分类： politics

From the smartphone in your pocket to the car you drive, and from cutting-edge military aircraft to transoceanic communications cables, 17 chemically similar metals collectively labeled rare earth elements power nearly every corner of modern life. Coined in 1794, the term “rare earths” is actually a misnomer: for example, cerium, one of the most widely used members of the group, is just as abundant in the Earth’s crust as copper. What makes these metals rare and strategically critical is not their presence in the ground, but the extraordinary difficulty of separating them from raw ore and refining them into usable materials. This processing challenge has turned control of rare earth supply chains into a major source of geopolitical power, and today, that power is concentrated largely in China.

As a former war game adjudicator for the U.S. Navy, I have seen firsthand how hidden structural constraints can derail even the most carefully crafted strategic plans. Rare earth processing is one such underrecognized constraint that shapes the entire U.S.-China geopolitical relationship. Even critical U.S. military assets, from F-35 fighter jets to Virginia-class submarines, depend on rare earths processed in China. In 2025, China demonstrated the weight of this influence when it implemented sweeping new rare earth export controls, before agreeing to suspend the majority of these measures until November 10, 2026. This temporary suspension itself has become a powerful bargaining chip: the ability to extend the pause or allow restrictions to snap back into effect gives Beijing substantial diplomatic leverage, fitting Theodore Roosevelt’s famous description of geopolitical strategy as “speaking softly and carrying a big stick.”

### How China claimed global rare earth dominance

It was not inevitable that China would come to control the global rare earth market. As recently as the late 1980s, the U.S. led global production out of California’s Mountain Pass mine. But repeated incidents of radioactive wastewater leaking from the mine’s facilities into the Mojave Desert created regulatory and public pressure that made sustained domestic production difficult. When China expanded its own rare earth mining operations and began selling processed materials at lower prices, shifting suppliers became an economically straightforward choice for international buyers. Mountain Pass’s separation plant shut down in 1998, and mining operations ceased entirely in 2002.

While MP Materials restarted mining at Mountain Pass in 2017, amid growing U.S. concerns over rare earth supply security, the U.S. still imported more than two-thirds of its rare earth elements as of 2025. Current data underscores the scale of China’s dominance: in 2024, China mined 60% of the rare earth elements used in global magnet production, and handled 91% of all global rare earth separation and refining. For decades, international buyers accepted this arrangement: Chinese processed rare earths cost less than building domestic capacity, and buyers avoided the environmental costs and public backlash that come with refining. But in exchange for lower short-term costs, they ceded critical strategic leverage to Beijing – a dynamic that was less concerning when China was still seen as a rising, largely cooperative economic power.

### Why the U.S. domestic supply chain rebuild is moving slowly

The U.S. Government Accountability Office estimated back in 2010 that rebuilding a full end-to-end domestic rare earth supply chain, from mining to separation to finished magnet manufacturing, could take up to 15 years, and progress has been even slower than projected for three core reasons.

First, China has built its industry over decades with a workforce of thousands of specialized, experienced engineers, while the U.S. retains a tiny fraction of that expertise. All modern cutting-edge industrial rare earth processing technology was developed in China, and Beijing banned exports of this separation technology in December 2023, cutting off a key path for U.S. capacity building. Second, while the U.S. holds substantial domestic rare earth deposits, permitting and developing new mining projects remains a slow, fraught process. Third, despite billions in federal investment, supply chain rebuilding faces persistent headwinds from Chinese export restrictions.

To date, the U.S. government has committed more than $7 billion since April 2025 to rebuilding domestic rare earth production capacity. In 2025, the Pentagon purchased $400 million in preferred stock from MP Materials, giving the U.S. government a 15% ownership stake in the company. MP Materials currently projects that its new commercial magnet plant will not begin equipment testing until 2028. In 2026, the U.S. Commerce Department signed a letter of intent to provide rare earth magnet maker USA Rare Earth with $277 million in direct funding and a $1.3 billion loan to develop new facilities in Texas and Oklahoma. Even with this support, however, Chinese trade barriers continue to slow progress.

### The November 10, 2026 expiration deadline

In October 2025, China’s Ministry of Commerce announced six broad export control measures for rare earths. One of the most far-reaching, Announcement No. 61, requires even third-country factories in Germany or Japan to obtain a Chinese export license to ship products that contain 0.1% or more Chinese-origin rare earths, or that were manufactured using Chinese rare earth processing technology.

Shortly after the announcement, then-President Donald Trump met with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, and Beijing agreed to suspend the six main export control measures until November 10, 2026. In exchange, Washington paused its controversial “affiliates rule,” which imposes restrictions on companies majority-owned by blacklisted Chinese firms, for a one-year period. Both sets of restrictions will automatically snap back into effect on November 10 unless both governments agree to extend the temporary truce.

