Romania election 2025: Results, who’s standing and what’s at stake?
Romanians will head to the polls on Sunday, May 4, to elect their next president in the first round of a “do-over” election, the second such poll within six months. The Eastern European country previously held a presidential election on November 24, 2024, from which far-right candidate Calin Georgescu, who was polling in single digits during the campaign, surprisingly emerged victorious. That result was annulled after reports emerged of alleged Russian election interference in favour of Georgescu, throwing the country into a political crisis. Romania’s elections authority banned the pro-Moscow independent in March. He is now subject to criminal investigations. Here’s everything you need to know about the redo vote and who the top contenders are: Where and when will polls open in Romania? Polls will open at 7am (04:00 GMT) on Sunday, May 4 and close at 9pm (18:00 GMT). Voters can cast their ballot at any of 18,979 polling stations around the country. An additional 965 stations will be set up in countries with big diaspora communities, including Malta, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Moldova and the United States. Advertisement How do presidential elections work in Romania? The president is elected for a five-year term in a two-round voting system. A president can serve up to two terms. A candidate must secure more than 50 percent of all registered votes to be declared a winner in the first round. If no candidate achieves the 50 percent threshold on May 4, a run-off will be held on May 18 between the two top finishers. The candidate with the most votes will be declared the winner. What are the main issues driving this election? Wages and inflation The rising cost of food and other basics in the country is likely to be the biggest factor in how people choose to vote. The country’s economy has steadily been on the decline for decades, forcing many young people to seek work abroad. Close to one-third of the population faces poverty. Corruption There is deep-rooted anger over how establishment parties have run the country since the fall of the communist government in 1989. Romania scores among the bottom four countries in Europe in terms of corruption, according to Transparency International. Voters generally have little trust in public institutions and politicians. Ideological divide Romania, like several other European nations, faces growing questions from sections of its population about its support for Ukraine in the war against Russia. More right-leaning voters are against additional backing for Kyiv. Overall, voters are split between wanting a government more removed from the West and closer to Russia, and one that’s pro-European Union and NATO. Advertisement This divide is reflected in the makeup of Romania’s parliament. Following parliamentary elections on December 1 last year, Romania’s pro-Europe parties came together to form a majority government in a bid to shut out far-right nationalists. The ruling National Coalition for Romania was formed when the pro-Europe Social Democratic Party (PSD), which topped the polls in the December election but failed to achieve a majority, reached an agreement with the centre-right National Liberal Party (PNL), the reformist Save Romania Union party (USR), and the small ethnic Hungarian UDMR party. Overall, the coalition holds 58 of the 134 seats in the Senate, the upper house, and 135 seats out of 331 in the lower Chamber of Deputies. On the anti-EU side, the most popular party is the far-right Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR), which is led by presidential candidate George Simion. It holds 28 seats in the Senate and 61 in the Chamber of Deputies. SOS Romania, also a far-right party, holds another 12 seats in the Senate and 28 seats in the Chamber of Deputies. The far-right Party of Young People (POT) holds 24 lower and seven upper seats. Overall, these euro-sceptic parties hold 113 seats in the Chamber of Deputies – not far behind the ruling coalition’s 135. Given this divide, the EU will have its eyes on this presidential election. Who are the main contenders? George Simion, 38 The right-wing, eurosceptic politician is leader of the Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR) and is currently leading the polls with support from 30 percent of voters as of April 26, according to Politico’s Poll of Polls (an average of all the polls). Advertisement Simion, who is perceived as being pro-Moscow – like Georgescu who is a former member of AUR – and is backed by nationalist camps, criticised the decision to annul the controversial November elections. He is opposed to same-sex marriage and is a euro-sceptic. He has also spoken out against sending aid to Ukraine. He has advocated for taking back territory from Ukraine and Moldova that once belonged to Romania. In May 2015, Simion was declared “persona non grata” by Moldova and barred from entering the country for five years on the grounds that he was “endangering national security”. This ban was renewed for a further five years in February 2024. Simion was criticised