “Imagine if I were to come to you … and put this proposition to you: I’ll sell your house and I’ll give you 30% and I’ll keep the other 70%, and you should be happy with that because I’ve just converted an asset into cash. None of you would be stupid enough to do that.”

    The Australia Institute, a progressive public policy think tank, has further underscored the scope of the revenue gap, noting that Japan generates more tax revenue from importing Australian gas than Australia collects from exporting the resource. The institute estimates that a 25% gas export tax would add around A$17 billion (£9 billion, US$12 billion) to annual government revenue.

    Polling data released last week confirms the policy’s broad popularity with Australian voters, with 57% of respondents backing the proposed gas export tax and just 12% voicing opposition. Many supporters have pointed to Norway’s $2 trillion sovereign wealth fund, built from the country’s oil and gas revenues, as a model for Australia. For comparison, Australia’s existing sovereign wealth fund held just A$267 billion as of December 2025 – less than 10% of Norway’s total, despite Australia having a population five times the size of Norway’s. Supporters argue that increased gas tax revenue could fund popular public programs including more generous parental leave, free tertiary education, and expanded healthcare.

    Benjamin, a former high school teacher turned political YouTuber who testified on the proposal at the recent Senate hearing, has built a large social media following for his videos calling for reform, regularly earning hundreds of thousands of views. “My year 10 business students understand: if something is profitable and we’re holding all the levers of power – look around. How many stable democracies have the many resources that we have? How are we getting such a dud deal?” he told senators.

    The scale of the current revenue gap is hard to overstate. While Australian gas exports hit a record peak of A$90 billion in 2023 amid market turmoil following the Ukraine war, the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT), the primary levy on offshore oil and gas producers, is projected to raise just A$1.5 billion in the 2025-26 financial year. By contrast, beer excise taxes are expected to generate A$2.7 billion in the same period. Even at the country’s flagship Gorgon gas project, majority-owned by Chevron, multinational Shell paid just A$109 million in PRRT last year – its first PRRT payment in a decade – on A$2.5 billion in project revenue.

    Samantha Hepburn, a natural resource law professor at Deakin University, explained that Australia’s tax code includes unusually generous provisions for energy companies that allow them to deduct large upfront infrastructure and development costs from their tax bills, and carry forward unused tax credits to offset future profits for years. “Gas is in a particularly favourable position because of the significant upfront costs associated with construction and drilling and the other infrastructure,” Hepburn said. “And that means that they can keep uplifting those expenses against future profits in a way that other resource or mining resource sector companies haven’t necessarily been able to do.” While gas companies pay standard corporate and payroll taxes like other businesses, Hepburn noted that they exploit a publicly owned natural resource, and existing royalty payments for onshore projects are far smaller than profit-based tax revenue would be. This structure has led to widespread claims that Australia is effectively giving its natural gas away to foreign companies for below market value.

    Energy companies have pushed back hard against the proposed tax, defending their current tax contributions and warning of negative economic consequences. Shell said it has invested US$60 billion in Australia since 2010 and paid A$12 billion in total Australian taxes over the past decade. The company also argued that Norway’s resource model is fundamentally different, as the Norwegian state takes direct equity stakes in energy projects and shares development risk, a structure not used in Australia. Chevron, which holds the majority stake in Gorgon, argued that Australia needs stable regulatory frameworks to attract investment across all sectors, claiming that a new export tax would undermine that stability and threaten domestic gas supply. Energy firm Santos added that the proposal itself has already damaged Australia’s reputation as a reliable investment destination.

    Prime Minister Albanese has rejected comparisons between beer and gas tax revenue as “complete fantasy”, noting that the broader gas sector paid A$22 billion in total taxes last year. Speaking to a gathering of mining and energy executives, he reaffirmed that the government would not impose a new gas export tax in the upcoming budget, saying “the middle of a global fuel crisis is the worst possible time to jeopardise these partnerships, or the investment that underpins them.” Albanese, who recently completed a tour of Asian nations to secure long-term fuel supply agreements, added that gas exports are “directly linked to our national fuel security” and that Australia depends on billions in foreign investment from North American, Japanese and other international partners to develop gas resources.

    However, critics of the government’s position argue that the prime minister’s objections do not hold up to scrutiny. University of Queensland economics professor John Quiggin noted that imposing a new export tax would not violate existing contracts, as no commercial agreement can bind future governments to permanent tax policy. He also pushed back on claims that the tax would drive away foreign investment, asking “Where are they going to go?” Quiggin added that the old argument that foreign investors must be treated with extreme leniency or they will abandon the market is outdated, pointing to shifting global norms including former US President Donald Trump’s unilateral imposition of global tariffs in recent years. Hepburn further noted that fears of deterring new gas investment conflict with Australia’s own climate targets, which require the country to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, meaning new large-scale gas development should not be prioritized anyway.

    While the gas export tax is all but certain to be left out of next week’s budget, most political analysts agree that reform is ultimately inevitable, given the policy’s broad cross-partisan popularity, ranging from the left-wing Greens to the right-wing One Nation. Pocock and his supporters have vowed to continue their campaign, and Pocock tweeted earlier this week that “The pressure on government to act is growing and, at some point, the prime minister has to put Australia first.”

  • Satellite imagery suggests far more US assets in Middle East hit by Iran than reported

    Satellite imagery suggests far more US assets in Middle East hit by Iran than reported

    Fresh analysis of declassified satellite imagery has uncovered that the true scale of damage inflicted by Iranian strikes on United States military infrastructure across the Middle East has been dramatically understated in earlier public disclosures and media reporting, according to a sweeping new investigation.

