Middle East
Is Trump the end of the international rules-based order? | United Nations News

After more than a year of Israeli bombing, tens of thousands of Palestinian deaths, and a humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, the world was largely united in saying “enough is enough”.
United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolution 12667 in December was clear in its demand: An immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Countries as diverse as Vietnam, Zimbabwe and Colombia echoed that call.
And yet, bucking that consensus were nine “no” votes – chief among them, as is typical when it comes to resolutions calling for Israel to adhere to international law or human rights, was the United States.
The US has provided unwavering support to Israel throughout its war on Gaza, even as Israel faces accusations of genocide at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and its prime minister has an International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant to his name.
Gaza had made the US choose openly between adhering to the international “rules-based order” – the system of laws and norms established in the wake of World War II to avoid wars and foster democracy – it claims to uphold, or support Israel. It chose the latter.
The Democratic administration of former US President Joe Biden, which was in the last days of its tenure when it voted “no” on the UNGA resolution, repeatedly claimed to be acting in defence of the rules-based order – not least in its condemnation of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine – in all matters other than those related to Israel and Palestine.
When it came to matters not related to Israel or Palestine, the Democratic administration of former US President Joe Biden – which was in its last days when it voted “no” in the UNGA – claimed to act in defence of the rules-based order, especially in repeatedly condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The US supported Ukraine as a country defending itself from an unjust invasion by a neighbour. In the Asia Pacific, it strengthened partnerships with allies threatened by potential Chinese expansionism, particularly Taiwan.
But the first few weeks of US President Donald Trump’s second term upended all expectations. Now, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy finds himself berated in the Oval Office by Trump and his Vice President JD Vance, who sent out friendly feelers to Russia.

Greenland, Panama and one of the US’s closest allies, Canada, find themselves the subject of Trump’s imperialist rhetoric.
Trump has made clear that the old rules are out of the window. His posture towards Ukraine and his push for trade tariffs against allies is part of an isolationist, “America First”, mentality – which sees the world’s issues as not the US’s business, and international cooperation as weak.
Vance’s words at the Munich Security Conference in February – insinuating that European governments are authoritarian for not working with far-right parties – highlighted that Trump’s Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement doesn’t see Europeans as allies, at least not if European leadership remains liberal and internationalist in nature.
Is this a sign of things to come? Is the US moving away from its allies and abandoning the rules-based order? And was the rules-based order ever really international – or merely focused on furthering the interests of the West?
The short answer: Trump’s current trajectory could mark the final end to a world order that has long faced accusations of double standards and selective application of international law. European leaders are already saying they need to defend themselves and the US cannot be trusted. Analysts who spoke to Al Jazeera believe that the rules-based order cannot survive this onslaught in its current form – it would have to adapt and change.
The rules-based order
At its heart, what we call the rules-based order is the bedrock of much of modern international relations. In intention, it is supposed to maintain stability, cooperation and a degree of predictability in the way states deal with each other.
Emerging from World War II and the Holocaust, the rules-based order, underpinned by international law and multinational organisations like the UN, was intended to embody shared principles of sovereignty, self-determination, territorial integrity and dispute resolution through diplomacy rather than force.
Its supporters, such as the US and Europe, argued the system promotes peace, democracy, human rights and economic stability.
But it has its critics: Global South countries say its institutions are biased in favour of the West. That may be because the system emerged at a time when the US was able to cement itself as the global hegemon.
Throughout its history, the rules-based order has been supported by the US’s economic, diplomatic and military heft. That only increased after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War in 1991, when the US’s only real challenger for international dominance threw in the towel.
Imperial thinking
The first few weeks of the second Trump presidency feel far away from that post-Cold War high, when Francis Fukuyama argued, in The End of History and the Last Man, that liberal democracy had won in the battle of global ideologies.

Now, Trump tells Zelenskyy he does not “have the cards right now” in his country’s fight against Russian invasion, and demands a deal for Ukraine’s natural resources in return for support.
For Europe, and the US under Biden, Ukraine’s battle was about sovereignty and defending democracy against autocracy. Those arguments do not interest Trump – who portrays himself as a “peacemaker”, but a realist one, who understands that might is right.
An indifference to the principle of sovereignty can also be seen in Trump’s Gaza “plan”, which would involve the US takeover of the territory – and ethnically cleansing the Palestinians who live there.
