分类: politics

  • Rubio to visit Rome, meet Pope Leo after Trump row

    Rubio to visit Rome, meet Pope Leo after Trump row

    Weeks after a high-profile public clash between U.S. President Donald Trump and Pope Leo XIV exposed deep rifts in U.S.-Vatican relations and strained transatlantic alliances, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is scheduled to travel to Rome this week for a planned meeting with the pontiff, a senior Vatican source confirmed to AFP on Sunday.

    The planned gathering, first reported by Italian media outlets, is set to take place Thursday with the explicit goal of de-escalating tensions between the White House and the Holy See, according to local newspaper coverage. The meeting comes just ahead of a key milestone for Pope Leo, who will mark one year in office as the head of the global Catholic Church this Friday. Elected by the College of Cardinals on May 8, 2025 following the passing of Pope Francis, the 70-year-old Leo made history as the first American-born pope in the Church’s 2,000-year history.

    His unique origin has positioned his statements to carry unusual weight in U.S. political discourse, a platform he has not shied away from using: he has previously criticized the Trump administration’s hardline immigration policies, but it was his sharp anti-war rhetoric in the wake of U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran that triggered Trump’s fierce public backlash. Leo drew Trump’s wrath after calling the president’s open threat to destroy Iran “unacceptable” and urging U.S. citizens to pressure their elected representatives to prioritize diplomatic peace efforts.

    Trump responded with a blistering social media post attacking the pope as “WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy”, adding that he was “not a big fan of Pope Leo” and falsely claiming the pontiff supported Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. Leo countered that he held a “moral duty to speak out” against war, and later made headlines with a speech in Cameroon that condemned “tyrants” for destabilizing the global order. The pope later clarified the speech had been written months before the public row, and he had no intention of reigniting conflict with Trump.

    Global Christian communities quickly voiced solidarity with Pope Leo, and the backlash extended to Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, one of Trump’s closest European allies. When Meloni called Trump’s criticism of the pope “unacceptable”, the U.S. president turned his ire on her, attacking her in an interview with Italian daily Corriere della Sera. Trump said he was “shocked at her. I thought she had courage, but I was wrong”, and accused the far-right Italian leader, who has long positioned herself as a bridge between competing U.S. and European interests, of failing to support the U.S. within NATO.

    Trump has gone even further, threatening to withdraw all U.S. troops from Italy, claiming Rome has “not been of any help to us” in the Iran conflict. He has issued identical threats against Spain, and the Pentagon has already formally announced it will withdraw 5,000 U.S. troops from Germany. As of the end of 2025, the U.S. maintains 12,662 active-duty troops in Italy, 3,814 in Spain, and 36,436 in Germany, according to official data.

    Alongside his planned meeting with Pope Leo, Rubio is scheduled to hold talks with Vatican Secretary of State Pietro Parolin and Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani. The U.S. secretary of state had previously requested a meeting with Meloni, but that gathering will not go forward following Trump’s break with the Italian prime minister, the source confirmed. Additional media reports also indicate Rubio will meet Italian Defense Minister Guido Crosetto, as divisions over the Middle East war continue to deepen long-running frictions across transatlantic ties.

  • Iran says US military operation ‘impossible’ as Trump mulls peace proposal

    Iran says US military operation ‘impossible’ as Trump mulls peace proposal

    Tensions between the United States and Iran have reached a new stalemate, with Tehran’s most powerful military force dismissing any large-scale US military operation as unfeasible, even as US President Donald Trump openly weighs military action against accepting Tehran’s new peace initiative.

    After weeks of frozen diplomatic progress following an April 8 ceasefire that has only produced one round of direct talks, Iran submitted a 14-point peace framework to mediator Pakistan earlier this month. The proposal, according to anonymous sources briefed on the text who spoke to US news outlet Axios, lays out a 30-day timeline for negotiations aimed at three core outcomes: reopening the strategically critical Strait of Hormuz, lifting the US naval blockade of Iranian ports, and bringing a permanent end to ongoing conflict across Iran and Lebanon.

