作者： admin

More than a year after the Trump administration rolled out a controversial policy prioritizing white South African Afrikaners for U.S. refugee resettlement, administration officials are now considering allocating over $300,000 to a targeted outreach campaign designed to boost application numbers that have failed to meet the president’s initial expectations, according to reporting from The Guardian.

The policy, first unveiled in 2024, grew out of unsubstantiated claims from former President Donald Trump that Afrikaners — descendants of Dutch colonizers who settled in southern Africa in the 17th and 18th centuries — face systemic persecution in South Africa. The South African government, including President Cyril Ramaphosa, has repeatedly rejected these claims, with a delegation of white South African leaders who met with Trump in the Oval Office last year dismissing his assertions of an ongoing “white genocide” as completely unfounded.

If approved, the proposed outreach program would launch a series of focus groups across eight South African cities spanning Gauteng, Free State, Western Cape, and Northern Cape provinces, including the Afrikaner enclave of Orania. Following the focus group discussions, organizers would distribute wide-ranging surveys to measure how many eligible white South Africans are interested in pursuing resettlement to the U.S. under the special priority pathway.

Critics have pointed to troubling context around the program, noting that the exclusive eligibility for white South Africans — which excludes other South African communities that face documented marginalization — suggests the policy may be rooted in geopolitical retaliation. South Africa has drawn Trump’s ire for bringing a case against Israel before the International Court of Justice, as well as for expanding economic and trade partnerships with China and Iran, moves that conflict with the current administration’s foreign policy priorities.

The underperformance of the existing priority pathway already been documented: separate Guardian reporting from last month found that roughly 13,000 Afrikaners have entered the U.S. over the past 18 months, while hundreds of other applicants have been rejected. The figures confirm that the resettlement process is far less accessible than the administration initially framed it to be.

The special priority policy was rolled out as part of a broader, dramatic overhaul of the U.S. refugee program that saw the Trump administration slash annual refugee admission caps to historic lows. One year ago, the administration announced a target of just 7,500 refugees for fiscal year 2026, a massive drop from the 125,000 annual cap set by former Democratic President Joe Biden. That cap was later revised upward to 17,500, still far below the levels of the previous administration.

This cutback has had sweeping humanitarian consequences. When Trump suspended the existing refugee resettlement program shortly after returning to office in January 2025, at least 12,000 vulnerable people who had already received conditional approval and booked their travel to the U.S. were left in indefinite limbo. An additional nearly 90,000 already approved applicants were also blocked from entry. While the Biden administration set a higher annual admission cap of 125,000, data from the Migration Policy Institute shows actual admissions fell short of that target: 25,465 refugees were admitted in 2022, 60,014 in 2023, 100,034 in 2024, and just 27,308 in 2025 before Biden’s term ended.

Humanitarian and refugee advocacy groups have harshly condemned the administration’s decision to prioritize Afrikaners over other displaced populations. Sharif Aly, president of the International Refugee Assistance Project, criticized the policy in a statement shared with Middle East Eye, arguing that it exposes how far the administration has gone to abandon the U.S.’s longstanding commitments to displaced people globally. Aly noted that by privileging this one specific group while blocking entry to thousands of already vetted and approved refugees from other regions, the administration is overtly politicizing what should be a neutral humanitarian program.

A routine legal complaint filed by a Lebanese attorney against his country’s top diplomat in the United States has ignited a cross-regional political firestorm, unleashing sharp new US pressure on Beirut to repeal a decades-old law that criminalizes direct contact with Israeli citizens. The high-stakes dispute comes just as Lebanese and Israeli military delegations prepare to gather this week at US Central Command headquarters in Tampa, Florida, for the next round of Washington-brokered negotiations, raising questions about the future of Lebanon’s longstanding boycott legislation.