It is important to note that not all Chinese export restrictions were suspended. Licensing requirements for exports of seven heavier rare earth elements, implemented in April 2025, remain in full force. The impact of these controls on U.S. industry was already visible in 2025, when automaker Ford was forced to idle its Chicago assembly plant for a full week due to a shortage of rare earth magnets critical for vehicle speakers and electric motors. Ford CEO Jim Farley later described the company’s rare earth supply as “day to day,” noting the firm had no alternative domestic source, and production only resumed after Beijing granted a special export approval.

In June 2026, Beijing expanded restrictions further by adding 10 U.S. companies to its export control list, banning both Chinese and foreign firms from selling any dual-use (civilian and military) goods to the targeted firms. Notably, two of the blacklisted companies are MP Materials and USA Rare Earth – the two federally backed U.S. firms that have made the farthest progress in building a full domestic mine-to-magnet supply chain. Beijing framed the move as a reciprocal response to a similar blacklisting action by the U.S. Pentagon, but a clear strategic logic is at play: targeting the two leading U.S. rare earth developers slows America’s efforts to reduce dependence on Chinese processing.

If the truce is extended on November 10, the temporary pause on the six main export controls will remain in place, but the heavy rare earth licensing requirements and the June 2026 blacklisting of U.S. rare earth firms will stay in effect. This truce allows both sides to maintain a facade of cooperation, but it does not resolve the underlying strategic competition.

### Three possible paths forward for the U.S.

The U.S. currently faces three clear strategic options for managing its rare earth dependency, each with distinct tradeoffs:

First, the U.S. could choose to leave the majority of rare earth processing in Chinese hands. This is the fastest and lowest-cost option in the short term, but it leaves the U.S. permanently exposed to sudden supply disruptions and ongoing Chinese geopolitical leverage across a wide range of diplomatic and military issues.

Second, the U.S. could accelerate efforts to rebuild a full end-to-end domestic rare earth supply chain. This would eliminate most U.S. dependence on Chinese processing and the associated geopolitical leverage, but it will take more time to complete, require billions more in upfront investment, and force the U.S. to confront the environmental challenges of rare earth refining, which produces acidic and sometimes radioactive processing residues.

Third, the U.S. could build a collaborative allied supply chain with partner nations such as Australia and Japan, both of which have already begun developing their own rare earth processing capacity. This approach would reduce the risk of unilateral Chinese supply cuts, and Japan has already seen limited success with this model. However, it remains vulnerable to China’s existing rules that restrict the use of Chinese rare earth technology in third countries.

The outcome of the upcoming meeting between President Xi Jinping and President Trump on September 24, 2026, will likely shape whether the temporary export control pause is extended past November 10. But regardless of the short-term outcome, the broader strategic competition over rare earth supply chain dominance – and the geopolitical leverage that comes with it – will continue for the foreseeable future.

This article is based on analysis by Charles Edward Gehrke, Sloan Fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

India’s top electoral oversight body, the Election Commission of India (ECI), is grappling with its most severe credibility crisis in recent years, after an explosive newspaper report exposed deep internal rifts over the management of a nationwide voter roll overhaul, prompting opposition parties to demand the immediate resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

As the institutional anchor of the world’s largest democracy, the three-member ECI is led by Kumar, with senior commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi rounding out the panel. The current controversy erupted following an investigation published by *The Indian Express*, which documented that over the past 10 months, Sandhu and Joshi have repeatedly challenged Kumar over critical decisions related to voter database integrity, new voter enrollment protocols, and the overall security of national electoral rolls. According to the report, the two senior commissioners were sidelined from at least 14 key decisions, with changes made to electoral procedures without their knowledge or formal approval. On one occasion, the pair even submitted a formal complaint letter to the Government of India’s chief secretary, the country’s top civil service post, the report added.

The internal revelations have sent shockwaves through India’s political landscape, particularly as the controversy overlaps with the ECI’s ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR), a highly contentious nationwide update of the national voter database. ECI officials frame the SIR as a long-overdue clean-up: the last comprehensive national revision of voter rolls was completed nearly 25 years ago, and the project aims to remove ineligible entries linked to deceased voters, residents who have relocated abroad, and individuals duplicated across multiple regional rolls. To date, the revision has removed roughly 130 million names from national rolls, but the process has been mired in controversy from its launch. Opposition parties have long accused Kumar and the ECI of manipulating the SIR to intentionally remove voters aligned with opposition parties and favor Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in upcoming and recent elections. Both the BJP and ECI have repeatedly denied these allegations.

