博客

Just two weeks after drawing widespread criticism for sharing the campaign trail with former Vice President Kamala Harris, first-time US Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed has found himself at the center of another political firestorm, this time over his announcement that former President Barack Obama will join him for a major campaign event ahead of November’s midterm elections.

With fewer than 30 days remaining before polls open, El-Sayed confirmed via social media platform X that Obama will appear alongside Democratic gubernatorial nominee Jocelyn Benson and the full Michigan Democratic ticket at a Detroit rally scheduled for October 24. The event is timed to launch the state’s in-person early voting period, which gets underway 10 days ahead of Election Day. In his post, El-Sayed wrote, “It is my honor and privilege to announce that President @BarackObama is joining us on the trail in Detroit on Saturday, October 24. Get Ready.”

El-Sayed is running for the open Michigan Senate seat being vacated by retiring Democratic incumbent Gary Peters, in a key race that will help determine partisan control of the chamber. The swing-state contest pits him against Republican former Congressman Mike Rogers. He secured the Democratic nomination back in August, scoring an upset win over Congresswoman Haley Stevens – a candidate who received nearly $30 million in support from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a powerful pro-Israel lobbying group.

The announcement of Obama’s planned appearance triggered immediate backlash from critics, who centered their anger on the foreign policy record of Obama’s two-term presidency (2009–2017), particularly his administration’s widespread use of drone warfare and bombing campaigns across the Middle East and parts of Africa. Columbia University professor Anthony Zenkus summed up much of the criticism in an X post following the announcement, writing: “Barack Obama dropped 26,171 bombs on mostly poor black and brown people in the Middle East and Africa in 2016 alone. His own administration admitted that 90% of people killed with his drones were civilians. Wtf is wrong with you?”

This latest controversy comes on the heels of similar outrage over El-Sayed’s appearance with Kamala Harris last month, when critics accused the candidate of attempting to “rehabilitate” the former vice president. Progressives have widely rejected Harris over her unwavering support for Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, which has killed more than 74,000 Palestinians since the Hamas-led attacks on southern Israel on October 7, 2023, according to local health officials.

Critics have extended that same scrutiny to Obama, arguing that he laid the groundwork for the current conflict by building up decades of robust military and diplomatic alliance with Israel, a relationship that has enabled its military actions in Gaza. Author and Middle East commentator Ali Abunimah was among the most prominent voices pushing back against the alliance, writing in a post on X: “Baby butcher @BarackObama directly helped “Israel” slaughter 551 kids in Gaza in summer 2014. He provided “Israel” with the biggest aid package in history, arming and prepping it for this ongoing genocide which he has remained silent about. Obama launched the genocidal war on Yemen in 2015 and the CIA’s Operation Timber Sycamore in Syria. This monster had a literal Kill List, droning people all over the world. Few American leaders have as much blood on their hands. Vote @AbdulElSayed to whitewash more psychopathic war criminals!”

The twin controversies surrounding El-Sayed’s appearances with Harris and Obama have also sparked public questions about the authenticity of his stated positions on the Gaza conflict, with progressive observers pointing to the two high-profile Democrats’ unwavering support for Israel’s military campaign as inconsistent with the candidate’s purported progressive values.

On Tuesday, German law enforcement authorities took one of the nation’s most senior former intelligence officials into custody, opening what is already being called the most severe espionage scandal to hit Europe since the end of the Cold War. The suspect, 80-year-old August Hanning, led Germany’s Federal Intelligence Service (BND), the country’s equivalent to the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, between 1996 and 2005. Federal prosecutors have formally charged Hanning with espionage, treason, and operating on behalf of unidentified foreign intelligence agencies.

The arrest grew out of an unrelated high-profile investigation that first put Hanning under law enforcement scrutiny. In September 2025, authorities searched Hanning’s private residence in Hamburg as part of a child custody dispute involving Christina Block, a German multi-millionaire who is the heir to a popular domestic steakhouse chain. According to reports from leading German outlets Bild and Der Spiegel, Hanning exploited his long-standing close ties to senior Israeli intelligence figures to orchestrate an attempted kidnapping of Block’s two children from their home in Denmark, where they lived with Block’s ex-husband.