While he recently appeared to walk back his talk of expelling Palestinians, there is little indication that the idea is fully off the table.
“Donald Trump’s willingness to betray Ukraine and his rejection of the basic principle of territorial sovereignty is consistent with simultaneously giving Israel a green light to proceed in ways that break the law and seem likely only to fuel an endless cycle of violence,” Michael Becker, a professor of international human rights law at Trinity College in Dublin, who previously worked at the ICJ, told Al Jazeera.
And as for global free trade – one of the goals of the rules-based order – Trump sees it as a fool’s game, one in which the US has been “ripped off for decades by nearly every country on Earth”.
Instead of a global spirit of cooperation underpinned by US leadership – however flawed that was in reality – Trump appears to see the reality of a multipolar world with spheres of influence, and little place for liberal ideals.
That brings him in line with actors like Russia, and may explain why Trump seems, on occasion, to be more friendly when talking about Russian President Vladimir Putin than he is about European Union leaders.
The Trump administration’s barely disguised contempt for traditional systems of global governance has prompted observers to suggest that the lip service paid to a rules-based order may be over and the world instead faces a return to “machtpolitik”: The pure, naked power that dominated international relations in the 19th century.
Increasingly, Professor Michael Doyle of Columbia University explained, the reasons given for aggressive unilateral actions by powerful states are as brazen as they are self-serving.
“What is new is the articulations of overwhelmingly imperial ambitions and purely acquisitive aims: Ukraine to restore the Russian empire, Greenland for minerals and sea lanes, Panama for naval control of sea lanes and to exclude China from the region,” Doyle told Al Jazeera.

“There is no credible claim to self-defence or multilateral norms,” he continued, explaining that the world is experiencing a “return to the rules of 19th-century imperialism and the foreign policy norms of Mussolini and the other 1920s and 1930s fascists”.
HA Hellyer of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) agrees, but added: “It’s not inevitable, we could still redirect, but it’s still the direction of travel and has been for at least the last decade.”
Can the damage to the rules-based order be reversed?
Faced with a US untethered from international norms, what action, if any, the international community can take to check its ambitions remains uncertain.
Few mechanisms exist whereby states can directly influence the actions of others, and most still rely on economic dominance.
Typically, in trying to enforce international law, countries can use sanctions, tariffs, trade embargoes, UN condemnation or can seek an ICJ ruling or a criminal trial against an individual in the ICC.
Since the end of World War II, the US dollar has been the preferred reserve currency for many of the world’s central banks, meaning that any economic sanction that damages the dollar carries the risk of repercussions elsewhere.
There is also the scale of the US economy to consider. As of 2023, the US generated about one-seventh of global gross domestic product (GDP), with much of the world dependent on it for trade and defence – dramatically reducing the likelihood of a state bringing a case against it.
The chances of the ICC bringing a case against the US president on the grounds that Trump’s actions in the Palestinian territory amount to crimes covered by the ICC, such as war crimes or crimes against humanity, are also far from straightforward.
“Any attempt to prosecute Trump at the ICC is a legal and political minefield that has virtually no prospect of success,” said Becker, who previously worked at the ICJ.
“It could also lead to the entire unravelling of the Rome Statute system under US pressure,” he added, referring to the 1998 statute establishing the ICC, which the US signed but never ratified over concerns its citizens or military could be held to account by the court.

“International law is fragile and far from perfect,” Becker said.
“But defending some type of world public order not dictated by the whims of the most … powerful states requires other states to stand up and loudly and persistently protest the Trump administration’s actions,” he added.
A hypocritical system?
Whether the rules-based order is saved depends on what states are interested in pushing back against Trump. For Russia, China and others, an end to a system they often saw as focused in a purely non-Western direction, may be welcomed.
In its own actions, the US has repeatedly acted as if it is beyond the law – for instance, through its invasion of Iraq in 2003, as well as targeted assassinations without trial.
But Washington has always been too strong to have international punishment imposed on it, despite rulings from the European Court of Human Rights that countries like Romania, Lithuania, Poland and North Macedonia had tortured prisoners on the US’s behalf during its extraordinary rendition programme – where civilians were abuducted and forcibly questioned – in 2012, 2014 and 2018.