What makes the latest revelations uniquely damaging, political analysts note, is that the criticisms of Kumar’s leadership come not from opposition parties, but from within the ECI itself. Millions of eligible voters across the country have already filed official complaints reporting that their names were incorrectly removed from voter rolls during the SIR process, with many arguing that the new documentation requirements for re-enrollment are unnecessarily burdensome for low-income and marginalized communities who lack formal identity paperwork.

Former Chief Election Commissioner SY Quraishi, a vocal public critic of the SIR since its launch, told press agency PTI that he had long questioned why Sandhu and Joshi had not publicly pushed back on the controversial project. “Now I realised that very silently and quietly they were protesting, they were writing notes. That is a good thing, they have gone up in my esteem,” Quraishi said.

Opposition leaders have seized on the internal leaks to ramp up pressure on Kumar and the ECI, with senior figures going far beyond calls for resignation to demand criminal action over the alleged voter list manipulation. Senior Congress Party leader and Member of Parliament Rahul Gandhi, who has repeatedly accused the ECI of systematically “stealing votes” from opposition blocs, labeled the alleged manipulation an act of treason against India’s constitution in a post on X Wednesday. “Vote chori [theft] is a crime against the Indian people and a direct attack on our constitution. The BJP, RSS [Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh] and EC who organised it have committed an act of treason. Justice will be served,” Gandhi wrote, alongside a 15-second video warning ECI officials that “your time will come. You cannot get away.”

Mamata Banerjee, chief of the regional Trinamool Congress party and former Chief Minister of West Bengal, went a step further, calling for Kumar’s arrest and demanding that fresh elections be held in the state using the pre-SIR voter roll. Banerjee’s party lost control of West Bengal to the BJP in recent state elections, during which more than 2.7 million voters were removed from the state’s rolls during the SIR process. Banerjee and her supporters argue the removals directly cost the party dozens of assembly seats and the overall election.

Within hours of the *Indian Express* report’s publication, the ECI released an official statement pushing back against the criticism and defending its internal decision-making processes. “Differing views and observations are a normal part of deliberation in any institution. They are a part of the decision-making process before a final decision is taken,” the statement read. “Not only the three Commissioners, but every officer of the Commission is fully authorised to give his suggestions to the Commission for improving the electoral system.”

The ECI also argued that the newspaper report presented a distorted, partial picture of its internal processes, noting that highlighting isolated internal notes from a 10-month period while ignoring the large body of unanimous collective decisions on electoral reforms gives an inaccurate view of the commission’s work. “In recent months, the commission has introduced around 40 new initiatives and undertaken many electoral reforms including the conduct of electoral roll revision (including SIR) across the country. All these decisions are an outcome of the unanimous decisions of the full commission in the past one year,” the statement added.

The BJP has also defended Kumar, dismissing the opposition’s criticism as a coordinated “smear campaign” rooted in political frustration. Party spokesperson Sambit Patra told reporters that ever since the Modi government took office in 2014, opposition parties have steadily lost electoral ground, and are now attacking independent national institutions to compensate for their inability to win free and fair contests. Patra also framed internal dissent within the ECI as a sign of a healthy, vibrant democracy, rather than a systemic failure.

Despite these defenses, political tensions are expected to escalate in the coming weeks. Banerjee has already confirmed that opposition parties will hold continuous public protests until Kumar steps down from his post. The Gen Z-led Cockroach Janta Party, a grassroots activist group that recently forced the resignation of India’s federal education minister over controversial policies, has also announced it will join the protests against what it calls the “hijacking of India’s democracy.”

Political analysts note that the ECI’s official response is unlikely to resolve growing concerns over the commission’s impartiality, pointing out that the statement fails to address many of the specific allegations raised in the *Indian Express* investigation. “CEC Kumar needs to clear the air if we are to view the Commission as an impartial body,” many analysts have argued, marking the beginning of a prolonged fight over the credibility of India’s electoral system ahead of future national and state polls.

In an extraordinary display of diplomatic priority not seen in more than six decades, US President Donald Trump personally welcomed Chinese President Xi Jinping to Washington Wednesday, kicking off a three-day landmark summit packed with discussions on critical global and bilateral issues. The warm reception, complete with a 30-meter red carpet, a full military honor guard, and a flyover of two B-1 supersonic bombers, marked the first time a sitting US president has greeted a foreign leader at Maryland’s Joint Base Andrews since President John F. Kennedy welcomed British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan in 1962.

Xi Jinping touched down at the base at 17:39 local time aboard an Air China jetliner, accompanied by his wife Peng Liyuan and a high-level delegation that includes Politburo Standing Committee member Cai Qi, widely regarded as Xi’s closest advisor, Vice Premier He Lifeng, Foreign Minister Wang Yi, and other senior diplomatic and trade officials. After the plane came to a stop, honor guard troops lined both sides of the red carpet, and two official limousines pulled up to the aircraft steps. President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump stepped forward to greet the Chinese delegation, shaking hands with Xi and Peng before the two couples walked the red carpet together, posed for official photographs, and departed for Washington in separate motorcades.