in 2019 for supporting the election to parliament of two former military officers accused of suppressing revolutionaries in the country’s 1989 overthrow of communist rule. The leader of the radical-right Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR) party, George Simion, looks on following initial exit polls at the party’s campaign headquarters on the day of the parliamentary election, in Bucharest, Romania, December 1, 2024 [File: Alkis Konstantinidis/Reuters] Crin Antonescu, 65 The independent candidate and longtime politician is backed by the more centrist governing Social Democratic Party and National Liberal Party alliance (PSD-PNL). According to Politico’s Poll of Polls, Antonescu, who was a one-time acting president and head of the Senate, was polling at 24 percent as of April 26. He supports Romania’s membership of the EU and NATO. He is also in favour of sending more aid to Ukraine. Advertisement Antonescu has highlighted his political experience in his campaigns. Electoral posters are seen in Bucharest before Romania’s presidential elections on April 29, 2025 [Andreea Campeanu/Reuters] Nicusor Dan, 55 The activist
Singapore votes as city-state prepares to mark 60 years of independence
Singapore – David Wee has lived in the same terrace house with his family in the east of Singapore his entire life. But over more than 40 years, the Wee family have been a part of five different electoral constituencies. Singaporean electoral boundary changes occurring shortly before every general election have led government critics to raise accusations of gerrymandering – deliberately manipulating constituency boundaries to favour a particular political party. According to Singapore’s Elections Department, which is overseen by the Prime Minister’s Office, the latest boundary changes – the most extensive in years – were driven by voter growth and future housing developments. Despite the criticism, Saturday’s election in Singapore – where some 2.76 million people are scheduled to vote – is set to return the long-ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) to power. The PAP has won every election in this prosperous global financial centre since declaring independence in 1965. While there is little danger of the PAP losing power, elections here are seen as a test of public sentiment towards the ruling party. This election is also seen as a referendum on Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, who took over from former premier Lee Hsien Loong last year. Singapore’s Prime Minister Lawrence Wong at a People’s Action Party (PAP) rally in advance of the general election in Singapore on April 26, 2025 [Edgar Su/Reuters] Voting is also compulsory in Singapore – where elections are held every five years, and though modelled after the United Kingdom’s Westminster parliamentary system, one of the quirks of Singapore is that voters are either part of a single-member voting constituency or a Group Representation Constituency (GRC). Advertisement People in a GRC, rather than vote for individual candidates, cast their ballots for teams of up to five politicians. Within each team, at least one candidate must be from a minority ethnic group. Authorities say the team vote is to ensure minority representation in the city-state’s parliament, but critics say it is a means of parachuting new candidates into the legislature as part of a group. The vote will see 97 members of parliament elected in 33 constituencies made up of 15 single-member constituencies and 18 GRCs. But with no opposition to contest one of the GRCs, the PAP has already scored a walkover for a five-member team, meaning just 92 seats will be contested today. For David Wee, constituency boundaries are not really an issue. “It’s something that can happen to anybody, especially if you live in a Single Member Constituency, which can be easily absorbed” into a GRC, he told Al Jazeera. What is an issue though, he says, is the rising cost of living, inflation, and other concerns around life and work in one of the world’s richest nations. “I will support whomever I think can serve the residents well,” he said, adding that Singapore’s voters are more discerning now and should not be taken for granted. “Our voters have become more educated,” he said. Singapore, after all, is “a developed country, not a developing country”, he added. The Merlion statue in front of Singapore’s business district in 2019 [Vincent Thian/AP] Singapore bling Singapore is one of the world’s most expensive cities, with some of the highest living standards globally. Advertisement Alongside a world-class public transport system, it also has the most expensive cars in the world, thanks to a licensing system that sees owners shell out tens of thousands of dollars simply for the right to own a vehicle, alongside congestion pricing, road tax and other expenses. “If you can’t afford it, you can’t afford it,” said Lim Meng Wee, 57, a consultant in the local real estate capital field who has owned several cars over the years. “A car is a very expensive luxury. It eats into your balance sheet and you will have to keep working harder. I know