UNITED NATIONS: The UN General Assembly voted Friday to allow Ukraine’s president to deliver a pre-recorded address to next week’s gathering of world leaders because of his need to deal with Russia’s invasion, making an exception to its requirement that all leaders speak in person.
The 193-member world body approved Volodymyr Zelenskky’s virtual address by a vote of 101-7 with 19 abstentions including China. The seven countries voting “no” were Belarus, Cuba, Eritrea, Nicaragua, North Korea, Russia and Syria.
The assembly first voted on an amendment put forward by Belarus, a close ally of Russia, that would have allowed any leader facing exceptional difficulties and unable to attend to deliver a pre-recorded address. It was defeated by a vote of 23-67 with 27 abstentions.
The document that was approved expresses concern that leaders of “peace-loving” UN sovereign nations can’t participate in person “for reasons beyond their control owing to ongoing foreign invasion, aggression, military hostilities that do not allow safe departure from and return to their countries, or the need to discharge their national defense and security duties and functions.”
The document, which was proposed by Ukraine and had more than 50 co-sponsors, permits Zelensky to submit a pre-recorded statement to be played in the General Assembly hall. It stresses that this will not set a precedent for future high-level assembly meetings.
Ukrainian Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya expressed satisfaction that the assembly will have a chance to hear directly from Zelensky “about how he sees the end of this war and how he evaluates the impact of this war on global affairs and on the United Nations in particular.”
He expressed gratitude in an interview with The Associated Press that 101 UN member nations gave such strong support to hearing from Zelensky, saying it was “pathetic” that Russia mustered only six other countries to oppose his speech.
Kyslytsya said Zelensky was scheduled to address the assembly Wednesday afternoon and there is no reason that would be changed.
The document refers to the General Assembly resolution adopted at an emergency special session on March 2 — six days after Russia’s Feb. 24 invasion of Ukraine — demanding an immediate halt to Moscow’s offensive and withdrawal of all Russian troops. The vote on the resolution, titled “Aggression against Ukraine,” was 141-5 with 35 abstentions.
British Counsellor Philip Reed told the assembly before the votes that the reason it is necessary “is because Russia has invaded its neighbor and for that reason Ukraine’s president cannot travel to New York for the General Debate,” the official name of the high-level meeting.
Nicaragua’s representative, whom its mission refused to identify, said the proposed decision “reflects a clear trend toward exceptionalisms” and violates the UN Charter’s principle “of sovereign equality of all members.” He urged members to oppose the proposal and avoid “double standards” and “selfish interests.”
As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the annual meeting of world leaders at the General Assembly was all virtual in 2020 and hybrid in 2021. But this year the assembly decided that all speeches must be in person.
UN votes to allow Ukraine’s Zelensky to give virtual speech
https://arab.news/9y86a
UN votes to allow Ukraine’s Zelensky to give virtual speech
- The document, which was proposed by Ukraine and had more than 50 co-sponsors, permits Zelensky to submit a pre-recorded statement to be played in the General Assembly hall
Court ruling jeopardizes freedom for pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil
- The panel ruled a federal judge in New Jersey didn’t have jurisdiction to decide the matter at this time
- The law bars Khalil “from attacking his detention and removal in a habeas petition,” the panel added
WASHINGTON: A federal appeals panel on Thursday reversed a lower court decision that released former Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil from an immigration jail, bringing the government one step closer to detaining and ultimately deporting the Palestinian activist.
The three-judge panel of the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals didn’t decide the key issue in Khalil’s case: whether the Trump administration’s effort to throw Khalil out of the US over his campus activism and criticism of Israel is unconstitutional.
But in its 2-1 decision, the panel ruled a federal judge in New Jersey didn’t have jurisdiction to decide the matter at this time. Federal law requires the case to fully move through the immigration courts first, before Khalil can challenge the decision, they wrote.