Even before the formal summit talks began, a key preliminary agreement was announced: US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent confirmed that Washington and Beijing have agreed to extend their ongoing bilateral trade truce until January, pushing back the original November 10 expiration date. The current truce framework saw the US reduce tariff rates on a range of Chinese imports in exchange for China loosening export restrictions on critical rare earth minerals, materials essential to US manufacturing and high-tech supply chains. Bessent noted that he and He Lifeng held preliminary talks focused on laying the groundwork for a potential more comprehensive long-term trade deal down the line.

In a written statement released by China’s state news agency Xinhua ahead of the summit, Xi emphasized the shared potential of the world’s two largest economies. “Both China and the United States are great nations, and their people are great people,” Xi wrote. “The two countries should be partners rather than rivals.” He added that China’s goal of national rejuvenation and the Trump administration’s “Make America Great Again” agenda are fully compatible, saying “they can coexist, reinforce each other, and benefit the whole world,” and expressed confidence the summit would deliver tangible, positive outcomes.

First Lady Melania Trump, who has taken a hands-on role in planning the summit’s itinerary, told Fox News that President Trump made the decision to greet Xi personally at the base because of the strong rapport the two leaders share. The three-day schedule includes closed-door leadership talks, a lavish state dinner Thursday evening that will be attended by top US artificial intelligence industry leaders, and a cultural visit to the Smithsonian National Museum of Asian Art, where Melania Trump will host Peng Liyuan to highlight cultural ties between the two nations. The summit will conclude Friday with a visit to the US National Archives, where the two couples will view historical documents marking key milestones in US-China relations.

Unlike Trump’s May 2026 visit to Beijing, which included a delegation of top US tech executives from firms including Apple, Tesla, and Nvidia, it remains unclear whether Xi brought any Chinese business leaders along for the Washington trip. Analysts note that bringing Chinese business figures would likely draw renewed scrutiny of Chinese industrial practices, state subsidies, and overcapacity in key manufacturing sectors – issues that have long been points of contention in bilateral relations.

The summit comes as the two global powers are locked in a race for dominance in artificial intelligence, a sector that sits high on the meeting agenda. Trump has publicly dismissed industry warnings about unregulated AI development as a “hoax,” and both sides are expected to lay out their priorities for AI governance and competition during the talks. Other key issues on the agenda include the ongoing Iran conflict, cross-Strait relations around Taiwan, and US arms sales to the self-governing island that Beijing claims as its own territory.

David Firestein, a China expert at the Bush China Foundation, outlined the core priorities each side brings to the table: Trump is pushing for further progress on trade, including lower Chinese tariffs on US goods, increased Chinese rare earth exports to the US, and higher purchases of American agricultural products. Firestein noted that Beijing has so far failed to follow through on earlier commitments to expand these imports and exports, a sticking point in negotiations. For China, Firestein said Xi will push for Trump to delay or block a congressionally approved $14 billion arms sale to Taiwan, and to deepen bilateral trade integration.

Notably, Firestein observed that while the core issues dividing the two nations have not changed, the bilateral relationship is currently more stable and less volatile than it was in 2025. This shift comes as public opinion in the US has grown more favorable toward engagement with China: a recent Chicago Council on Global Affairs poll found that just 41% of Americans now view China’s territorial ambitions as a direct threat to the US, down from 52% in 2022. A 57% majority of Americans – including 57% of non-MAGA Republicans and most Democrats across the ideological spectrum – now support continued cooperation and engagement with Beijing. The only notable divide comes among Trump’s core loyalist base, where 63% favor limiting bilateral relations, creating a split between the president’s diplomatic outreach and the views of his most committed supporters.

On the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York City Wednesday, Jared Kushner — U.S. former President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, an unofficial senior advisor to the administration and close personal associate of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — led the public launch of a $2.45 billion preliminary infrastructure recovery plan for the war-ravaged Gaza Strip. The initiative is led by the so-called Board of Peace, a body chaired by Trump that counts Kushner among its executive board members.

According to reporting from Reuters, the framework outlined Wednesday comprises 66 individual projects targeted at rehabilitating Gaza’s decimated economic infrastructure, though few concrete details about the plan’s implementation or funding commitments were released publicly. Kushner acknowledged during the event that the body has faced repeated setbacks since its formation 11 months ago, framing the delays as a preparatory period ahead of future action. “Different delays on different things, for whatever reason,” he told reporters. “We’re just refining, sharpening the axe, getting ready for when we get to the time to cut the tree… hopefully, that will be very, very soon.”