of people who bought a car, and within two to three years, they were back to public transport,” he said. Singapore’s economic success, generally low crime and expectation of personal safety for citizens has come in tandem with a low tolerance for dissent. That has been enforced by wide-ranging laws that allow for, among others, penalties for wounding racial and religious feelings, as well as detention without trial. Labour strikes are outlawed too, and a permit is required for demonstrations, which is strictly observed. One prominent dissident who held up a cardboard sign with a smiley face outside the State Courts in 2020 to make a symbolic point about the administration of justice was fined for illegal assembly. In February, six people in their 20s were questioned by police and had their electronic devices seized over a protest at a local university against Israel’s war on Gaza. Attendees hold signs during a protest against the death penalty at Speakers’ Corner in Singapore on April 3, 2022 [Roslan Rahman/AFP] Critics and media outlets have been the subject of defamation lawsuits by government ministers, while many politicians and activists were imprisoned from the 1960s into the 1980s. Advertisement In addition, the mainstream media is solidly pro-establishment while the country is ranked 123rd in the world in terms of press freedom. All media outlets must tread carefully with a government accustomed to taking matters to court when unhappy with coverage. Two ministers recently launched a defamation lawsuit against Bloomberg News – which is continuing – over an article about multimillion-dollar property transactions in the country. Singapore at 60 – the social compact going strong In August, this multicultural, multilingual island nation of about six million celebrates its 60th year of independence. It turns 60 as an economic heavyweight, and one of the cleanest, safest, least corrupt places in the world. Gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in 1965 was about $500. Last year, figures from the International Monetary Fund showed the figure was about $93,000. All this has been accomplished under the PAP, which was co-founded by the country’s first premier Lee Kuan Yew, and which remains the only governing party Singaporeans have ever
Former Tunisian PM handed 34-year sentence, rejects ‘terrorism’ charges
Former Prime Minister Ali Larayedh and the opposition Ennahdha party have denounced the trial as politically motivated. A Tunisian court has sentenced former Prime Minister Ali Larayedh to 34 years in prison over accusations he facilitated the departure of fighters to Syria – a charge the opposition figure strongly denies. “I was neither sympathetic, nor complicit, nor neutral, nor lenient towards violence, terrorism,” Larayedh told the judge on Friday, rejecting what he and his Ennahdha party have called a politically motivated prosecution. The ruling is the latest blow to the Ennahdha party, a major opposition force to President Kais Saied. Larayedh, who served as prime minister from 2013 to 2014, has been in detention since 2022. His sentencing comes just a week after the arrest of vocal Saied critic Ahmed Souab and new prison terms handed down to political opponents, media figures and businesspeople on various conspiracy charges. According to state news agency TAP, the sentences apply to eight individuals, with prison terms ranging from 18 to 36 years. The court did not name those convicted alongside Larayedh. Advertisement Ennahdha denies all terrorism-related allegations, arguing that the case is part of a broader campaign against dissent that has intensified since Saied suspended parliament and assumed sweeping powers in 2021. The government maintains that Tunisia’s judiciary is independent, rejecting claims of political interference. Human rights groups, however, say the crackdown on opposition voices – including the jailing of Souab – marks a dangerous escalation. Many warn that democratic gains in the birthplace of the Arab Spring in the years since the 2011 revolution are being steadily rolled back. Growing protests against Tunisian president Saied faced protests on Thursday as opponents took to the streets of Tunis, accusing him of using the judiciary and police to silence dissent. The demonstration, the second in a week, comes amid growing alarm over what critics see as an authoritarian drift in the country that sparked the Arab Spring. Marching down Habib Bourguiba Avenue, anti-Saied protesters chanted slogans including “Saied go away, you are a dictator” and “The people want the fall of the regime” – echoing the calls that fuelled the 2011 uprising that ousted former President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. Supporters of Saied held a counter-rally on the same boulevard, shouting, “No to foreign interference” and “The people want Saied again”. The opposition accuses Saied of undermining the democracy won in the 2011 revolution, since he seized extra powers in 2021 when he shut down the elected parliament and moved to rule by decree before assuming authority over the judiciary. Advertisement Adblock test (Why?)
