The government’s decision to fire domestic security chief Ronen Bar was declared unlawful by Israel’s Supreme Court, which is the most recent twist in a tense power struggle between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s administration and the country’s judiciary.
The government’s decision to oust the Shin Bet’s head was made through an improper and unlawful process, the top court said on Wednesday in its decision.
Additionally, it stated that Netanyahu’s desire to get Bar fired was in conflict with the Shin Bet’s investigation into alleged ties between the prime minister’s aides and Qatar.
The Hamas-led October 7 attack, which the two men have co-sponsored, has sparked heated exchanges of accusations and barbs.
Netanyahu stated at the beginning that he would fire Bar because of a “trust breakdown,” implying that it was connected to the Gaza war that followed. However, Bar claimed that a number of events occurred between November 2024 and February 2025 that led to Netanyahu’s choice.
Bar claimed in the unclassified portion of the court submission that Netanyahu had “on more than one occasion” promised to investigate Israelis involved in anti-government demonstrations, with a particular emphasis on tracking down the protesters’ financial backers.
The Shin Bet head added that he had also refrained from signing a security request to prevent Netanyahu from giving evidence in a continuing corruption trial where he is accused of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust.
According to a report from the Times of Israel, the court stated that Bar’s dismissal was based on “a factual basis” and did not require a formal hearing before firing him.
In addition to “a disregard for fundamental principles regarding internal security,” Bar was fired in the ruling on Wednesday, which also included “irregularities” in the process that led to Bar’s dismissal.
In March, the far-right government launched a wave of protests and accusations of autocratic behavior after the cabinet voted to remove Bar.
The High Court of Justice halted the appeal until a hearing was held. Numerous organizations, including opposition politicians, had filed petitions with the court challenging the government’s decision.
A day after Bar announced his resignation, the government reversed his decision in April.
More than 90% of the government’s revenues are derived from oil, and Sudan is entirely dependent on Sudan to export the precious resource.
However, according to an official government letter seen by Al Jazeera, Sudan’s army-backed government claimed this month that it was planning to shut down the facilities that its southern neighbor uses to export its oil.
According to experts, making that choice could cause South Sudan’s economy to collapse and lead to the army’s and the country’s unresolved civil war (RSF).
The RSF launched suicide drones at Port Sudan, the army’s strategic Red Sea coast, on May 9, following the launch of the announcement.
The strikes shattered the city’s sense of security because they damaged electricity grids and a fuel depot, which are far from the nation’s front lines.
Sudan’s army claims exporting South Sudan’s oil has been hampered by the damage.
According to Alan Boswell, an expert on the Horn of Africa with the International Crisis Group, “the announcement read like a desperate plea]to South Sudan] for assistance.
However, he continued, “I believe doing so overestimates the influence South Sudan has over the RSF.”
Salva Kiir, president of South Sudan [Michael Tewelde/AFP]
Predatory economics
Since South Sudan’s independence from Sudan in 2011, the former has relied on Port Sudan to export its oil.
In return, Sudan has collected payments from Juba as part of their 2005 peace agreement, which ended the 22-year civil war in the north and ultimately caused South Sudan to secede.
The army and RSF both continued to collect fees from Juba when another civil war broke out in Sudan in 2023.
According to Boswell, “Sudan and South Sudan] are financially stable because of the infrastructure for oil exports,”
According to local media reports, high-level South Sudanese and Sudanese officials are in talks to stop oil exports.
Mohieddein Naiem Mohamed, the energy and petroleum minister in Port Sudan, was contacted by Al Jazeera in writing to inquire whether the army was negotiating higher rents with South Sudan before resumed oil exports, which some experts believed to be a likely scenario.
Before the publication, Naiem Mohamed did not respond.
The International Crisis Group claims that Juba also pays off the RSF to protect oil pipelines that traverse its own country.
Additionally, South Sudan has granted permission for the RSF to operate in the border’s villages.
After forming a strategic alliance with the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement – North (SPLM-N) in February, the RSF has expanded its presence along the sprawling, porous border.
The SPLM-N and secessionist forces battled the army of Sudan. It has historically close ties to Juba and controls large areas of territory in the South Kordofan and Blue Nile regions of Sudan.
According to Edmund Yakani, a leader and commentator in South Sudan’s civil society, South Sudan’s relationship with the SPLM-N and RSF has grown increasingly dissatisfying for the army.
Yakani told Al Jazeera, “Sudan’s army is suspicious that Juba is supporting RSF in its military capability and political space.”
House of Cards
About 60% of South Sudan’s oil profits go to the multinational corporations that make it, according to a report from the International Crisis Group for 2021.