The launch comes in the wake of a deeply unstable ceasefire brokered by the Trump administration that took effect in October 2025. Despite the truce, local Gaza media documentation confirms Israeli forces have carried out near-weekly air strikes across the enclave that have killed civilian residents with each attack. As of Wednesday, Gaza’s Palestinian Ministry of Health reported that 1,402 people have been killed in Israeli attacks since the ceasefire went into effect, pushing the total confirmed death toll in Gaza since the start of the conflict in October 2023 to just under 74,000.

Board of Peace representative Nickolay Mladenov, the body’s lead official for Gaza, framed the initial $2.45 billion plan as a path toward long-term stability for both communities. “We want to give people a new chance, and we want to make sure that both the Palestinians in Gaza and Israeli communities living across the border have a chance to put behind them this fear of violence that has driven their lives for so many years,” he said at the unveiling. However, the board’s own projections show that full reconstruction of Gaza, a territory roughly half the size of New York City that has endured nearly three years of sustained heavy Israeli bombardment, will require more than $71 billion in total investment over the next decade to rebuild destroyed power grids, water systems and other critical basic infrastructure.

The initiative has already faced sharp condemnation from international aid organizations, who warn the Board of Peace is failing Gazan civilians and enabling ongoing Israeli human rights and humanitarian law violations. Last month, Association of International Development Agencies executive director Athena Rayburn told the UN Security Council that the body is allowing Israel to obstruct critical humanitarian aid access to the blockaded enclave.

Rayburn detailed widespread restrictions that have left Gaza’s population cut off from essential supplies: Israel has categorized basic items including scissors, crutches, wheelchairs and prosthetic limbs as “dual-use” goods barred from entry, blocked specialized medical personnel from entering the territory, and imposed such strict limits on engine oil that the commodity now costs 45 times its standard market price. Even basic foodstuffs including watermelon and onions have been rejected for entry under an unpublished Israeli humanitarian policy, she added.

“What is unclear is why the mandate handed by this council to the Board of Peace is being used to violate the most fundamental rights of the Palestinians in Gaza and the most basic rules of humanitarian law,” Rayburn said. “This cannot be the new status quo.”

In addition to facing humanitarian criticism, the Board of Peace has recently shifted its position on Israeli withdrawal from occupied Gaza, toughening its requirements following a meeting between senior board officials and Netanyahu six weeks ago. The body abandoned its original phased withdrawal framework, instead linking any Israeli pullback beyond the Yellow Line — the demarcation established by the October 2025 ceasefire that divides Gaza into Israeli- and Palestinian-controlled zones — to the full disarmament of Hamas, including the surrender of all light and heavy weapons and the dismantling of underground tunnel networks.

“Contrary to inaccurate reports, we note that the withdrawal of the IDF beyond the Yellow Line will take place only once decommissioning is complete, as Hamas committed to the mediators. This applies to light weapons, heavy weapons and the tunnels alike,” the board said in a statement. Since the ceasefire, Israel has expanded its territorial control in Gaza, now holding more than 60 percent of the enclave, and Netanyahu has publicly stated his goal to expand Israeli control to roughly 70 percent of the territory.

A high-stakes legal battle over immigration authority and academic free speech has reached the U.S. Supreme Court, as the Trump administration has asked the nation’s highest court to reverse a lower court ruling that ordered the release of Georgetown University scholar Badar Khan Suri, who spent two months in federal immigration detention last year over his public criticism of Israel.

Suri, an Indian citizen and legal permanent U.S. resident married to a U.S. citizen of Palestinian descent, was arrested in a dramatic late-night raid by masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents outside his Northern Virginia home in March 2025. The arrest made him an early high-profile target of the administration’s immigration enforcement actions, drawing international condemnation and scrutiny from human rights advocates.

At the time of his arrest, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio revoked Suri’s visa, accusing the scholar of “spreading Hamas propaganda and promoting antisemitism on social media.” Suri was held for two months in an overcrowded, unsanitary ICE detention facility in Alvaredo, Texas, before a federal magistrate judge granted his release on bail in May 2025 as his deportation challenge moved forward. In July 2025, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s ruling, rejecting the Trump administration’s bid to re-detain Suri.

On Monday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed its appeal with the Supreme Court, arguing that federal judges lack the authority to intervene in immigration court proceedings, where non-citizens contest deportation orders. Legal analysts note the appeal gives the conservative-majority Supreme Court an opportunity to set a landmark precedent that could curtail judicial oversight of immigration detention for decades to come.