Judge strikes down Trump’s executive order targeting law firm Perkins Coie
A United States district judge has struck down an executive order from President Donald Trump that targeted the law firm Perkins Coie over its representation of his Democratic election rival Hillary Clinton. On Friday in Washington, DC, Judge Beryl A Howell issued a five-page order declaring the executive order unconstitutional. “Executive Order 14230 is unlawful, null and void in its entirety and therefore should be disregarded,” Howell wrote in the order. The ruling is the first to permanently nullify one of the executive orders Trump has issued against a law firm. His administration is expected to appeal. As part of Judge Howell’s order, the Trump administration must cease any investigations of Perkins Coie, restore any rescinded services and allow the law firm to resume its “ordinary course of business” with the government. In her full 102-page ruling, Judge Howell spelled out her rationale, declaring Trump’s executive order represented “an unprecedented attack” on the country’s “foundational principles”. Advertisement “No American President has ever before issued executive orders like the one at issue in this lawsuit,” she said in her opening lines. “In purpose and effect, this action draws from a playbook as old as Shakespeare, who penned the phrase: ‘The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.’” Trump’s executive order, she added, offers a new twist on that Shakespearean phrase: “Let’s kill the lawyers I don’t like.” The case began on March 6, when Trump published Executive Order 14230 under the title, “Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP”. Citing the law firm’s work with Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign, the executive order suspended the law firm’s security clearances, limited its access to government buildings and ordered agencies to terminate contracts with Perkins Coie when possible. A handful of other law firms were also targeted with executive orders, including WilmerHale, Paul Weiss and Jenner & Block. Many had either represented causes unfavourable to Trump or had employed individuals with whom the president had expressed open displeasure. But the idea that the president could withdraw services, security clearances, and even building access — simply because he disagreed with a law firm — raised questions about the constitutionality of those orders. Critics pointed out that the First Amendment of the US Constitution protects individuals and companies from facing government retaliation for their free speech. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments, meanwhile, protect the right to due process and the right to seek legal counsel from law firms like Perkins Coie. Advertisement Many of the law firm’s clients had cases intimately involved with the inner workings of the government. Perkins Coie even said in its filings that its lawyers had to “necessarily interact with the federal government on behalf of their clients”. It also added that some of its clients had started to reconsider working with Perkins Coie, in light of the executive order’s restrictions. In April, more than 500 law firms signed an amicus brief in support of Perkins Coie, arguing that Trump’s actions “would threaten the survival of any law firm” — and scare away clients. Judge Howell validated those concerns in her ruling, saying that the law firm had “shown monetary harm sufficient to establish irreparable harm”. She also called the executive order an “overt attempt to suppress and punish certain viewpoints”. But rather than face such punitive action, several high-profile law firms decided to cut a deal with the White House. Paul Weiss was believed to be the first to strike a bargain, offering the administration $40m in pro bono legal services. Others followed suit: The firms Skadden, Milbank and Willkie Farr & Gallagher each agreed to perform $100m in free legal services. In her ruling, Judge Howell warned that Trump’s executive orders against law firms could have a chilling effect on the entire profession and were tantamount to a power grab. “Eliminating lawyers as the guardians of the rule of law removes a major impediment to the path to more power,” she wrote. The Constitution, she added, “requires that the government respond to dissenting or unpopular speech or ideas with ‘tolerance, not coercion’”. Advertisement Adblock test (Why?)
Australia’s election will show if PM Anthony Albanese has won back voters
Australians are heading to the polls shortly in parliamentary elections which will decide if Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s centre-left Labor government will return for a second term. Labor’s main rival is the country’s conservative coalition, led by opposition leader Peter Dutton, which came into the election campaign polling strongly but is now lagging slightly behind Labor. If Albanese does win, it could mean Australia is following in similar footsteps to Canada, where the Liberal party reversed its prospects in recent weeks, amid concerns about the effect of United States President Donald Trump’s policies on Canada’s economy. Amy Remeikis, chief political analyst at the Australia Institute, an independent research centre, told Al Jazeera that polls indicate President Trump is “an increasing concern for Australian voters” and that “Labor’s gamble of holding a later election to allow some