According to the report, the majority of the remaining 40% is used to pay off outstanding loans and support the country’s oppressive elites in the bureaucratic and bloated security system.
Salva Kiir, president of South Sudan, will most likely not be able to maintain his patronage network without a quick recovery in oil revenues.
Experts warned that his fragile government, which consists of a coalition of long-standing loyalists and coopted opponents, might collapse like a house of cards.
Al Jazeera emailed South Sudan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation written inquiries asking if the country had a backup plan in case oil exports stopped indefinitely. Prior to publication, the ministry did not respond.
Experts warned that oil is not an option for South Sudan.
On February 15, 2025, soldiers unwind near their outpost in Nzara, South Sudan.
Security personnel and civil servants already owed months of back pay, and they may rebel against Kiir and each other if they lack the will to uphold the tense peace agreement that ended South Sudan’s five-year civil war in 2018.
There is no backup plan for when the oil runs out, according to Matthew Benson, a scholar at the London School of Economics who studies Sudan and South Sudan.
Inflation would rise if oil production was to stop, which would only add to the millions of civilians’ daily struggles.
Nearly 80% of people who live below the poverty line are thought to be experiencing acute food shortages, according to the World Food Programme, while nearly 60% of the population is, according to the World Bank.
A predatory economy has been created as a result of the hardship and pervasive corruption, wherearmed groups set up checkpoints to defame citizens for bribes and taxes.
If oil prices go up, civil servants will likely be unable to cough up any more money.
Benson said, “I’m not sure people can be squeezed more than they already are.”
proxy conflict
Some activists and commentators also worry that Sudan’s army is purposefully obstructing any contact with the RSF and SPLM-N because of its intentional turning off of the oil.
According to Yakani, this speculation is causing some civilian resentment in South Sudan.
Meanwhile, some Sudanese army supporters argued that South Sudan should not benefit from oil if the RSF, which they view as a militia, has some support for it.
According to a report from Al Jazeera, both the RSF and the army have recruited South Sudanese mercenaries to fight for them.
Yakani told Al Jazeera, “The army wants Juba to completely distance itself from any form of aiding the RSF,” adding that this is the current problem for the government of Kiir.
“Most South Sudanese citizens, including myself, think that Sudan’s warring parties and their regional allies are using South Sudan as a proxy war,” he continued.
Sudan’s army also thinks the government of South Sudan is increasingly relying on regional supporters to support its own security.
According to Boswell, Sudan’s army leaders were spooked in particular when Uganda, which it views as supporting the RSF, sent troops to Kiir in March to bolster the country’s defenses.
Sudan’s army has also repeatedly accused the UAE of providing weapons to the RSF.
United Nations experts and Amnesty International have also made these allegations, but the UAE has repeatedly refuted them.
The UAE’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs previously told Al Jazeera in an email that the country had already made it clear that it was not providing any assistance or supplies to either of the two belligerent warring parties in Sudan.
Analysts speculate that Juba may request a sizable loan from the UAE in response to Sudan’s army’s ongoing conflict with the UAE if Sudan’s army does not immediately resume oil exports.
According to Boswell, “South Sudan’s army” has been concerned and closely monitoring whether the UAE might loan South Sudan a sizable sum of money.”
Despite the growing tension between Iran and the United States regarding uranium enrichment, Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi has stated that a second round of negotiations will take place on Friday in Rome.
Following days of unpopular positions expressed by Tehran and Washington regarding Iranian uranium enrichment, Wednesday’s confirmation that the nuclear negotiations would continue.
Iranian officials have argued that Iran should stop enriching uranium altogether, a position Tehran has called a nonstarter, and that it should also be done.
The uranium atom is altered to produce nuclear fuel during enrichment.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, added on Tuesday that the US does not require enrichment of uranium.
He was quoted by the Mehr News Agency as saying, “We will not allow Iran to enrich uranium.”
This Friday, May 23rd, Rome will host the fifth round of Iran-US discussions.
His statement came in response to Steve Witkoff, the US’s lead negotiator, who called uranium enrichment a “red line” and said Washington “cannot allow even 1% of an enrichment capability.”
Numerous Iranian and US officials have reiterated their respective nations’ positions.
Iran can use nuclear reactors to produce energy by importing already-enriched uranium, according to Washington, who claims Tehran’s domestic production poses a threat of nuclear weapons.
Iran claims that it has the right to enrich uranium for use in civilian applications despite its opposition to nuclear weapons.
It is widely believed that Israel, the main US ally in the Middle East, has an unproven nuclear arsenal.