Suri’s supporters and legal team—led by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)—contend the scholar was deliberately targeted by right-wing pro-Israel groups to intimidate critics of Israeli policy, pointing in particular to his wife’s family background: she is the daughter of a former Hamas political advisor. In a July statement, the ACLU noted the administration has invoked a rarely used provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act to justify deportation, falsely claiming Suri’s presence in the U.S. “compromises a compelling foreign policy interest.”

Noor Zafar, senior staff attorney for the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, reaffirmed the organization’s position in an email to Middle East Eye this week, noting the Fourth Circuit “correctly ruled that denying judicial review of detention claims of people like Dr Badar Khan Suri’s misreads Congress’ statutes and undermines the protections guaranteed all persons on American soil.” Zafar added, “Our client should never have been jailed for exercising his First Amendment rights in the first place.”

The case is currently proceeding along two separate legal tracks: the federal habeas corpus challenge to the administration’s actions, and a parallel deportation case in the DOJ-overseen immigration court system, which reports directly to the U.S. Attorney General. Habeas corpus, a legal principle with roots dating back to 13th-century England, is enshrined in U.S. law to guarantee that all people within U.S. territory—regardless of citizenship—have the right to challenge unlawful detention before a court.

Now released on bail and reunited with his wife and three children in Virginia, Suri says he remains undaunted by the long legal fight ahead. A noted scholar of Middle East peace efforts, Suri has spent 20 years working to advance dialogue between conflicting parties. Speaking outside the Annandale, Virginia immigration courthouse last week, he said, “I have worked for the peace process all my life, 20 years now, and I know this is a tough thing. So I am ready for these challenges, and I am very hopeful that justice will prevail.”

Nader Hashemi, Suri’s former research supervisor, has launched an online fundraiser to cover the scholar’s mounting legal fees. Hashemi described his former colleague as a dedicated academic whose work is “grounded in a belief that peace is possible through dialogue and mutual understanding. He’s dedicated his life to that mission.”

In a high-stakes address to the United Nations General Assembly, Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa has formally announced his war-torn nation’s reentry into the global fold, while delivering a sharp rebuke of sustained Israeli military incursions into Syrian territory that he says directly contradict the growing international consensus welcoming Damascus back to diplomatic engagement.

Speaking from the UN podium, Sharaa outlined the scale of unprovoked Israeli actions targeting his country, saying that Israel has carried out more than 500 separate air strikes, over 1,200 ground incursions, and detained more than 300 Syrian citizens in Syrian territory in recent years. “The world celebrates our return to the international community, yet Israel continues to launch attacks against Syria,” he stated. “This trajectory runs completely counter to the global shift we are seeing toward engagement with Syria. We categorically reject all Israeli aggression.”

Sharaa also doubled down on Syria’s sovereignty claims to the Golan Heights, the strategic plateau seized by Israel from Syria in the 1967 Middle East war and illegally annexed by Israel in 1981. “Any attempt to violate our sovereignty and international law will be confronted. The Golan Heights will always remain Syrian territory,” he emphasized. The Syrian leader called for a full return to the terms of the 1974 disengagement agreement between the two countries, which established a UN-monitored buffer zone along their shared border. That agreement broke down after Israel invaded southern Syria and occupied the buffer zone immediately following Sharaa’s government taking power in late 2024, when he led a coalition that ousted long-time former president Bashar al-Assad.

Sharaa’s condemnation received backing from Jordan’s King Abdullah II, who delivered his own blistering address to the General Assembly on Tuesday. King Abdullah argued that Israel’s repeated strikes on Syria make clear that the country holds territorial ambitions that extend far beyond the occupied Palestinian territories.

Diplomatic efforts to normalize relations between Syria and Israel are currently being brokered by the United States, but Sharaa has ruled out any progress toward diplomatic ties while Israeli military actions continue. Speaking at a think tank event Tuesday, he made clear that he cannot entertain the idea of formal diplomatic relations so long as Israel carries out air strikes on Syrian soil and occupies the Golan Heights, his birthplace.

The most recent high-profile Israeli strike came just last month, when Israel bombed a northern Syrian air base that it claimed would be used by Turkish forces. Syria’s close alliance with Turkey has turned the country into an emerging arena of geopolitical competition between Ankara and Tel Aviv, adding another layer of complexity to the already volatile region.

The 1974 disengagement deal was originally reached during the rule of Hafez al-Assad, Bashar al-Assad’s father, and created a security framework and the UN buffer zone that held for decades. The status of the Golan Heights became even more contentious in 2019, when then-US President Donald Trump—who has openly expressed admiration for Sharaa—unilaterally recognized Israeli sovereignty over the occupied territory, a long-sought policy win for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Sharaa, who addressed the UN General Assembly for the first time last year just months after taking power, used this year’s speech to highlight his administration’s progress in stabilizing Syria after decades of conflict. He said that his government has restored basic security across most of the country, ended Syria’s long period of international isolation, cracked down on transnational organized crime and the trade in captagon—the illicit amphetamine that flourished under the Assad regime—and is cooperating with international bodies to eliminate leftover chemical weapons stockpiles from the previous government.