of Trump’s policies to start to impact has paid off.” In comparison with Canada, where both major parties tried to distance themselves from Trump, Remeikis notes that Australia’s opposition leader Dutton has courted “favourable comparisons” to Trump for months. Advertisement But, he has been “badly damaged by the ‘Temu Trump’ label” – a reference to the Chinese online shopping website known for selling cheap copies of original brands. The Archbishop of Sydney Anthony Fisher and Liberal Party leader Peter Dutton after attending mass, following the death of Pope Francis, at Saint Mary’s Cathedral in Sydney, Australia, on April 22, 2025 [Hollie Adams/Reuters] War on Gaza and the price of eggs Uncertainty around Trump’s tariffs on Australia has only compounded the concerns of many Australians around the cost of essential items, including housing, food, healthcare and childcare. In the final televised leaders’ debate, a week before the election, both Dutton and Albanese stumbled when asked to guess how much a dozen eggs might cost at a supermarket. Albanese was closer, guessing 7 Australian dollars, nearly two dollars less than the actual price of $8.80, while Dutton guessed $4.20, less than half the actual price. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese during an appearance as a guest on the Sunday Footy Show during the federal election campaign in Sydney, Australia, on April 20, 2025 [Alex Ellinghausen/Pool via Reuters] Cost of living has “trumped everything” leading into the election, says Josie Hess, who comes from the Latrobe Valley, a coal-mining region in Victoria, and who also works for advocacy group Environment Victoria. For a number of Australians, the most important issue on election day will be beyond Australia’s borders, says Nasser Mashni, the president of the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network (APAN). Advertisement Mashni told Al Jazeera that “the genocide that is occurring in Palestine” has seen a “new constituency” emerge in Australia that understands that Israel is “a settler colonialist movement doing exactly what occurred here [in Australia] 238 years ago”. APAN has developed a scorecard of where the major parties stand on Palestine. Of those, only the Greens received a tick from APAN on every issue. The scorecard for Labor was mixed, while the conservative Liberal-National coalition did not meet a single criterion. “We’ve asked for people to make Palestine their number one issue and to find a candidate that best reflects a just and humane position for Palestine,” Mashni said. “Certainly, the easiest candidates to find will be in the Senate, but I am sure there’ll be somebody in every seat where they can vote a little bit better for Palestine, and in some cases, very well for Palestine,” he added. Dozens of minor parties and independents from across the political spectrum are also vying for votes. Remeikis said there is a “late surge to the nationalistic, far-right, One Nation party”, which has been aided by Dutton’s conservative coalition preferencing votes for One Nation, and vice versa, in outer suburban and inner regional seats. Next year marks 30 years since One Nation’s leader Pauline Hanson was first elected to federal office in Australia. But Remeikis says the late surge is unlikely to affect the outcome of the election, with polls suggesting Labor will win with a minority government. The Greens, along with some independents running on pro-climate action platforms, will also be hoping to repeat successes in Australia’s 2022 election, which followed many months of devastating fires and floods. People arrive at a polling centre as early voting begins in Sydney on April 22, 2025 [Mark Baker/AP] Going nuclear With climate change remaining a key concern for many Australians, Dutton, whose party has long delayed taking action on climate, has chosen to focus on campaigning to build Australia’s first-ever nuclear power stations in areas where coal power stations are closing down, such as the Latrobe Valley, in Victoria. Advertisement This week, organisations representing more than 350,000 emergency and health services workers released a letter calling on Dutton to drop his plan to introduce nuclear energy to Australia, saying “Australia’s current emergency services do not have the support or resources to respond to nuclear disasters.” Josie Hess, a Latrobe Valley local who works for Environment Victoria, told Al Jazeera that people there still have questions about the viability of Dutton’s proposal. She says people in the valley “desperately need jobs” but the timeline to build nuclear means that it would do little to help workers now. “We have some people who support nuclear but for the most part, the Latrobe Valley is not a monolith, and there is clear and demonstrable opposition to the proposal,” she said. And while economic issues are a concern, she added, there is also an “intrinsic link between climate security and cost of living and housing”. Melissa Sweet, who runs public health news site Croakey, told Al Jazeera that climate change remains a key issue for Australian health workers heading into the election. “Heatwaves, floods, and bushfires are already driving up demand for emergency care, mental health services, and chronic disease management,” Sweet said. The recent US cuts to “public health, global health and climate action and science generally” under Trump mean it’s “more important than ever” that the next Australian