“That scheme ensures that petitioners get just one bite at the apple — not zero or two,” the panel wrote. “But it also means that some petitioners, like Khalil, will have to wait to seek relief for allegedly unlawful government conduct.”
The law bars Khalil “from attacking his detention and removal in a habeas petition,” the panel added.
Ruling won’t result in immediate detention
It was not clear whether the government would seek to detain Khalil, a legal permanent resident, again while his legal challenges continue.
Thursday’s decision marked a major win for the Trump administration’s sweeping campaign to detain and deport noncitizens who joined protests against Israel.
In a statement distributed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Khalil said the appeals ruling was “deeply disappointing, but it does not break our resolve.”
He added: “The door may have been opened for potential re-detainment down the line, but it has not closed our commitment to Palestine and to justice and accountability. I will continue to fight, through every legal avenue and with every ounce of determination, until my rights, and the rights of others like me, are fully protected.”
Baher Azmy, one of Khalil’s lawyers, said the ruling was “contrary to rulings of other federal courts.” He noted the panel’s finding concerned a “hypertechnical jurisdictional matter,” rather than the legality of the Trump administration’s policy.
“Our legal options are by no means concluded, and we will fight with every available avenue,” he added, saying Khalil would remain free pending the full resolution of all appeals, which could take months or longer.
The ACLU said the Trump administration cannot lawfully re-detain Khalil until the order takes formal effect, which won’t happen while he can still immediately appeal.
Khalil has multiple options to appeal
Khalil’s lawyers can request the active judges on the 3rd Circuit hear an appeal, or they can go to the US Supreme Court.
An outspoken leader of the pro-Palestinian movement at Columbia, Khalil was arrested on March 8, 2025. He then spent three months detained in a Louisiana immigration jail, missing the birth of his firstborn.
Federal officials have accused Khalil of leading activities “aligned to Hamas,” though they have not presented evidence to support the claim and have not accused him of criminal conduct. They have also accused Khalil, 30, of failing to disclose information on his green card application.
The government has justified the arrest under a seldom-used statute that allows for the expulsion of noncitizens whose beliefs are deemed to pose a threat to US foreign policy interests.
In June, a federal judge in New Jersey ruled that justification would likely be declared unconstitutional and ordered Khalil released.
President Donald Trump’s administration appealed that ruling, arguing the deportation decision should fall to an immigration judge, rather than a federal court.
Khalil has dismissed the allegations as “baseless and ridiculous,” framing his arrest and detention as a “direct consequence of exercising my right to free speech as I advocated for a free Palestine and an end to the genocide in Gaza.”
Dissenting judge says Khalil has right to fight detention
Judge Arianna Freeman dissented Thursday, writing that her colleagues were holding Khalil to the wrong legal standard. Khalil, she wrote, is raising “now-or-never claims” that can be handled at the district court level. He does not have a final order of removal, which would permit a challenge in an appellate court, she wrote.
Both judges who ruled against Khalil, Thomas Hardiman and Stephanos Bibas, were Republican appointees. President George W. Bush appointed Hardiman to the 3rd Circuit, while Trump appointed Bibas. President Joe Biden, a Democrat, appointed Freeman.
The majority opinion noted Freeman worried the ruling would leave Khalil with no remedy for unconstitutional immigration detention, even if he later can appeal.
“But our legal system routinely forces petitioners — even those with meritorious claims — to wait to raise their arguments, the judges wrote. “To be sure, the immigration judge’s order of removal is not yet final; the Board has not affirmed her ruling and has held the parties’ briefing deadlines in abeyance pending this opinion. But if the Board ultimately affirms, Khalil can get meaningful review.”
The decision comes as an appeals board in the immigration court system weighs a previous order that found Khalil could be deported. His attorneys have argued that the federal order should take precedence.
That judge has suggested Khalil could be deported to Algeria, where he maintains citizenship through a distant relative, or Syria, where he was born in a refugee camp to a Palestinian family.
His attorneys have said he faces mortal danger if forced to return to either country.