While international sanctions on Syria have been lifted following the political transition, Sharaa’s administration still faces steep domestic challenges, including a collapsed national economy and slow progress on reconstruction after years of civil conflict. Even amid these hurdles, Sharaa struck a confident note about his nation’s future. “Syria is rising,” he told the assembly Wednesday. “We have proven to the world that regional security can only begin with a stable, restored Syria starting from Damascus.”

On a Tuesday evening, just a five-minute stroll from London’s King’s Cross train station, Green Party leader Zack Polanski stepped confidently into a local art gallery to address a candidate hustings organized by the Camden Muslim Network. What should have been a routine campaign event, however, quickly became a flashpoint: Polanski’s main competitor, Labour’s Sagal Abdi-Wali, was nowhere to be found.

The absence immediately triggered widespread speculation and frustration among attendees and local political observers. A former Labour councillor, who knows Abdi-Wali personally, told reporters he was not shocked by her no-show. Echoing his wife’s criticism that the candidate “just does whatever the bosses tell her. She can’t do policy”, the pair suggested Abdi-Wali had avoided the event out of fear of facing tough, unscripted questions from voters. Mahad, a local resident, Somali heritage pro-Palestine campaigner, echoed that sentiment, arguing the Labour candidate likely skipped the hustings to dodge scrutiny of her stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict, a top issue for many voters in the diverse constituency.

Event organizers, who founded the Camden Muslim Network in 2024, confirmed the Labour camp cited a conflicting prior commitment as the official reason for Abdi-Wali’s absence. But for many gathered at the gallery, this explanation fell flat. By definition, hustings are designed to let voters meet candidates, hear their policy platforms, and hold them accountable for their positions — a core function of democratic elections that was undermined by the high-profile absence.

A senior Green Party source framed the no-show as a disrespectful snub to local voters. “This was an open opportunity to discuss every issue that matters to residents here, from the ongoing conflict in Gaza and broader Middle East tensions to the pressing local problems that affect people every single day,” the source said. “You would think Labour would have at least had the courtesy and respect to explain its position on these critical issues to the people who will be voting.” Multiple requests for comment from Abdi-Wali from Middle East Eye went unanswered.

The contest itself was triggered by an unusual political turn of events: after Andy Burnham won a by-election for Makerfield and took his seat in Westminster, incoming Prime Minister Keir Starmer resigned his parliamentary seat for Holborn and St Pancras, opening up the decades-long Labour stronghold. The Camden Muslim Network, a group that openly identifies as pro-Palestine, previously supported independent pro-Palestine candidate Andrew Feinstein in the 2024 general election, where Feinstein took more than 7,000 votes and drastically cut Starmer’s majority before the former Labour leader retained the seat.

Today, the by-election carries outsized stakes for both major contenders. For the Labour Party, the race is a critical political temperature check: it will test whether the party under new Prime Minister Andy Burnham can win back the left-wing pro-Palestine voters who abandoned Labour during Starmer’s tenure. If Labour holds the seat, insiders suggest Burnham will be emboldened to call a snap general election to solidify his mandate. For the Green Party, the contest is make-or-break for its growing national momentum. The party has surged in polling since Polanski took leadership, scored a surprise win in the Gorton and Denton by-election earlier this year, and outperformed Reform UK in taking disaffected votes from Labour during May’s local elections. Polanski’s high-profile challenge here is widely credited as a contributing factor to Starmer’s political downfall that cleared the way for Burnham.

But a loss would deal a severe blow to the party’s momentum, while a victory would confirm the Greens’ ability to unseat Labour even in its traditional strongholds, and cement their position as a powerful left-wing bloc capable of shaping national political discourse. Senior Green sources say they are quietly optimistic, pointing to a robust ground campaign and positive feedback from voters on doorsteps. Recent policy moves from Burnham’s government, including new comprehensive sanctions on Israeli settlements, have won praise from pro-Palestine groups, but many local voters remain unconvinced.

Holborn and St Pancras is home to roughly 110,000 residents, a deeply diverse constituency mixing affluent neighborhoods and working-class communities, with a disproportionately young population including a large student body, and around one in five voters identifying as Muslim. This demographic makeup, once a reliable advantage for Labour, has increasingly shifted toward the Greens in recent years as voters abandon the party over policy failures on both local and international issues.