US man sentenced to 53 years for the murder of a Palestinian American child
The death of six-year-old Wadee Alfayoumi, a Palestinian American, has shone a light on instances of anti-Arab hate. A United States man has been sentenced to 53 years in prison for the fatal stabbing of a six-year-old Palestinian American boy, after being found guilty of hate crime charges and murder. Judge Amy Bertani-Tomczak announced the sentence on Friday in the case of 73-year-old Illinois landlord Joseph Czuba. On October 14, 2023, just days after the start of Israel’s war in Gaza, Czuba attacked two of his tenants, Hanan Shaheen and her young son Wadee Alfayoumi. Police say Czuba arrived at their door angry about the war and proceeded to force his way inside, strangling Shaheen and holding her down before pulling out a military-style knife. Shaheen suffered more than a dozen stab wounds before escaping to a bathroom to call 911 for help. Alfayoumi, meanwhile, was stabbed 26 times. He did not survive. Czuba’s trial featured audio from Shaheen’s panicked 911 call, as well as testimony from the mother herself. Speaking from the witness stand in English and Arabic, she described Czuba becoming increasingly paranoid and Islamophobic as the war progressed. Advertisement For nearly two years before the attack, the family had rented a pair of bedrooms in Czuba’s house in Plainville, Illinois, just outside of Chicago. But after the war began on October 7, Shaheen recalled Czuba telling her to move out of her lodgings because Muslims were not welcome. Then, during the attack, she once again heard him citing her Muslim faith. “He told me ‘You, as a Muslim, must die,’” said Shaheen. The incident was one of the highest-profile acts of anti-Palestinian, anti-Arab and anti-Muslim violence in the US after the war in Gaza broke out. But advocates say it is part of a trend of anti-Palestinian and Islamophobic hate that has swept the country in recent months. Wadee Alfayoumi’s father, Oday Alfayoume, and his uncle, Mahmoud Yousef, attend a vigil on October 17, 2023 [Nam Y Huh/AP Photo] After the attack, police found Czuba sitting on the ground outside of the home, his hands and body bloody. Czuba pleaded not guilty, and his defence team has sought to vacate his conviction on the grounds that the prosecution played to the jury’s emotions. Some of the images of the crime scene were so graphic that the judge ordered the court’s television screens to be turned away from the audience. Jury members heard Shaheen telling 911 operators in fear, “The landlord is killing me and my baby!” During his opening statements, Michael Fitzgerald, the assistant state’s attorney for Will County, described Alfayoumi’s final moments as full of horror. “He could not escape,” Fitzgerald said. “If it wasn’t enough that this defendant killed that little boy, he left the knife in the little boy’s body.” Advertisement In February, the jury took less than 90 minutes to return a guilty verdict. On Friday, Judge Bertani-Tomczak rejected the defence’s bid to overturn the conviction. In announcing the sentence, she called Czuba’s actions “brutal” and “heinous”. She said a 30-year prison sentence was given for Alfayoumi’s murder, plus another 20 years for the attack on his mother and three years for committing a hate crime. Hela Yousef, second from left, prays for her slain cousin, six-year-old Wadee Alfayoumi, outside the Will County Courthouse on February 28 [Nam Y Huh/AP Photo] Alfayoumi’s great-uncle, Mahmoud Yousef, was the only family member to speak at the sentencing hearing. He said no amount of prison time could ever make up for the loss his family has suffered. He also explained that Alfayoumi had seen Czuba as a grandfather figure, and he questioned what “fake news” about the war in Gaza could have prompted such violence. “Some people are bringing this war to this country,” Yousef said. “We cannot do that. We can’t bring the war here. We cannot bring hatred to this country.” In March, the Council on American-Islamic Relations issued a report saying it had received 8,658 complaints of anti-Muslim and anti-Arab incidents in the last year alone, a 7.6 percent rise. It was the highest tally the group had recorded since it began collecting data in 1996. Adblock test (Why?)
ICJ hearing on Israel’s obligation to allow aid to Palestine: Key takeaways
On May 2, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) concluded public hearings into what Israel’s obligations are regarding allowing United Nations agencies and other relief groups to work in the Palestinian territory it occupies. A panel of judges has heard oral arguments from 40 countries since Monday, including China, France, Indonesia, Pakistan, Russia and the United Kingdom. The court will likely deliberate for months before making a ruling, requested of it in December by the UN General Assembly. Many of the participating states rebuked Israel for acutely restricting humanitarian aid into Gaza since launching a genocidal war on the enclave on October 7, 2023. Israel has cut off all aid – food or medicine – entirely for the last two months, accelerating the starvation and medical crises. Here are the key takeaways from the hearings: Starvation threatens the Palestinians as a people There was broad consensus that Israel, as an occupying power, would be obliged to allow aid organisations to deliver