The controversy traces back to a September 27 report from local Lebanese outlet Beirut Review, which claimed that Lebanese Ambassador Nada Hamadeh Moawad had placed a condolence call to her Israeli counterpart in Washington, Yechiel Leiter, after Leiter’s son was critically injured in a car-ramming attack at a checkpoint in the occupied West Bank. The report was quickly picked up by multiple Israeli media outlets, prompting Beiruti lawyer Hassan Bazzi to file an official complaint with Lebanon’s top public prosecutor in late September.

Bazzi’s complaint, which was eventually referred to military court government commissioner Claude Ghanem, did not seek to directly convict Moawad; instead, it asked the Lebanese judiciary to confirm whether the media accounts of the call were accurate. Speaking to Middle East Eye, Bazzi emphasized that as both a sitting ambassador and a member of Lebanon’s official negotiating team with Israel, Moawad’s actions carry unique weight. “She is not an ordinary citizen,” Bazzi said. “An ambassador and a negotiator should be fighting in the name of the Lebanese people and their pain, especially southerners,” who have born the brunt of decades of cross-border conflict. Neither Moawad nor Lebanon’s foreign ministry issued an official denial of the reported call, though Lebanese President Joseph Aoun has publicly defended the ambassador, confirming the contact never occurred and warned that anyone seeking to undermine the US-backed peace process is committing a crime against the Lebanese state.

Lebanon’s 1955 Boycott Law, the legislation at the center of the dispute, has stood for nearly 70 years, imposing penalties of three to 10 years of hard labor for any citizen who engages in contact with Israelis. In recent years, the law has been used to bring complaints against a range of public figures, including popular Lebanese singer Nancy Ajram earlier this 2024. While repealing the law only requires a simple parliamentary majority, no formal repeal legislation has ever been introduced for a vote. The law has taken on new relevance since April, when Moawad and Leiter became key participants in the US-brokered direct peace talks between the two nations. Those talks culminated in a landmark framework agreement signed in Washington on June 26, which outlines an Israeli military withdrawal from southern Lebanon, the deployment of the Lebanese army to the border region, Hezbollah disarmament, and a permanent end to cross-border hostilities.

The US response to Bazzi’s complaint was far swifter and more forceful than the lawyer anticipated, breaking with the typical slow pace of Lebanese judicial proceedings. State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott called the decision to hear the complaint against an ambassador acting on behalf of her legitimate government “embarrassing,” arguing that Lebanon’s military judiciary should redirect its limited resources toward prosecuting Hezbollah operatives accused of threatening the Lebanese state. The US also labeled Bazzi a “pro-Hezbollah lawyer,” a label he has forcefully rejected, noting he has filed complaints against political actors across the Lebanese spectrum over corruption and security breaches since 2011, with no singular partisan agenda. More notably, a senior US official confirmed to The Times of Israel that Washington is actively considering imposing economic sanctions on the Lebanese judges assigned to hear the complaint, escalating pressure to dismiss the case.

In mid-October, Ghanem dismissed the complaint, ruling that even if the reported call had occurred, it would not qualify as a criminal offense under the 1955 law. The commissioner reasoned that the legislation only applies to commercial transactions with Israeli entities, not private or diplomatic contact. Bazzi has decried this ruling as an extremely dangerous departure from decades of legal precedent, arguing that the boycott law’s first clause explicitly includes “any other type of dealing” that has been broadly interpreted by successive governments and courts to cover cultural, athletic, and diplomatic contact. “This interpretation means that if the contact happened, it is not a criminal offense,” Bazzi said. “We would be opening up very serious security and political breaches by giving Lebanese people licence to contact anyone in the enemy state.” He has called for the investigation to be expanded under Article 278 of the Lebanese penal code, which criminalizes contact with agents of an enemy state.

The legal dispute has supercharged a months-long US campaign to pressure Lebanon into repealing the boycott law entirely. Earlier this year in March, a bipartisan group of US lawmakers pressed US Ambassador to Beirut Michel Issa to ramp up lobbying for the law’s suspension. In April, following a White House-hosted round of negotiations, former President (and current President) Donald Trump told reporters he had been unaware of the law and called for its immediate elimination. “It’s crazy to have such legislation and I will work to put an end to it,” Trump said. A day after Ghanem dismissed Bazzi’s complaint, Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised the issue in a formal phone call with President Aoun, describing the law as “impractical” and arguing it is repeatedly misused for politicized prosecutions that block progress toward peace. Ambassador Issa has echoed that sentiment, saying the law is indefensible amid direct US-sponsored talks, and has been lobbying Lebanese MPs, particularly those from anti-Hezbollah blocs, to support repeal.