Allegations outline that Hanning reached out to Jacob Perry, former head of Israel’s domestic Shin Bet security service and current leader of Tel Aviv-based private intelligence firm CGI Group, to assist with the plot. During the attempted abduction, kidnappers physically assaulted Block’s ex-husband before forcing the 10-year-old boy and 13-year-old girl into a vehicle. German media reports confirm the children had their mouths sealed with duct tape and were threatened with death if they attempted to scream for help. One Israeli suspect linked to the kidnapping was arrested in Cyprus and later extradited to Germany, Israeli outlet Haaretz confirmed. Prosecutors allege Hanning and a retired German police officer accepted a payout of more than $112,000 from Block in exchange for carrying out the kidnapping. Hanning has repeatedly denied all allegations tied to the custody case, claiming he never contacted Perry to discuss any such plot.

As investigators dug deeper into Hanning’s activities connected to the kidnapping, they uncovered evidence of the far more serious alleged espionage activity. Alongside Hanning, Manfred D., Hanning’s former chief of staff who still held a position at the BND under subsequent agency leadership, was also arrested on charges of aiding treason. Prosecutors allege Manfred D. exploited his ongoing access to classified BND materials to pull secret information and pass it to Hanning, who then sold or distributed the intelligence through his post-retirement private consulting work. Investigators have confirmed Hanning passed sensitive materials to at least one foreign spy and an agent of an overseas intelligence service, though they have not publicly named the country in question. The Financial Times reports that investigators have already ruled out Russia, which Berlin currently identifies as its primary geopolitical adversary amid the ongoing war in Ukraine. During his tenure leading the BND, Hanning built deep professional connections with senior intelligence and business leaders across the globe, including in China and Israel, leaving open multiple lines of inquiry for investigators.

The arrest has sent shockwaves through Germany’s political and intelligence establishment. In an official statement to Agence France-Presse, Marc Henrichmann, chair of the German parliament’s intelligence oversight committee, emphasized that the country has zero tolerance for betrayal of state secrets. “Whoever allies themselves with the enemies of our liberal democracy will be found out,” Henrichmann said, adding that Hanning’s alleged actions amount to “trampling his official duties underfoot.” The case continues to unfold, with investigators working to map the full extent of the alleged espionage network and identify all foreign actors involved, in what is shaping up to be a defining test of Germany’s national security infrastructure in the 21st century.

On Tuesday, Senate Foreign Relations Committee member and Democratic Senator Chris Murphy leveled serious allegations against the U.S. Department of War, claiming the department blocked his planned visit to a key U.S. military base in Qatar that had sustained damage in an Iranian strike. Murphy says the denial of access is part of a deliberate effort to keep Congress and the American public in the dark about the true human and strategic costs of ongoing tensions in the Middle East.

Murphy made the remarks to reporters in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, during a multi-stop tour of Gulf nations that included a prior stop in Qatar. His intended destination was Al-Udeid Air Base, the forward headquarters of U.S. Central Command (Centcom) which oversees all American military operations across the Middle East. The base was targeted by Iran in a retaliatory strike launched after the outbreak of the U.S.-Israeli campaign against Iran that began on February 28.

Murphy emphasized that this obstruction was an unprecedented and unconstitutional overreach, a departure from any access he has been granted during his entire tenure in the Senate. He called on Republican colleagues in Congress to push back against what he frames as a deliberate campaign of government obfuscation that violates legislative oversight norms.

During his Gulf tour, Murphy confirmed that U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio had assisted in facilitating his visit, arranging meetings with diplomatic personnel and senior regional leaders. Murphy held discussions with Qatari Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and other top Gulf government officials. In a social media post published Monday, Murphy shared that he had been able to visit a section of the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh that was hit in two separate Iranian strikes, which he confirmed left “significant damage.” He noted the attacks occurred under cover of night, adding that a daytime strike would almost certainly have resulted in mass casualties.

While the State Department granted Murphy access to meet with U.S. diplomatic staff, he says Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s Pentagon explicitly blocked him from accessing the damaged Qatari military base.

These allegations come as the security and future of U.S. military infrastructure across the Gulf has faced growing scrutiny from current and former national security leaders. In a September report, the Department of War’s own inspector general confirmed that hundreds of buildings and structures across U.S. military bases in seven Gulf nations—including Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Oman, and Jordan—were damaged or destroyed in recent Iranian strikes.