    Trump, however, quickly cast doubt on the proposal in a post to his Truth Social platform, arguing the plan would almost certainly be unacceptable because he believes Iran has not paid sufficient accountability for what he framed as 47 years of harmful actions against the global community. “I will soon be reviewing the plan that Iran has just sent to us, but can’t imagine that it would be acceptable,” Trump wrote. He has publicly framed his policy options as binary: either launch devastating military strikes against Iran, or pursue a negotiated settlement.

    In a formal statement released Sunday, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards pushed back, shifting the decision-making burden back to the White House. They argued Trump now faces only two options: an impossible large-scale military campaign, or accept what they called a bad deal with the Islamic Republic. “The room for US decision-making has narrowed,” the statement read.

    Iran’s senior diplomatic leadership echoed this framing a day earlier. Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi told international diplomats in Tehran that the US now holds the responsibility to choose between diplomatic dialogue or sustained confrontation, adding that Tehran is fully prepared for either outcome.

    Trump, speaking to reporters during a stop in West Palm Beach, Florida Saturday, declined to outline specific triggers for new US military action, but did not rule it out. “If they misbehave, if they do something bad, but right now, we’ll see,” he said. “But it’s a possibility that could happen, certainly.”

    Hardline Iranian military figures have responded with aggressive rhetoric of their own. Mohsen Rezaei, a top military adviser to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, warned in a post to X that Iranian forces are fully capable of sinking US warships if attacked. “The US is the only pirate in the world that possesses aircraft carriers,” Rezaei wrote. “Our ability to confront pirates is no less than our ability to sink warships. Prepare to face a graveyard of your carriers and forces.” No US military vessels have been sunk by Iran during the current conflict, and no evidence supports a threat of such action to date.

    Diplomatic frictions have also flared over the issue of Iran’s nuclear program. Earlier this week, Axios reported that Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff has pushed to reinsert discussions of Iran’s nuclear activities into any new negotiation round. Iran’s permanent mission to the United Nations hit back Saturday, accusing Washington of blatant hypocrisy, pointing to the US’s own massive nuclear arsenal to criticize its restrictions on Tehran’s atomic program.

    The conflict has already reshaped global energy markets and inflicted severe economic pain on the Iranian people. Since the outbreak of war, Iran has controlled access to the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint through which roughly 20% of the world’s daily oil supplies pass, cutting off key global shipments of oil, natural gas, and agricultural fertilizer. The US has responded with a naval blockade of Iranian ports, and global crude oil prices have surged roughly 50% above pre-war levels.

    Iranian lawmakers are currently drafting legislation to formalize toll collection for vessels passing through the strait. Deputy parliamentary speaker Ali Nikzad announced that 30% of all collected tolls would be allocated to expanding military infrastructure, while the remaining 70% would go toward domestic economic development. “Managing the Strait of Hormuz is more important than acquiring nuclear weapons,” Nikzad said.

    For ordinary Iranians, the economic strain is growing steadily. US sanctions and the blockade have cut Iran’s oil exports dramatically, pushing national inflation past 50%. Amir, a 40-year-old resident of Tehran, spoke to AFP from outside the country, describing a population draining emergency savings to cope with the crisis. “Everyone is trying to endure it, but… they are falling apart,” he said. “We still have not seen much of the worst economic effects because everyone had a bit of savings. They had some gold and dollars for a rainy day. When they run out, things will change.”

  • Germany troop cuts send wrong signal to Russia, say two top US Republicans

    Germany troop cuts send wrong signal to Russia, say two top US Republicans

    A controversial Pentagon plan to withdraw 5,000 United States military personnel from Germany has ignited fierce political debate on both sides of the Atlantic, triggering anxiety within the NATO alliance over the future of transatlantic security coordination. The proposal, which comes in the wake of a heated public dispute between U.S. President Donald Trump and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, has drawn sharp condemnation from top congressional leaders, who warn it will weaken deterrence against Russian aggression and send a dangerous message to Moscow.