assistance to the people it occupies, particularly in Gaza, which Israel is also bombing. Advertisement Israel has weakened human rights norms through its violations in Gaza, Juliette McIntyre, a legal scholar at the University of South Australia, argued. She pointed out that nearly all the states speaking at the hearings affirmed that the ability of Palestinians to receive humanitarian relief is necessary for their survival, to guard their right to eventual self-determination and safeguard the entire UN system and the treaties underpinning it. Put bluntly, she said most states agree that Israel should not be allowed to starve civilians it occupies nor impede the relief work of UN agencies. “Every state, except for two, agrees that Israel is an occupier and it owes certain obligations,” she told Al Jazeera. Palestinians, mostly children, wait in long lines with empty pots in their hands to get food aid distributed by charity organisations in northern Gaza City on May 1, 2025 [Karam Hassan/Anadolu Agency] What did Israel say? Israel submitted written statements which called the hearings a “circus” and accused the court of anti-Semitism. On top of that, it claimed that it has no obligation to work with what it described as compromised UN organs or aid groups and that its sovereign right to “defend itself” takes priority over its responsibility to deliver aid to the people it occupies. This is not the first time Israel has refused to attend ICJ sessions leading to an advisory opinion. The US statement The US defended Israel, said Heidi Matthews, assistant professor of law at York University, Canada. Advertisement She added that the US tried to deny the severity of the situation and shield Israel from accountability by deliberately not speaking about the facts on the ground. According to Matthews, while the US mainly said the ICJ should advise Israel to uphold its legal obligations under international law, it did not provide details of Israel’s conduct or call for Israel to take concrete steps to mitigate the humanitarian crisis it created. “This kind of highly formalist and factually empty approach to law is characteristic of one form of fascist engagement with legal argument,” Matthews told Al Jazeera. The US also tried to “spook” the court by bringing up Israel’s unsupported allegations that the UN relief agency for Palestinians (UNRWA) had been infiltrated by Hamas, said Adel Haque, a legal scholar at Rutgers University. In October 2024, Israel banned UNRWA, which aids the Palestinians made refugees by the Zionist ethnic cleansing that made way for the declaration of Israel as a state in 1948. The US is betting that the court can be swayed, Haque said, and so it is trying to encourage a more “general” advisory opinion. “Basically, if the advisory opinion is made at such a high level of generality, then it wouldn’t say anything about Israel’s conduct at all,” he told Al Jazeera. More than two million Palestinians in Gaza are starving as they face genocidal levels of violence at Israel’s hands. ICJ cases as a substitute for action? While ICJ advisory opinions reaffirm international laws and norms, its non-binding opinions cannot change facts on the ground, and some countries may be seeking ICJ opinions rather than take concrete, coordinated action against Israel, said Haque. Advertisement “Many [European states] have come before the ICJ in these hearings to say Israel is not fulfilling its obligations. But the question, now, is what are these states going to do about it?” he told Al Jazeera. A Palestinian reacts as people gather to receive food cooked by a charity kitchen, in Khan Younis, southern Gaza Strip, April 29, 2025 [Hatem Khaled/Reuters] He noted the UK had used the recent hearings to denounce Israel’s obstruction of aid and to speak about its decision to halt arms sales to Israel, not enough of an action, he added. France also spoke about the need for Israel to quickly facilitate aid into Gaza. But the statements appear to be attempts to substitute for Europe’s collective failure to take urgent action against Israel for its conduct in Gaza, said Haque. “The onus is on states to decide what they are going to do about [Israel’s actions] and not to wait for the court to rule on what they already know,” Haque added. When and how will the ICJ rule? The ICJ is not expected to issue an advisory opinion for months. The non-binding advisory opinion will likely not compel Israel or member states to change course, according to legal scholars. Israel has ignored an earlier binding provisional measures by the ICJ ordering it to scale up humanitarian aid and end acts of genocide in Gaza as a result of a genocide case brought against Israel by South Africa in December 2023. No state has taken any action against Israel for failing to implement the provisional measures. Advertisement McIntyre believes the court will eventually issue a narrow ruling that outlines Israel’s responsibilities to facilitate aid and cooperate with UNRWA. By the time the court issues its opinion, tens of thousands of
Gaza aid ship on fire after reported drone attack
NewsFeed An aid ship heading to Gaza has sent out a distress signal after crew members say it was hit in a drone attack and has caught fire. There are 30 aid workers on board the Freedom Flotilla ship, which was attempting to break Israel’s 2-month aid blockade. Published On 2 May 20252 May 2025 Adblock test (Why?)