Independent outlet Middle East Eye has previously reported that multiple current and former U.S. officials view full reconstruction of these vulnerable bases as an unworkable long-term solution, after Iranian drone and missile attacks demonstrated just how exposed traditional U.S. forward positions in the Gulf are. Former CIA director and Centcom commander David Petraeus acknowledged this shifting assessment in a May interview with Bloomberg, noting that the threat landscape is far more severe than it was during his tenure leading U.S. Middle East command. “The truth is that we are not as inclined to occupy these bases now that we have seen what the Iranians can throw at them,” Petraeus stated.

Another former Centcom chief, General Frank McKenzie, went further in July comments to the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, arguing that the U.S. should relocate its primary Gulf command headquarters to Israel and nearby allied countries to better protect American assets from Iranian attack. Referring to Al-Udeid’s current location just 100 miles from Iranian territory, McKenzie said, “No one in their right mind would ever put the Centcom forward headquarters … yet that’s where it is.”

Middle East Eye, which originally reported on Murphy’s allegations, provides independent, in-depth coverage of the Middle East, North Africa, and surrounding regions.

Exclusive reporting from multiple senior Turkish officials confirms that Ankara is set to ramp up its military support to Saudi Arabia in the coming weeks, dispatching additional personnel and advanced defense equipment to counter intensifying Houthi attacks targeting the kingdom, Middle East Eye reported Tuesday.

The move follows a joint announcement issued Monday by Turkey, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, where the three nations committed to immediate activation of collective defense obligations outlined in the Makkah Alliance for Defence. The agreement stipulates that pre-negotiated military units and capabilities will be rapidly deployed to Saudi territory to bolster the kingdom’s security.

Two Turkish officials with direct knowledge of Ankara’s deployment plan told MEE that Turkey has maintained a persistent presence of technical teams, air defense systems, and electronic warfare infrastructure in Saudi Arabia since 2023, tasked with shielding critical national assets including key energy facilities. Now, that presence is set to expand significantly: a senior anonymous Turkish official confirmed that Ankara will send additional defense hardware, specialized technicians, rapid emergency response units, and a contingent of accompanying combat support forces.

Under a 2010 bilateral military training agreement between Ankara and Riyadh, Turkey is permitted to deploy a limited number of personnel to the kingdom for technical support purposes. However, any larger-scale troop deployment requires formal approval from Turkey’s national parliament per the country’s constitution. The senior official noted that while ratification of the full Makkah Alliance treaty is still required, parliamentary leaders may prioritize advancing the military deployment authorization bill first.

A second Turkish official added that Ankara intends to establish a Turkish military command presence at a minimum of one dedicated base, which will operate exclusively to provide defensive backing to Saudi forces. Preparations for the command base have been underway for months: “Technical teams carried out on-site work across Saudi Arabia throughout September, and the project was nearly finalized by the time of the first Makkah Strategic Political and Defence Committee meeting,” the official explained.

Parliamentary approval for the expanded deployment is scheduled for a vote later this month, after which a limited contingent of Turkish special operations forces will be permitted to enter the kingdom. Separate planning sources confirmed to MEE that post-approval, the Turkish military will also deploy an undisclosed number of experienced combat pilots and aircraft to Saudi Arabia, specifically to counter Houthi unmanned aerial vehicles and ballistic missile launches originating from Yemen.

Ankara has repeatedly stressed it has no intention of entering the Yemen conflict directly. “We do not plan to send a large contingent of ground troops, and we have zero plans for direct intervention in Yemen,” the senior Turkish official clarified, adding that “Ankara still holds the position that diplomatic negotiations could yield positive results in the coming months.”

Once deployed, Turkish forces will take on specific defensive responsibilities: they will help secure the western segment of Saudi Arabia’s critical East-West oil pipeline, and contribute to air and ground defense operations for Riyadh and the kingdom’s holy Islamic sites of Mecca and Medina. Saudi security sources confirmed to MEE that Turkish units will operate in coordination with Saudi and Pakistani counterparts at a joint command coordination hub, while Turkey will maintain its own separate command base for national operational control. Turkish defense personnel and technical teams will carry out security missions across multiple strategic locations throughout the kingdom.