The US, which is not a party to the ICC, has protested the Court trying people from non-signatory states, like Israel, and has sanctioned members of the ICC after warrants were issued for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes committed in Gaza.
Trump said the sanctions were because the ICC “engaged in illegitimate and baseless actions targeting America and our close ally Israel”.
There is also little doubt that Israel’s war on Gaza in full view of the world has undermined the regard given to a rules-based order.
When it comes to Israel, it is not just the US that turns a blind eye to the rules. So far, France, Hungary and Italy have said they will not enforce the ICC arrest warrants. Germany’s expected next chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has said he will follow suit.
“Israel has waged a war on Gaza for 16 months in complete defiance of international law,” RUSI’s Hellyer said.
“The ICJ is hearing a case on genocide and the ICC has indicted Israel’s prime minister, and the response from far too many in the West has been to find all sorts of excuses not to arrest Netanyahu, in a way that they never would with Putin, who was also indicted.

“We can’t claim to uphold a rules-based order when it comes to Ukraine, bemoaning America’s failure to stand by it, for example, but then allow for a complete abrogation of that order when it comes to Gaza,” he continued.
“To quote [Jordanian Foreign Minister] Ayman Safadi: ‘Gaza has not only become a graveyard for children. It has become a graveyard for international law, a shameful stain on the whole international order.’”
According to Karim Emile Bitar, a professor of international relations at the Saint Joseph University of Beirut, the collapse or fundamental weakening of the “so-called liberal-based order” would at least mark an end to the hypocrisy that has characterised its rule for many.
“It has always been perceived in the Global South as highly hypocritical because allies of the United States were always shielded from attacks,” he told Al Jazeera.
“Even when they were violating human rights, violating international law, trampling on all UN resolutions. They got a free pass, whereas countries that were opposing the superpowers were often targeted.”
Risk of change
For it to carry weight, “international law has to apply to everybody”, said Hellyer. “When it isn’t, it sends a clear message worldwide… This is very dangerous and it goes way beyond Israel, Gaza and Ukraine.
“An end to multilateralism means we’re less equipped to face the next crisis, whether that’s a health crisis, or the next war,” he added.
Where that leaves small states and the Global South remains to be seen.
In the short term, at least, those who would first pay the price of the collapse in the rules-based order would be “the Palestinian people and many other small states who were the victims of proxy wars and those exposed to aggressive neighbours”, Bitar said.
Without the protection of a rules-based system, Taiwan faces far more of a threat from China, the imperfect solutions of the 1990s, such as the Dayton Agreement that ended the Bosnian War, could fall apart, and without international human rights standards, minorities like the Uyghurs in China have even less chance of justice.
Bitar believes any hope of a resurgence of any kind of a rules-based order after the war on Gaza is, at best, unlikely.
“It took World War II to see the emergence of international institutions and a world based on rule of law,” he said. “Once this has been dismantled … it will be extremely difficult to rebuild it from scratch.”
Instead, the world order may be reduced to one of competing spheres of influence, with much of the world’s politics divided between the US, Russia, China and an unmoored Europe.
What is more concerning, Bitar pointed out, is that the collapse of a global governance system is concomitant with what he sees as the collapse of democracy in its most vocal upholders in the West.
“We are witnessing the rise of what some call illiberal democracies,” said Bitar.
“And, simultaneously, the emergence of some sort of oligarchy or plutocracy, where the strongest and the richest rule without any checks and balances.”

Middle East
Iran’s Khamenei slams US nuclear proposal, vows to keep enriching uranium | Nuclear Energy News

Iranian supreme leader says issue of uranium enrichment remains key to Tehran’s pursuit of energy independence.
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has pledged that Tehran will not abandon its uranium enrichment, rejecting a key demand in a United States proposal aimed at resolving a long-running dispute over Iran’s nuclear programme.
The comments were delivered in a speech on Wednesday as the US and Iran continue to negotiate the details of a possible new nuclear deal. The issue of uranium enrichment has remained a sticking point in the talks, with the US reportedly demanding a complete halt or low-level enrichment in exchange for the lifting of Western sanctions against Tehran.
“The US nuclear proposal contradicts our nation’s belief in self-reliance and the principle of ‘We Can,’” Khamenei said in his speech delivered on the commemoration of the death of the Islamic Republic’s founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, in 1989.