    The Washington Post’s inquiry, which cross-referenced high-resolution satellite data with on-the-ground intelligence, has concluded that Iranian aerial attacks have damaged or completely destroyed at least 228 distinct structures and pieces of military equipment at US-operated sites throughout the region since the outbreak of the current conflict in late February. The targeted assets include critical military infrastructure: aircraft hangars, troop barracks, fuel storage depots, fixed-wing aircraft, and high-value radar, communications, and air defense systems that underpin US military operations in the Gulf.

    The outlet’s findings confirm that the total scope of destruction far exceeds the casualty and damage figures that the US government has previously acknowledged publicly. To date, Iranian attacks have claimed the lives of seven US service members: six based in Kuwait and one in Saudi Arabia, while more than 400 additional troops have sustained a range of injuries from the strikes, according to the investigation.

    The wave of Iranian strikes across regional targets was launched in response to the joint US-Israeli assault on Iran, which has killed more than 3,500 Iranian people, per data compiled by Hrana, a US-based Iranian human rights organization. The majority of Iranian counterattacks have focused on US military assets positioned across Gulf Cooperation Council states.

    On Tuesday, the United Arab Emirates confirmed that Iran had launched a second consecutive day of strikes on its territory, unleashing a heavy barrage of drone and missile attacks. Abu Dhabi officials added that one of the strikes ignited a large fire at an oil refinery in Fujairah, leaving three Indian nationals wounded.

    The escalation comes amid chaotic shifts in US military strategy around the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most critical energy chokepoint. Iran closed the strategic waterway in response to the US-Israeli assault, triggering a global energy crisis. An estimated 20% of the world’s daily crude oil shipments and a fifth of global liquefied natural gas supplies pass through the strait, which sits between Iran and Oman. The International Energy Agency has confirmed that the closure has caused the largest single loss of global energy supply in history, cutting more than 10 million barrels of daily oil output from global markets and reducing worldwide LNG supplies by one-fifth.

    Just one day after the Pentagon launched a new escorted shipping operation through the strait dubbed “Project Freedom” – a mission supported by more than 100 aircraft and roughly 15,000 US military personnel, according to US Central Command – former President Donald Trump announced Tuesday that he was halting the operation in an unexpected move to pursue a negotiated agreement with Iran to de-escalate the conflict.

  • Foreign actors like Russia interfering in Alberta separatist debate, new report says

    Foreign actors like Russia interfering in Alberta separatist debate, new report says

    A new joint investigation by three leading democratic security organizations has uncovered coordinated efforts by foreign actors from Russia and the United States to inflame separatist sentiment in Canada’s western province of Alberta, posing a direct threat to the country’s democratic stability and national sovereignty. The findings come at a critical moment, as a grassroots separatist movement has confirmed it has collected enough signatures via a citizen petition to trigger a possible independence referendum as early as October 19 this year.

    The Alberta separatist movement grew out of long-standing frustrations labeled “western alienation,” a sentiment held by many local residents who argue their province’s priorities, particularly around its abundant natural resource reserves, are consistently sidelined by federal policymakers based in Ottawa. While support for full independence remains a minority position, recent polling puts backing for separation at roughly 25% of the province’s population, and the grassroots push for a public vote has gained measurable traction in recent months.

    Released Wednesday by the Global Centre for Democratic Resilience, the Centre for Artificial Intelligence, Data and Conflict, and DisinfoWatch, the report details how foreign actors are leveraging existing genuine regional grievances — including widespread beliefs that Alberta’s resource wealth is unfairly exploited by the federal government — to push division across Canada. Disinformation operations are being carried out through social media platforms, Russian-aligned information networks, and covert online accounts, the investigation found.

    Researchers emphasized that when outside powers amplify separatist rhetoric, normalize territorial break-up, erode public trust in Canadian democratic institutions, and encourage national division, the debate is no longer a purely domestic provincial political issue. “It becomes a direct threat to Canada’s democratic integrity, national security, and cognitive sovereignty,” the report’s authors wrote.

    Marcus Kolga, director of DisinfoWatch, told the BBC that protecting unmanipulated domestic debate is a core priority for Canadian security. The social media accounts analyzed in the investigation all had documented histories of spreading disinformation in previous conflicts and political campaigns. Their content, researchers confirmed, is deliberately crafted to stoke tension around the separatist debate and is targeted to reach like-minded Albertans already sympathetic to separatist ideas.

    The report characterizes Russia’s involvement in the movement as covert, doctrinally aligned, operationally active, and sustained over time. The end goal of these operations is to push foreign-backed narratives into local public discourse, creating what researchers call a “laundering effect” that blends local grievances with foreign strategic goals to amplify division. The investigation also uncovered the use of modern digital tools to spread disinformation: economic opportunists are leveraging generative artificial intelligence, paid voice actors, and professional video production to create content that mimics authentic Canadian political commentary, flooding public debate with false and misleading claims.

    Beyond Russian covert activity, the report notes that American influencers have also joined the campaign, pouring external fuel on the separatist fire to provoke political unrest. Kolga added that senior officials from former U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration held direct meetings with Alberta separatist leaders and made public statements endorsing their separatist cause. The revelation of these contacts earlier this year prompted Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and Alberta’s Premier to issue a joint statement calling on the United States to respect Canadian sovereignty.

    Even if the referendum moves forward in October, and even if a majority votes in favor of separation, the path to full independence would be long and fraught with uncertainty. Canadian federal law sets clear binding conditions for any provincial independence referendum, including requiring a clearly worded ballot question, independent oversight from the House of Commons, and a “clear majority” of voter support. If all legal conditions are met, Alberta would still need to enter into complex, potentially years-long negotiation with the federal government to finalize the terms of separation.