Murat Yesiltas, an international security scholar and member of the Turkish Presidency’s foreign policy advisory board, projected that Ankara will bring either the full Makkah Alliance ratification or the deployment authorization bill to the Turkish Grand National Assembly for consideration within 30 days. In a public social media analysis, Yesiltas noted that Turkey’s initial contribution will almost certainly center on air defense systems, counter-drone technology, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities based in Saudi Arabia, rather than deploying combat troops into Yemen.

“This framework allows Turkey to fully integrate into Riyadh’s regional security architecture while also letting it keep the level of risk and direct engagement carefully controlled and limited,” Yesiltas wrote.

MEE was the first outlet to report in September 2024 that Turkey was preparing to deliver defensive security assistance to Saudi Arabia while committing to avoid direct involvement inside Yemeni territory. For their part, Houthi leadership has repeatedly denied targeting Mecca and Medina, with group leader Abdul-Malik al-Houthi dismissing such claims as a “major lie” in remarks last month.

A contentious vote by the Green Party of England and Wales has ignited international backlash and reignited a decades-old global debate over the definition of Zionism, marking the first time a major UK political party has formally categorized the movement as a form of racism.

At the party’s annual conference held in Brighton over the weekend, members passed the motion on Sunday, which not only framed Zionism as racism but also endorsed the creation of a single democratic Palestinian state guaranteeing equal rights for all ethnic and religious communities, rejecting the long-proposed two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

International responses were swift and condemnatory. The Israeli government immediately implemented a travel ban on Green Party leader Zack Polanski – who is Jewish himself – accusing the entire party of promoting antisemitism. The United States announced it would raise formal objections with the British government, warning the vote amounted to antisemitic rhetoric. Even the European Green Party moved quickly to separate itself from the decision, issuing an unequivocal rejection of the motion and reaffirming its longstanding commitment to a two-state solution.

Domestically, the Green Party has faced widespread criticism from rival political groups. More than a dozen Labour Members of Parliament have filed official reports against the party with UK police over the new policy, while Reform UK Deputy Leader Richard Tice openly labeled the Green Party as a whole antisemitic.

Internal divisions have also fractured the Green Party’s own ranks over the vote. Co-Deputy Leader Mothin Ali spoke openly in favor of the motion in an interview with Middle East Eye, arguing that as framed in the resolution, Zionism functions as an ethno-nationalist project that has enabled ethnic cleansing and advances a belief in the superiority of one group over another. Ali expressed confidence the vote would reshape long-term political discourse around the issue in the UK. His position stands in direct opposition to three senior Green parliamentarians – MPs Ellie Chowns, Carla Denyer and Adrian Ramsay – who have publicly criticized the motion.

Jewish groups have also been split in their responses. Yashad, a progressive Jewish organization that is openly critical of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing government, nevertheless condemned the motion. The group noted that while the meaning of Zionism is widely debated, for the majority of British Jews, the core idea of Zionism – the right of Jewish people to collective self-determination and peoplehood – is central to their Jewish identity.

“Telling Jews they are acceptable only if they give up that understanding of collective Jewish identity, is not, as some have sought to explain it away, an attack on a political ideology. It is an attack on Jewish identity,” the group said in a statement. The motion won endorsement from prominent Holocaust survivor and activist Stephen Kapos, while Jewish Greens, an internal caucus of Jewish Green Party members, opted not to take an official position, confirming its own membership was evenly divided on the issue.

Amid the flurry of breaking coverage and public outrage, a critical chapter of 20th century international history has largely been overlooked: this is not the first time the global community has formally debated framing Zionism as racism. The debate stretches back 50 years, when the United Nations General Assembly adopted a binding resolution with exactly that framing in 1975, a position that enjoyed the support of a majority of UN member states at the time. Though that resolution was later revoked, declassified records show the British government quietly lobbied the United States to abandon its campaign to overturn the original resolution in the years between its passage and its repeal.