    Two of the most senior Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill — Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Roger Wicker and House Armed Services Committee Chair Mike Rogers — have led the criticism of the troop drawdown. In a joint statement, the pair argued that instead of removing the 5,000 troops from Europe entirely, the forces should be repositioned further east to strengthen deterrence along NATO’s eastern flank. They emphasized their deep concern that withdrawing a full U.S. brigade comes at a moment when European allies are just beginning to ramp up their defense spending to meet NATO targets, calling an early drawdown premature and counterproductive to shared security goals. “Prematurely reducing America’s forward presence in Europe before those capabilities are fully realised risks undermining deterrence and sending the wrong signal to Vladimir Putin,” the statement read.

    The top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, Adam Smith, went even further, rejecting the Pentagon’s decision as completely unmoored from coherent U.S. national security strategy. Smith argued the move was not rooted in strategic analysis, but rather driven by personal political vengeance over the public disagreement between Trump and Merz. Not all congressional Republicans have opposed the plan, however: House Armed Services Committee member Clay Higgins voiced support for the administration’s move, taking a sarcastic shot at German leadership and the U.S. Senate in a post on X.

    Pentagon officials have defended the drawdown, with spokesperson Sean Parnell confirming last Friday that the decision followed a comprehensive strategic review that adjusted U.S. force posture to match current theater requirements and on-the-ground conditions. The withdrawal, ordered by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, is expected to be completed over a six to 12 month timeline, Parnell added.

    The decision follows a public row between Trump and Merz that erupted earlier this month, after the German chancellor told students that the U.S. had been “humiliated” by Iranian negotiators in the ongoing Iran conflict and lacked a clear strategy. Trump hit back hard on his Truth Social platform, accusing Merz of supporting Iranian nuclear ambitions and dismissing his comments as uninformed. Just days after the exchange, the troop withdrawal plan was announced.

    On Saturday, Trump further stoked tensions by confirming that additional troop cuts beyond the initial 5,000 are on the table, declining to share further details. The U.S. currently maintains more than 36,000 active-duty troops in Germany — by far its largest deployment in Europe, compared to roughly 12,000 in Italy and 10,000 in the United Kingdom. Trump has previously floated the idea of withdrawing troops from Italy and Spain as well, following a 2025 drawdown in Romania that aligned with his administration’s broader goal of shifting U.S. military focus away from Europe and toward the Indo-Pacific region.

    German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius responded to the announcement with measured composure, telling German news agency DPA that the decision had been “foreseeable.” He stressed that the ongoing U.S. military presence in Europe, and specifically in Germany, remains a mutual interest for both Berlin and Washington.

    Within NATO, which counts 32 member states, the announcement has sparked growing anxiety that the drawdown could weaken the alliance’s collective defense posture. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk issued a stark warning Saturday, saying that the greatest threat to the transatlantic community is not external adversaries, but the ongoing internal disintegration of the NATO alliance. “We must all do what it takes to reverse this disastrous trend,” Tusk said.

    Nato spokesperson Allison Hart confirmed Saturday that the alliance has reached out to Washington to get full clarity on the drawdown plans. In a post on X, Hart framed the decision as a reminder of why European allies must continue increasing defense investment and take on a greater share of responsibility for shared transatlantic security. Hart noted that progress was already underway after allies agreed to a target of 2% of GDP on defense at last year’s NATO summit in The Hague.

    Trump has long criticized Germany for failing to meet NATO’s 2% of GDP defense spending target, repeatedly labeling Berlin “delinquent” in its contributions. However, under successive governments led by former Chancellor Olaf Scholz and current Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Germany has dramatically increased its defense budget. Projections now show Germany will spend €105.8 billion ($114 billion) on defense by 2027, pushing total defense expenditure to 3.1% of GDP when all special defense funds, including military aid to Ukraine, are counted.

  • Exclusive: US and Israel reject joint Palestinian proposal for Gaza after meetings

    Exclusive: US and Israel reject joint Palestinian proposal for Gaza after meetings

    Weeks of indirect negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian representatives over Gaza’s long-term future, mediated by Egypt and Turkey, have hit a major impasse after the United States and Israel formally rejected a joint proposal from Palestinian factions — including Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad — that links the disarmament of armed groups to clear progress toward Palestinian statehood and binding reciprocal security guarantees.