Khamenei said the issue of uranium enrichment remained key to Iran’s pursuit of energy independence.
“Independence means not waiting for the green light from America and the likes of America,” he said, adding that the US proposal was “100 percent against” the ideals of the 1979 Islamic revolution.
He said Tehran would not seek Washington’s approval for its decisions.
“Some people think that rationality means bowing down to America and surrendering to the oppressive power; this is not rationality,” Khamenei said.
“Why are you interfering in whether Iran should have enrichment or not? You cannot have a say.”
On Tuesday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian also said that Tehran “would not abandon” the country’s scientific and nuclear rights, while disavowing nuclear weapons.
He said that those accusing Iran “are proliferating” weapons of mass destruction and destabilising the region with deadly weapons.
On Monday, the Reuters news agency had reported that Tehran was poised to reject the latest US proposal to end a decades-old nuclear dispute, quoting an unnamed diplomat as saying the proposal was a “non-starter” that fails to soften Washington’s stance on uranium enrichment or to address Tehran’s interests.
Tehran said it wants to master nuclear technology for peaceful purposes and has long denied accusations by Western powers that it is seeking to develop nuclear weapons.
US envoy Steve Witkoff, who heads the American delegation in talks with Iran, has said President Donald Trump opposes Tehran continuing any enrichment, calling it a “red line”.
A leaked United Nations report shows that Iran has ramped up production of enriched uranium near weapons-grade by 50 percent in the last three months. It is still short, however, of the roughly 90 percent required for atomic weapons, but still significantly above the 4 percent or so needed for power production.
Iran, however, has rejected the latest report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), saying it is “politically motivated and repeates baseless accusations”.
Ira is currently grappling with multiple crises including a plunging currency, losses among regional militia proxies in conflicts with Israel, and rising fears of an Israeli strike on its nuclear sites.
A failure to get a new nuclear deal could see tensions further spike in a Middle East already on edge over Israel’s war in Gaza.
Middle East
Iraq’s Jewish community saves a long-forgotten shrine | Religion News

In a bustling district of Baghdad, workers are labouring diligently to restore the centuries-old shrine of a revered rabbi, seeking to revive the long-faded heritage of Iraq’s Jewish community.
Just a few months ago, the tomb of Rabbi Isaac Gaon was filled with rubbish. Its door was rusted, the windows broken, and the walls blackened by decades of neglect.
Now, marble tiles cover the once-small grave, and at its centre stands a large tombstone inscribed with a verse, the rabbi’s name, and the year of his death: 688. A silver menorah hangs on the wall behind it.
“It was a garbage dump, and we were not allowed to restore it,” said Khalida Elyahu, 62, the head of Iraq’s Jewish community.
Iraq’s Jewish community was once among the largest in the Middle East, but today has dwindled to just a handful of members.
Baghdad now has only one synagogue remaining, but there are no rabbis.
The restoration of the shrine is being funded by the Jewish community, at an estimated cost of $150,000.
The project will bring “a revival for our community, both within and outside Iraq”, Elyahu said.
With the support of Iraqi officials, she expressed hope to restore further neglected sites.
There is little information about Rabbi Isaac. During a visit to the tomb earlier this year, Iraq’s National Security Adviser Qasim al-Araji stated that the rabbi had been a finance official.
Rabbi Isaac was a prominent figure during the Gaonic period, also known as the era of Babylonian academies for rabbis.
The title “Gaon” is likely to refer to his role as the head of one such academy.
His name was cited in the 10th century by another rabbi, who recounted a story that is not known from any other source, according to Professor Simcha Gross of the University of Pennsylvania.
According to the account, Rabbi Isaac led 90,000 Jews to meet Ali ibn Abi Talib, the fourth Islamic caliph and a relative of the Prophet Muhammad, who is revered by Shia Muslims as the first imam, during one of his conquests in central Iraq.
“We have no other evidence for this event, and there are reasons to be sceptical,” Gross noted.
Nothing else is known about Rabbi Isaac, not even his religious views.
According to biblical tradition, Jews arrived in Iraq in 586 BC, taken as prisoners by the Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar II, after he destroyed Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem.
In Iraq, they compiled the Babylonian Talmud.
Thousands of years later, under Ottoman rule, Jews comprised 40 percent of Baghdad’s population.