Palestine the world’s most dangerous place for journalists, RSF says
US President Donald Trump overseeing ‘troubling deterioration’ in press freedom in US, Reporters Without Borders says. Palestine has become the world’s most dangerous state for journalists amid Israel’s war on Gaza, with dozens of reporters likely killed specifically due to their work, a media freedom watchdog has said. Israeli forces killed nearly 200 journalists in the first 18 months of the war, at least 42 of whom were slain while doing their job, Reporters Without Borders said on Friday as it released its World Press Freedom Index 2025. “Trapped in the enclave, journalists in Gaza have no shelter and lack everything, including food and water,” said the Paris-based group, which is also known by its French acronym RSF. “In the West Bank, journalists are routinely harassed and attacked by both settlers and Israeli forces, but repression reached new heights with a wave of arrests after 7 October, when impunity for crimes committed against journalists became a new rule.” Journalists suspected of collaborating with Israel are also hampered in their work by Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, while a cybercrime law adopted by the Palestinian Authority limits freedom of expression and freedom of the press, RSF said in its report. Advertisement Palestine ranked 163rd for press freedom in the latest index, a drop of six places from 2024. Of 180 jurisdictions, 112 saw declines in press freedom, with the average score globally falling to a record low of 55 points, according to the report. The United States dropped two places to a record low of 57, with the watchdog accusing US President Donald Trump of overseeing a “troubling deterioration in press freedom”. “President Donald Trump was elected to a second term after a campaign in which he denigrated the press on a daily basis and made explicit threats to weaponize the federal government against the media,” RSF said. “His early moves in his second mandate to politicise the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), ban The Associated Press from the White House, or dismantle the US Agency for Global Media, for example, have jeopardised the country’s news outlets and indicate that he intends to follow through on his threats, setting up a potential crisis for American journalism.” Israel dropped 11 places to 112th, with Reporters Without Borders pointing to growing restrictions on press freedom, media plurality and editorial independence since the start of the war in Gaza. “Since 2021, only journalists working for Channel 14, a media outlet that covers Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a favourable light, have been granted interviews with the country’s leader, who accuses the Israeli press of conspiring against him,” the group said. “In 2024, the Minister of Communication called on the government to boycott Haaretz, one of the few newspapers to criticise Netanyahu’s policies, including the massacre of civilians in Gaza – a topic that is largely suppressed.” Advertisement Eritrea was the lowest-ranked jurisdiction, just behind North Korea and China. Norway was ranked first for press freedom, followed by Estonia, the Netherlands and Sweden. Adblock test (Why?)
South Korea appoints new acting leader as ex-PM enters election race
Han Duck-soo declares candidacy in June 3 election to replace impeached ex-president Yoon Suk-yeol. South Korea has sworn in its third acting president in less than six months, as his predecessor declared his candidacy in a snap election to replace impeached ex-leader Yoon Suk-yeol. Education Minister Lee Ju-ho pledged to ensure “stability” as he was appointed acting leader on Friday, a day after Prime Minister Han Duck-soo stepped down to run in the June 3 election. “I will try my best to ensure government functions are managed stably,” Lee told reporters. The appointment of a new acting president came as Han’s candidacy injected more uncertainty into an election race that has been upended by doubts over the eligibility of the left-leaning frontrunner, Lee Jae-myung of the Democratic Party. “I’ve determined to find what I can do for the future of the Republic of Korea that I love and for all of us,” Han told a news conference at the National Assembly on Friday. “I’ll try my utmost to be chosen by the people at this presidential election.” On Thursday, the Supreme Court overturned Lee Jae-myung’s acquittal on election law violations, sending the case back to a lower court. Advertisement If his conviction is upheld before the election, Lee, who has dominated polls for months, would be disqualified from the race. Next month’s election was called after Yoon, a former prosecutor-turned-conservative politician, was removed from office over his shock declaration of martial law in December. While Yoon’s declaration lasted less than six hours before being voted down by South Korea’s legislature, the political uncertainty and chaos it unleashed continues to reverberate nearly six months later. Han, 75, took over as acting president following Yoon’s impeachment on December 14, before he was himself impeached and replaced by Finance Minister Choi Sang-mok. In March, the Constitutional Court overturned Han’s impeachment, restoring him to the role of acting leader. A veteran politician and bureaucrat, Han has served as prime minister in both liberal and conservative administrations, as well as doing stints as trade minister, finance minister, and ambassador to the United States. While not affiliated with a political party, Han is expected to ally with Yoon’s conservative People Power Party. He said his campaign platform would focus on limiting the power of the executive and amending the constitution to add more checks and balances. Following Han’s announcement, the Democratic Party accused him of abandoning his duties as a caretaker leader. “We warn former Prime Minister Han. Don’t hide your greed with a lie that you are running for the people,” Democratic Party spokesperson Noh Jong-myun said. Advertisement Adblock test (Why?)