    A senior Palestinian source briefed on the closed-door talks told Middle East Eye that the factions’ framework, submitted to mediators in Cairo on Friday, conditions any negotiation over disarming Hamas and other armed groups on two core demands: formal recognition of Palestinian political rights within a unified national governing structure, and an ironclad commitment to end all targeted killings of Palestinian civilians in Gaza.

    The core point of contention that has widened the divide between the two sides has never shifted: Washington and Jerusalem insist that Hamas and all other Palestinian armed factions must fully disarm before a neutral technocratic government can be installed to govern Gaza. Palestinian factions, by contrast, have flatly rejected sequencing disarmament ahead of a permanent political resolution that delivers on longstanding Palestinian demands for sovereign statehood, framing disarmament as one component of a final settlement rather than a non-negotiable precondition.

    According to the Palestinian source, mediators confirmed on Saturday that both U.S. representatives and Israeli negotiators rejected the factions’ proposal outright, and conveyed explicit threats to the Palestinian negotiating team over the impasse.

    The proposal emerged alongside parallel talks hosted in Cairo led by a Hamas delegation headed by Gazan movement leader Khalil al-Hayya, focused on advancing implementation of the U.S.-brokered October 2025 ceasefire agreement that paused active large-scale combat. That original deal, which was published in full by Middle East Eye when it took effect, laid out a six-phase roadmap including expanded humanitarian access, the withdrawal of Israeli forces to pre-agreed boundary lines, and the creation of an international task force to oversee implementation.

    In the six months that have passed since the ceasefire was signed, however, United Nations data confirms Israel has killed 738 Palestinians in Gaza, and has failed to meet the agreement’s requirement to allow up to 600 trucks of critical aid — including food, fuel, medicine, shelter materials, and commercial goods — to enter the enclave daily. The overall Palestinian death toll from the conflict has now surpassed 72,000, with thousands more missing and presumed dead under rubble from Israeli airstrikes and ground operations.

    A full review of the Palestinian proposal, obtained by Middle East Eye, shows factions explicitly appreciate mediation efforts to reach a consensus aligned with the terms of U.S. President Donald Trump’s regional peace framework. The document demands that Israel immediately and fully implement all its obligations under the October ceasefire (officially the Sharm el-Sheikh agreement) on an agreed timeline, end all violations of the truce, reverse its recent military expansion into western Gaza beyond the pre-agreed “yellow line” boundary, honour the agreed daily humanitarian aid shipment quota, and complete a full withdrawal from all of Gaza.

    Under the original ceasefire terms, the “yellow line” split Gaza into an eastern half under Israeli control and a western zone where Palestinian civilians could remain, with Israel holding roughly 53 percent of the enclave’s territory. Multiple on-the-ground reports confirm Israeli forces have now pushed past this boundary into western Gaza, establishing a new “orange line” of control that alters the territory’s security and geographic status quo.

    The Palestinian framework endorses a mediation roadmap presented on April 19 as a basis for further talks, and calls for a swift final deal that cement a permanent ceasefire, end Gaza’s catastrophic humanitarian crisis, and enable full reconstruction of the enclave. It also calls for the entry of an international peacekeeping force to monitor the ceasefire, and the full transfer of governing authority over Gaza to a unified Palestinian national committee with full sovereign powers.

    On the core issue of weapons, the proposal explicitly ties any progress on disarmament to progress on Palestinian political rights within a unified national framework, with reciprocal security guarantees for both Palestinians and Israelis. It reaffirms the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination and the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state, a goal the document says mediators and all relevant parties are committed to delivering under Trump’s peace plan.

    The U.S.-Israeli rejection of the proposal has raised immediate fears of a resumption of full-scale war: Israeli public media reported Sunday that the country’s security cabinet will convene to discuss restarting active military operations in Gaza. An unnamed Israeli official told Israel’s public broadcaster Kan on Saturday evening that “Hamas is not standing by the agreement on disarmament. We are holding discussions with mediators.”