Within Lebanon, the push to abolish the law has only garnered a small group of public supporters. Beirut MP Fouad Makhzoumi has called for an immediate suspension, arguing that official peace negotiations require clear legal protection for diplomatic engagement. A small number of anti-Hezbollah commentators and activists have gone further, calling for full outright repeal. However, most of Lebanon’s anti-Hezbollah parliamentary blocs have remained hesitant to publicly back repeal, choosing to defend Moawad without endorsing changes to the boycott law. Kataeb Party official Salim Sayegh said the party sees no need to revisit the ban on contact with the enemy at this stage. Free Patriotic Movement MP Jimmy Jabbour called the issue “not up for discussion at all” under current conditions. Progressive Socialist Party MP Bilal Abdallah noted any debate on the law can only happen after Israel completes its promised withdrawal from Lebanese territory and a formal non-aggression agreement is reached. Hezbollah and its political ally the Amal Movement have refused to engage in any debate on the issue, with MP Waddah al-Sadek noting that most lawmakers are unwilling to open a debate that would trigger a major domestic political crisis.

As the dispute over the law unfolds, the upcoming Tampa talks mark a key shift in the US-brokered negotiation process, moving from diplomatic bargaining to military implementation talks. The discussions will be led by US Marine Corps Major General Joseph Clearfield, with the Lebanese delegation expected to raise persistent Israeli violations of the “pilot withdrawal zones” outlined in the June framework agreement, where Israeli troops were supposed to hand over control to the Lebanese army. Lebanese officials cite ongoing Israeli attacks, cross-border incursions, and the killing of Lebanese civilians as evidence of these violations. According to Lebanese outlet L’Orient Today, Washington and Israel have made direct military-to-military coordination between the Lebanese and Israeli armies a core precondition for moving negotiations forward. At present, the political negotiation track remains effectively frozen, and implementation of the June framework agreement has stalled entirely.

US officials have explicitly called for direct military-to-military communication between the two sides, a requirement that directly conflicts with the long-standing judicial interpretation of Lebanon’s boycott law. For opponents of repeal, the Moawad affair is a clear warning of the pressures that will continue to mount as negotiations progress. Bazzi emphasizes his complaint was filed weeks before the current escalation of the repeal campaign, and was only intended to uphold a longstanding legal principle. That principle is now under growing pressure both at the Tampa negotiating table and from sustained US lobbying in Beirut. “If this call is true, it is a capitulation to the Israelis,” Bazzi said, “and a provocation to our feelings as southerners.”

France is facing one of its most severe domestic political crises in modern history after a chaotic, violence-fueled weekend left two civilians dead, thousands injured, and major urban centers resembling war zones, as law enforcement struggled to regain control of public streets. The unrest has cast a deep shadow over the final months of President Emmanuel Macron’s tenure in office.

The scale of the rioting, widely described as the worst period of civil disorder France has seen since the mass student and worker uprisings that pushed the nation to the edge of revolution in May 1968, prompted Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu to convene an emergency crisis cabinet meeting on Monday to coordinate a government response.

Following the closed-door meeting, Lecornu announced that the government was asking local municipal governments across affected regions to implement targeted partial curfews to stem further violence. The prime minister also confirmed that the administration had not ruled out implementing a nationwide state of emergency if unrest continues to escalate.

Speaking to reporters after the meeting, Lecornu emphasized that the government was “fully resolved to restoring public order” across the country. He noted that if security authorities determined a state of emergency was required to contain the violence, the administration would move forward with the declaration. At this stage of the response, however, Lecornu added that targeted partial curfews appeared to be a more proportional and appropriate measure.