As in other Arab countries, the history of Iraq’s Jews shifted dramatically after the Palestinian Nakba, meaning “catastrophe” in Arabic, and the founding of Israel in 1948. Soon after, almost all of Iraq’s 135,000 Jews went into exile.
Decades of conflict and instability — Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship, the United States-led invasion in 2003, and subsequent violence — further diminished the community.
Today, 50 synagogues and Jewish sites remain in Iraq, according to Elyahu. Most are in ruins, with some repurposed as warehouses.
Middle East
The water of Hajj: A simple illustrated guide to Zamzam | Religion News

The Hajj pilgrimage began on Wednesday. Some 1.8 million Muslims from across the globe are expected to gather in the Saudi holy city of Mecca for the annual gathering that will conclude on June 8.
Hajj is a once-in-a-lifetime obligation for all adult Muslims who are physically and financially able to make the journey.
Throughout the sacred pilgrimage, pilgrims drink from Zamzam, a wellspring believed to have been flowing for more than 4,000 years, nourishing them to this day.
But where does this water come from, and why does it hold such deep significance?
Where is the Zamzam well located?
Zamzam water comes from a well, located within the Grand Mosque of Mecca (Masjid al-Haram), some 21 metres (69 feet) east of the Kaaba.
The Zamzam well is beneath the Mataf area, which is the white marble-tiled space surrounding the Kaaba where pilgrims perform Tawaf.
In 1962, King Saud commissioned the expansion of the Mataf area to better accommodate the growing number of pilgrims. As part of this project, the opening of the Zamzam well was lowered and enclosed in a basement approximately 2.7 metres (9 feet) deep beneath the Mataf.
In 2003, the basement entrances were closed, and drinking fountains were relocated to the sides of the Mataf to allow for further expansion.
Today, pilgrims access Zamzam water through dispensers and fountains spread throughout the Grand Mosque.
Why is Zamzam important to Hajj and Umrah?
Zamzam water is deeply connected to the origins of Mecca and the story of Prophet Abraham (Ibrahim), his wife Hagar (Hajar), and their son Ishmael (Ismail).
According to Islamic tradition, Prophet Abraham left Hagar and baby Ishmael in the desert valley of Mecca by God’s command as a test of faith.
When their provisions ran out, Hagar ran back and forth seven times between the two small hills of Safa and Marwa searching for water.
![The domed building covering the Zamzam well in 1803 [Mahometaanen]](https://www.aljazeera.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Adriaan-Reland-Verhandeling-van-de-godsdienst-der-Mahometaanen_MG_0723-1748781303.png?w=770&resize=770%2C487&quality=80)
God responded to her faith and struggle with a miracle: water began to gush from the ground near baby Ishmael’s feet – this became the Zamzam well.
This spring saved their lives and led to the settlement of Mecca, which today has a population of about 2.2 million.
![Building covering Zamzam in 1888 [Qatar National Library]](https://www.aljazeera.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/1888_Kaaba_and_Zamzam-1748780777.png?w=770&resize=770%2C435&quality=80)
During Hajj and Umrah, pilgrims re-enact Hagar’s search for water by walking seven times between the hills of Safa and Marwa in the ritual of Sa’i and drink Zamzam water following the tradition of the Prophet Muhammad, who praised its purity and healing qualities.
What does Zamzam mean?
According to Islamic tradition, when the Zamzam spring miraculously gushed forth near baby Ishmael’s feet, Hagar tried to contain the water, fearing it would run out.
She is said to have exclaimed “Zamzam”, which is often understood to mean “stop! stop!” or “hold! hold!” as she tried to stop the water from flowing away by gathering it around the spring.
What is the source of the Zamzam aquifer?
Zamzam water comes from a natural underground source beneath the Grand Mosque in Mecca. The well draws water from an aquifer, a layer of rock and sand that holds water, which is refilled by rainwater that seeps in from the surrounding Ibrahim Valley (Wadi Ibrahim) and nearby hills.
The Zamzam well is about 31 metres (101 feet) deep and was originally hand-dug. Water enters the well through loose sand and gravel in the top part, and also from cracks in the solid rock below.
Today, electric pumps bring the water up instead of the old rope-and-bucket method. The well itself is now closed to the public, but the water is available through fountains and dispensers around the Grand Mosque.