    The current impasse dates back to March, when Nickolay Mladenov, the former Bulgarian foreign minister leading Trump’s “Board of Peace” initiative, held weeks of talks with Hamas leaders and gave the group until April 11 to begin a gradual handover of weapons. Mladenov’s original mandate was to oversee the transition of Gaza from Hamas rule to a new technocratic administration led by former Palestinian Authority deputy minister Ali Shaath. A previous disarmament proposal presented by mediators in Cairo demanded all armed groups in Gaza surrender all weapons within 90 days, including heavy weaponry such as missiles and rocket launchers, along with full maps of Hamas’s underground tunnel network. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has further demanded that even individual members of Palestinian factions surrender their personal weapons.

    Palestinian negotiators push back that Israeli violations of the existing ceasefire — including ongoing military raids, expansion into new territory, and repeated delays to humanitarian aid — have already gutted confidence in the peace process. They argue that political progress on statehood and self-determination must move in lockstep with security arrangements, rather than being treated as an afterthought to disarmament.

  • Kenya battles to stop the ‘goons and guns’ as fears of political violence grow

    Kenya battles to stop the ‘goons and guns’ as fears of political violence grow

    NAIROBI, Kenya — On a mild Wednesday last month in Kisumu, a lakeside western Kenyan city, Senator Godfrey Osotsi stepped out of a barbershop and stopped for a routine coffee break. What came next was anything but ordinary: a mob of hooded young men launched an unprovoked, brutal assault, beating the senator with punches and kicks, stealing his phones and personal valuables before melting into the busy surrounding streets.

    Surveillance camera footage of the attack spread across Kenyan social media and traditional news outlets within hours, sparking national outrage that forced parliament to summon the country’s top security leaders for urgent questioning. For Osotsi, the attack was no random robbery — he alleges it was politically motivated, saying his attackers explicitly questioned why he refused to back President William Ruto’s 2027 re-election campaign. For millions of Kenyans, the high-profile assault was not an isolated shocking incident, but confirmation of a growing, deeply feared trend: the country is once again sliding toward the cycles of deadly political violence that have scarred its modern democratic history.

    Kenya’s pattern of political parties patronizing criminal youth gangs stretches back to the early 1990s, when multiparty democracy was reintroduced after decades of one-party rule. Politicians across the ideological spectrum have long hired unemployed young people as tools of electoral intimidation, a practice that escalated into the catastrophic nationwide post-election violence of 2007, when clashes linked to these groups killed an estimated 1,500 people and displaced hundreds of thousands.

    Fifteen months out from the next mandatory general election, scheduled for August 2027 at the latest, political tensions are already rising faster than many observers expected. The assassination of veteran opposition leader Raila Odinga in October 2024 triggered a major political realignment, splitting Odinga’s long-dominant Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) into two feuding camps split over whether to back Ruto’s re-election. Most notably, former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua, who was impeached and removed from office in 2024, is running for president against Ruto bearing a deep public grudge, opening a damaging rift within the ruling Kenya Kwanza coalition.

    Against this fragmented political landscape, attacks by hired youth gangs — widely known locally as “goons” — have grown more open and brazen. Testifying before a parliamentary committee this month, Interior Cabinet Secretary Kipchumba Murkomen acknowledged that the government is struggling to rein in the groups, which have evolved from disorganized street gangs into what he described as “sophisticated and decentralized networks.” Murkomen, appearing alongside other top security officials, confirmed that more than 104 active criminal gangs operate across the country, the vast majority of which are backed and funded by sitting politicians.

    “These gangs are owned by political leaders who play a central role in mobilizing them. The situation is chaotic, and an irresponsible leader is a direct threat to national security,” Murkomen told lawmakers, declining to name specific politicians linked to the groups. Authorities have launched a widespread crackdown, arresting at least 300 suspected gang members, seizing illegal weapons and seizing communications devices during raids — but no politicians have been taken into custody so far. Successive Kenyan administrations have repeatedly banned these groups ahead of elections, but the problem has persisted: gangs simply rebrand, mutate their structures, and reemerge under new names ahead of each electoral cycle. A senior anonymous security source told the BBC that the groups have now become permanent, formally structured organizations rather than temporary election-era mobilizations.