Law enforcement agencies have already taken at least 2,000 protesters into custody across the nation since the unrest erupted, with widespread reports of serious life-altering injuries among demonstrators. Two protesters have had hands completely severed by police stun grenades, and earlier this month, a 15-year-old boy also lost a hand after being hit by a police stun grenade in a separate incident.

In a controversial decision that has drawn sharp criticism from opposition groups, President Macron rejected the resignation offer from Interior Minister Laurent Nunez, even after government authorities acknowledged that “failures in anticipation and intelligence” on the part of security services directly worsened the scale of the crisis. Macron opted to keep Nunez in his post to preserve an uninterrupted chain of command for security operations, as police and national security forces continue to work to contain spreading unrest.

“Those who destroyed must pay,” Macron stated in an address to the nation on Sunday evening. “Those who looted must pay back. Those who sought to bring down the Republic will be held accountable.”

The unrest began on Saturday, when an estimated half a million people marched across the country to protest soaring living costs, long-standing underperformance in the state education system, and steadily deteriorating public services. The initial protests were followed by widespread looting and arson, with independent estimates indicating that rioters damaged or destroyed more than 1,500 independent shops and small businesses across the nation.

The roots of the current movement stretch back to September, when student and teacher strikes began in under-resourced, impoverished suburbs of Paris. The strikers were demanding increased funding and resources for schools that lacked basic equipment and staffing. While government officials ultimately agreed to meet the core demands of the initial strikers, the movement struck a powerful chord across the nation, with millions of French people who had long held frustrations over the education system and stagnating economy joining the protests.

A harsh, heavy-handed crackdown by police, marked by frequent incidents of violence against student protesters, pushed thousands more previously uninvolved citizens onto the streets to join the demonstrations, amplifying the scale of the unrest.

In the southern port city of Marseille, which saw some of the worst weekend violence and looting, local authorities issued an official order banning all public gatherings and demonstrations from midday to 8 p.m. on Monday to prevent further disorder.

By the end of the chaotic weekend, the French capital of Paris had been reduced to what one visiting observer described to Reuters as a “war zone,” with burned-out vehicles, broken storefronts, and debris littering major commercial districts.

“It’s heartbreaking, heartbreaking seeing our city like this,” 59-year-old Marseille resident Farida, who declined to share her last name with Reuters, told reporters. “If every protest ends with all the shop windows smashed and stores trashed, this simply cannot go on – it cannot go on.”

The outbreak of large-scale unrest comes as France, the European Union’s second-largest economy, is already reeling from overlapping fiscal and social crises. The nation narrowly escaped falling into a technical recession in the second quarter of this year, and the sharp spike in global energy prices driven by ongoing geopolitical conflict in the Middle East has hit the country’s energy-dependent economy particularly hard.

Weeks before the current unrest erupted, the Wall Street Journal warned that growing “uncertainty about the country’s political and fiscal future has also contributed to a slowdown in what was once one of Europe’s more reliable growth engines.”

New survey data from Medef, France’s largest national employers’ federation, underscores the deep anxiety French business leaders hold over ongoing political instability. The survey found that 82 percent of responding business leaders expressed pessimism about the current government’s economic policy agenda. Sixty-six percent of respondents added that their companies face a high risk of bankruptcy or increased financial fragility if major changes to national economic policy are not implemented over the next three to five years.

Two weeks ago, a celebratory announcement in Baku painted a rosy picture of Turkey-Azerbaijan cooperation. Senior Turkish military and defense industry figures gathered with Azerbaijani counterparts to unveil $500 million in new arms supply contracts, a visible milestone in the bilateral relationship shaped by shared ethnic, religious, cultural, and historical bonds. This partnership was formalized and deepened by the 2021 Shusha Declaration, a mutual defense pact that anchored the two nations’ commitment to one another’s security. Beyond defense, the alliance has grown to encompass multi-billion-dollar cross-investments spanning energy, transportation, construction, and agriculture, making the sudden public eruption of tension all the more striking.