If Iran and the two countries don’t reach a deal, US President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to use force, saying he won’t let Tehran get a nuclear weapon.
Trump resisted the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which demanded that Iran reduce its nuclear program in exchange for lifting international sanctions against its economy, during his first term, in 2018.
The US has since imposed sanctions on Iran’s economy.
Trump’s “maximum pressure” program against Iran was largely funded by economic sanctions after winning a second term there in January. For instance, he has pledged to stop China from importing oil, particularly from the country.
Iran has resisted Trump’s threats, promising to defend itself from any attack.
It is unclear how the two countries will resolve their differences over Tehran’s enrichment program, but tensions started to ease in April as the US and Iran began to hold talks through Oman.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi made the suggestion on Sunday that the US position has been changing, stating that “there is no scenario” where Iran will stop enriching.
The Taliban, one of Afghanistan’s rulers, is being considered a “foreign terrorist organization,” according to Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Rubio asserted to the House Foreign Affairs Committee that “classification is now, once again, under review,” during a hearing on Capitol Hill on Wednesday.
A day after US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth mandated a “comprehensive review” of the US’s chaotic military withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021, an ISIL (ISIS) bombing that claimed the lives of 13 US service members and 150 Afghans, was carried out at Kabul’s airport.
Hegseth stated in a memo on Tuesday that a thorough review was required to establish accountability for this event after three months of evaluating the withdrawal.
According to Hegseth, “This is a significant step toward restoring faith and trust with the American people and all those who wear the uniform,” and it is prudent to do so given the number of casualties and items lost in the course of this withdrawal operation.
The first Donald Trump administration’s administration, which oversaw the pull-out, largely blamed a lack of planning and troop reductions for the delay in the withdrawal of US forces, according to former president Joe Biden’s administration, which oversaw the pull-out.
Trump and the Taliban had agreed to end their 18-year conflict in Afghanistan by resuming the “within months” withdrawal plan in Doha in February 2020.
If the Taliban struck a peace deal with the Afghan government and made a promise to stop internationally recognized terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda and ISIL from establishing foothold there by May 2021, the then-Trump administration had agreed to leave the country.
Biden stated in his January 2021 assuring that he must uphold the agreement or run the risk of starting new conflicts with the Taliban, which might have required the deployment of additional troops in Afghanistan.
Trump frequently criticized Biden and his administration for the withdrawal, claiming that it was “the most embarrassing day in our country’s life.” Trump claimed that “dignity, strength, and power” should have been used to force the withdrawal.
Former US military leaders Mark Milley and Lloyd Austin, both of whom served as defense secretary at the time, have already testified before lawmakers regarding the withdrawal.
The US’s longest war, surpassing Vietnam, occurred in Afghanistan between 2001 and 2021.
Hegseth’s review is still unsure in what ways it would differ from the numerous previous investigations conducted by the US military, the Department of State, and Trump’s fellow Republican members in the House of Representatives.
According to Marks & Spencer, the British retailer will lose about 300 million pounds ($403 million) if it is stopped from processing online orders and leaves store shelves empty.
The disruption from the “highly sophisticated and targeted cyber attack,” which was first reported over the Easter weekend, is expected to last until July, according to the company’s business , update (PDF) released on Wednesday.
Because the business, known as M&, S, had to halt online shopping, the company’s online sales of food, home, and beauty products were “heavily impacted.”
After M&, S’s automated stock systems were turned off, the attack on one of the biggest names on the high street in the United Kingdom forced the company to use pen and paper to move billions of pounds of fresh food, drinks, and clothing.
That slack-laden food shelves and unhappy customers, which hurt sales.
The large online clothing store M&, S is still offline a month later, and the attack has caused the company’s stock market to lose more than a billion pounds.
Chairman Archie Norman criticized the attack’s timing because M&, S, which has been working toward a comprehensive turnaround strategy since 2022, was beginning to show promise.
However, he said, “Events have a way of turning you on your backside in business life just as you think you’re on a good streak.”
M&, S, which employs 65, 000 people and operates 565 stores, predicted that the hack would result in lost operating profit of about 300 million pounds ($403 million) in the year ending in March 2026, despite its efforts to reduce those costs through insurance, cost control, and other measures.
The company’s CEO, Stuart Machin, stated that the company’s main focus is on recovering and restoring its systems and operations.
We will overcome this incident in better shape, Machin said, “but this is a bump in the road.” He declined to provide any information about the attack or its potential perpetrators.
The company reported earlier this month that hackers had accessed customer personal data, which might have included names, emails, addresses, and birthdates.