The 1975 resolution drew on a series of preceding international declarations that linked Zionism to racist governance. A 1973 UN General Assembly resolution had already condemned what it called the “unholy alliance between South African racism and zionism,” referencing the close political and military ties between Israel and the apartheid regime in South Africa. Months before the 1975 UN vote, the Organization of African Unity’s Assembly of Heads of State and Government adopted a resolution arguing that “the racist regime in occupied Palestine and the racist regime in Zimbabwe and South Africa have a common imperialist origin, forming a whole and having the same racist structure and being organically linked in their policy aimed at repression of the dignity and integrity of the human being.” That same year, the Non-Aligned Movement – a bloc of 120 states that remained neutral during the Cold War – passed a resolution labeling Zionism as a direct threat to global peace and security.

The 1975 UN resolution was jointly introduced to the General Assembly by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Cuba, after a push by several Arab countries to expel Israel entirely from the United Nations failed to gain enough support. Ahead of the November 10 vote at the UN General Assembly session in New York, Belgium’s lead delegate Edouard Longerstaey launched a last-minute effort to delay the vote until the following year, but member states rejected the delay by a margin of 67 votes to 55, with 15 abstentions. Four and a half hours of heated debate preceded the final vote.

Kuwait’s representative Fayez Abdallah Sayegh told the assembly that Arab nations held deep reverence for Judaism, and noted that many Jewish people around the world also opposed Zionist policy. “We reject the equation between anti-Zionism and antisemitism,” he told delegates. But Israel’s permanent representative to the UN, Chaim Herzog – who would later go on to serve as Israel’s president – delivered a fiery response, dramatically tearing up a copy of the resolution text mid-speech. “I do not come to this rostrum to defend the moral and historical values of the Jewish people,” Herzog proclaimed. “To question the Jewish people’s right to national existence and freedom is not only to deny to the Jewish people the right accorded to every other people on this globe, but it is also to deny the central precepts of the United Nations.”

US permanent representative Daniel Patrick Moynihan doubled down on the condemnation, telling the assembly that the United States would never recognize or accept the resolution. “It does not acknowledge, it will not abide by, it will never acquiesce in, this infamous act,” Moynihan said. “A great evil has been loosed upon the world. The abomination of antisemitism has been given the appearance of international sanction.”

When the final vote was held that evening, the resolution passed by a vote of 72 in favor to 35 against, with 32 abstentions. Support for the resolution came largely from recently independent former colonies, the Soviet Union and its communist bloc allies, and all Arab and Muslim-majority nations. Many African states and non-aligned powers including India also backed the measure. Opponents included the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, most Western European countries, several Latin American nations, and four African countries. The United Kingdom voted against the 1975 resolution, but declassified diplomatic records reveal British officials privately lobbied Washington against launching a campaign to repeal it.

It was not until 1989 that US Vice President Dan Quayle launched a formal campaign to revoke the 1975 resolution. According to declassified documents from the period, British UN diplomats privately dismissed Quayle’s campaign as “naked political opportunism”, arguing it was crafted to appeal to pro-Zionist voters and aligned with the priorities of the Republican Party’s right wing. Crispin Tickell, then head of the British mission to the UN, warned that revoking the resolution would give hardline Arab actors an opening to create diplomatic disruption and would draw unwanted global attention to racially discriminatory policies pursued by the Israeli government. Tickell advised the British government to communicate Britain’s “deep misgivings about the political damage that any campaign on this issue could do to the UN and to the peace process generally” to senior US officials. Then Conservative Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd followed that advice, directing his staff to communicate the UK’s “firm wish that no action will be taken in the near future” to Washington.

Despite British lobbying, the 1975 resolution was ultimately revoked just two years later in 1991. By that time, the Cold War had ended, and Israel made the repeal of the resolution a non-negotiable precondition for its participation in the historic Madrid Peace Conference, the first formal negotiation between Israeli and PLO representatives. Some 111 UN member states voted in favor of revocation, while 25 opposed it and 13 abstained. All Arab states voted against the repeal, though seven – including Egypt and Kuwait – were absent for the vote.

Fifty years on from that landmark 1975 vote, the question of framing Zionism as racism has once again sparked a global firestorm, with the Israeli and U.S. governments once again leading widespread condemnation. The key difference this time is that the controversial position has been adopted not by a global intergovernmental body, but by a small left-wing opposition party in the United Kingdom, turning a niche domestic political decision into an international diplomatic incident.