Mahad, the local pro-Palestine campaigner, summed up the sentiment of many disaffected lifelong Labour voters: the change in prime minister has brought “better rhetoric”, but has not fixed deep-rooted problems with the local Labour Party. “Labour locally have been pretty bad,” he said. “They’ve been terrible on housing, terrible on homelessness.” He described Polanski as charismatic and a consistent supporter of Palestinian rights.

Diana Foster, founding director of the People’s Museum in Somers Town that preserves the area’s working-class heritage, said she shared the view that Abdi-Wali skipped the event because she was “too scared to be put on the spot”. Foster and her friend Esther, another lifelong Labour voter now considering the Greens, both identified housing as the top local issue, and said the Greens are far more aligned with their concerns. While Foster acknowledged Abdi-Wali’s deep local roots — pointing out that Polanski, a London Assembly member, is not originally from the constituency — she said the lack of change under new party leadership has pushed her away from Labour.

Abdi-Wali, a Somali child refugee who rose to become leader of Camden Council, has a compelling personal story of success in local politics and community organizing. Earlier this month, she was the target of a racist social media attack from Reform UK politician Zia Yusuf, who questioned her suitability for office based on her place of birth, remarks that were widely condemned by Labour MPs. In recent comments to the New Statesman, Abdi-Wali pushed back against criticism, promising voters: “I will never be just another Labour backbencher… I will be someone who’s a local, committed, dedicated public servant, which I don’t think any of the other people on the ballot can be.” Despite this, Abdi-Wali, a known Starmer ally, remains deeply unpopular with local pro-Palestine activists, who point to Camden Council’s ongoing refusal to divest from companies accused of complicity in Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. Many ethnic minority voters who have backed Labour for decades say they are now prepared to switch to the Greens over the issue.

Polanski has drawn both mockery and praise for an unusual campaign tactic: he has released campaign videos in multiple foreign languages, including Urdu, French, and Bangla, to connect with the constituency’s diverse communities. While some online critics have mocked his pronunciation and noted few residents list Urdu as a first language, other political observers have praised the effort to reach underrepresented voters. A former Labour councillor called the move “excellent” and a refreshing break from standard campaign practices.

On the night of the hustings, only two national party candidates showed up: Polanski and Liberal Democrat Patrick Stillman, who represents the party’s local moderate base in the constituency’s northern affluent neighborhoods. Invitations were also extended to Conservative, Reform UK, and Workers Party candidate George Galloway, who is currently in South Africa, but all declined or were absent. Most voters at the event see the contest as a straight head-to-head between Labour and the Greens, though some worry a small share of votes for Galloway among older Muslim voters could split the left-wing vote and harm Polanski’s chances.

Much of the hustings discussion focused on bread-and-butter local issues, from parking access to the ongoing housing and homelessness crises. Polanski demonstrated detailed knowledge of local concerns, and consistently tied local problems to national inequality, calling on the Burnham government “to tax multi-millionaires and billionaires a small amount to make sure that we’re putting that money into our communities”.

When the conversation turned to foreign policy, Polanski took a hard line against the current Labour government’s approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Condemning the government’s decision to continue arms sales to Israel as “deeply cynical”, he called for full economic, trade, and cultural boycotts, divestment, and sanctions against Israel until the end of military operations in Gaza. “We need a full boycott divestment sanctions on goods and not just some services, but all services until Israel stops killing innocent people and stops the genocide,” he said. On the question of nuclear proliferation, Polanski said no country should possess nuclear weapons, pushing back against the idea that candidates should avoid discussing foreign policy at local events.

“It’s important that we elect MPs in Parliament who will not warmonger, but who speak for peace and democracy and diplomacy,” Polanski said. “And what we see over and over again is voices like mine or anti-war voices get ridiculed, or the media try and present us as if we’re some sort of threat or danger. I think the threat or the danger are MPs who take money off the arms trade companies and then in parliament whip up things into storms as opposed to talking about peace and diplomacy, which is ultimately what we need to be pushing for.”

Stillman, for his part, argued for a more targeted approach to sanctions that prioritized keeping diplomatic channels open, and he joined Polanski in criticizing Labour for Abdi-Wali’s absence. Both candidates received warm applause from the 60-person audience, which drew a mix of ages and ethnicities from across the constituency.

Political analysts speculate that Labour’s decision to avoid the event may be a deliberate strategy: with the seat safely in Labour hands for decades, the party may be prioritizing avoiding missteps or viral controversies over engaging with skeptical voters. It is, as many observers note, Labour’s seat to lose, and the Greens have mounted the most serious challenge the constituency has seen in generations. With polling day set for 8 October, and both party conferences scheduled to take place before voting, much remains uncertain, and the outcome could reshape British politics for years to come.