The Zamzam well is considered to have flowed uninterrupted for more than 4,000 years. The continuous flow of water and its central role in Hajj and Umrah have been well-documented for centuries.
According to the General Authority for the Care & Management of the Grand Mosque and the Prophet’s Mosque, extraction and consumption of Zamzam vary by season:
On regular days:
Water supply: At least 950,400 litres (251,000 US gallons) daily
Consumption: About 700,000 litres (185,000 US gallons) daily
During peak seasons (Hajj and Ramadan):
Water supply: Up to 1.6 million litres (423,000 US gallons) daily
Consumption: Can reach 2 million litres (528,000 US gallons) daily due to the surge in pilgrims
According to the Saudi visa office, Mecca is expecting to welcome 15 million Umrah pilgrims in 2025.
To manage this demand, the Zamzam well is monitored in real time using digital sensors that track water level, pH (potential of hydrogen; a measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a liquid), temperature, and conductivity. Additional monitoring wells across Wadi Ibrahim help assess how the entire aquifer responds to water use and rainfall.
The Zamzam Studies and Research Centre (ZSRC) estimates how much water can be safely extracted and advises the Grand Mosque authority on sustainable pumping levels. Each year, the Saudi Geological Survey (SGS) issues a pumping schedule, with peak demand during Ramadan and Dhul-Hijjah and the lowest in Muharram.
If water levels fall below a set threshold, pumping is paused to allow the well to recover, ensuring a stable, long-term supply.
How is Zamzam different from tap water?
Zamzam water is clear and odourless, but it has a distinct taste due to its rich mineral content. It is slightly alkaline, with a pH between 7.9 and 8.0, higher than regular drinking water.
A study by King Saud University found no biological contamination or algae in Zamzam water, which are common in other wells and can affect taste and safety.
The minerals in Zamzam water offer several health benefits:
Fluoride: Helps prevent tooth decay, especially important in hot climates.
Calcium and magnesium: Present in higher amounts. Calcium is in an ionic form, making it easier for the body to absorb.
Sodium and potassium: Support hydration, nerve function and muscle health.
Overall, the total mineral count for Zamzam is 835mg/litre compared with Riyadh’s tap water at 350mg/litre.
How is Zamzam distributed?
The Saudi government prohibits the sale of Zamzam water for commercial purposes and strictly regulates its distribution to ensure it is provided as a sacred gift to pilgrims and not exploited for profit.
Pilgrims returning from Hajj or Umrah often bring back a 5-litre bottle of Zamzam water to share with family and friends back home. Because Zamzam water is considered a special gift, airlines typically do not include it in the regular luggage allowance, so pilgrims often carry it separately or follow specific guidelines when transporting it home.
Shipping Zamzam water through Saudi airports is simple and convenient—just follow the guidelines and use the designated containers for a smooth and hassle-free journey.#Makkah_And_Madinah_Eagerly_Await_You#Ease_And_Tranquility pic.twitter.com/de4PLGlo18
— Ministry of Hajj and Umrah (@MoHU_En) March 28, 2025
Saudi authorities have established a sophisticated, multistage system to store and distribute Zamzam water, ensuring it remains clean, safe and easily accessible. Electric pumps transport Zamzam water 5km (3 miles) south to the King Abdullah Zamzam Water Project in Kudai. There, the water is purified and then bottled.
After treatment, the water is stored in two main reservoirs:
Kudai reservoir: holds 10,000 cubic metres (10 million litres)
King Abdulaziz Sabeel reservoir in Madinah: holds 16,000 cubic metres (16 million litres)
-
Sports5 days ago
Shohei Ohtani makes long-awaited pitching debut for Dodgers to mixed results
-
Asia4 days ago
While North Korea denied Covid-19 cases, the virus was widespread and barely treated, report says
-
Africa5 days ago
Mali court places Canada’s Barrick gold mine under provisional administration
-
Africa4 days ago
Gunman attack in north-central Nigeria: death toll climbs to 150
-
Africa3 days ago
Father of shooting victim calls for Kenyan police to be held accountable
-
Lifestyle3 days ago
AP lifestyles reporter discusses chair yoga
-
Europe4 days ago
US man arrested in Greece after bodies of infant and her mother found in Roman park
-
Africa4 days ago
Ramaphosa concludes G7 summit visit, no meeting with Trump