    Gachagua, the former deputy president and 2027 presidential challenger, has been a repeated target of this violence. Since his impeachment, he has faced more than two dozen targeted attacks by armed gangs at campaign events and church appearances, with Gachagua and his allies blaming state-sponsored criminal networks for trying to derail his presidential bid before the official campaign begins. Opposition leaders and civil society groups have long accused Kenya’s police force of either colluding with politically linked gangs or intentionally turning a blind eye to their attacks, many of which unfold in plain sight of uniformed officers. In February, a 28-year-old supporter of the anti-Ruto ODM faction was shot and killed during clashes between police and rally attendees, leading the faction to condemn what it called “state-sponsored acts of violence by police and hired goons.”

    Government spokesperson Isaac Mwaura rejected all claims of state sponsorship of gang violence, saying “the use of criminal gangs to intimidate or silence individuals undermines our democracy and will not be tolerated. Anyone found financing, supporting, or engaging in such acts will be held fully accountable under the law.”

    Attacks are not limited to opposition figures, either. In February, a senatorial candidate aligned with the ruling Kenya Kwanza alliance was forcibly dragged out of a church service and attacked by a mob in Kakamega, another western Kenyan city. During November 2024 by-elections in western and central Kenya, voting was marred by widespread violence: polling agents were assaulted, armed gang factions clashed during vote counting, and police fired tear gas to disperse crowds of voters.

    Security analysts warn that the growing frequency of these attacks is pushing Kenya toward a crisis it has barely survived once before. “These incidents paint a troubling picture of a country where political rivalry increasingly spills into organised street violence executed by hired gangs operating with precision and impunity,” said Robert Chege, a Nairobi-based security analyst. Taken individually, single attacks can sometimes be dismissed as isolated crime, but collectively they point to a nation edging back toward the violence that traumatized the country in 2007.

    Makau Mutua, a prominent legal scholar and advisor to President Ruto, wrote that the normalization of political gang violence has become a systemic problem, noting “the worrying problem in Kenya is that this is now a near norm carried out by all major political parties. It is, to wit, a Kenyan culture, an epidemic.” A 2024 report from Kenya’s state-funded National Crime Research Centre backed this assessment, finding that hundreds of criminal gangs are active nationwide, with more than 120 directly linked to politicians. Unlike the temporary election formations of the 1990s and 2000s, the report found that these groups are now deeply entrenched, permanent institutions within their local communities.

    Inspector General of Police Douglas Kanja told parliament that security forces have made progress identifying the political leaders funding and directing the gangs, promising that “this issue of goons and guns is going to stop soon. We have clearly investigated. We have seen where they come from, who funds, who does what, who is the grassroots organiser and so forth.” Responding to longstanding allegations of police complicity and inaction, Interior Minister Murkomen acknowledged that “operational challenges” including corruption and repeated information leaks have hampered enforcement, saying the government takes all allegations of officer misconduct seriously.

    Critics argue that the government’s response has been heavy on rhetoric but weak on enforcement, pointing to the lack of any arrests of politically connected gang backers despite hundreds of detentions of low-level youth. Chege described Kenya’s current security crisis as self-inflicted, sustained by decades of political patronage networks and state systems “that thrive on violence and inequality.” He added, “The question is no longer who the goons are, but who sends them, funds them and protects them? The real architects of Kenya’s rising wave of organised violence remain in the shadows.”

    As Kenya counts down to next year’s general election, ordinary citizens and civil society groups are calling for urgent action to rein in political violence before tensions escalate even further, hoping authorities can hold the powerful architects of this violence accountable before the country repeats the mistakes of its past.

  • UK Muslim groups slam government for ‘scapegoating’ Gaza anti-genocide protests as antisemitism

    UK Muslim groups slam government for ‘scapegoating’ Gaza anti-genocide protests as antisemitism

    Britain’s largest representative body for Muslim communities has launched a sharp rebuke of the UK government over what it calls misleading and damaging narratives that falsely tie pro-Palestine solidarity demonstrations to a recent surge in antisemitic violence across the country.

    In an official statement released Sunday, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) — an umbrella organization encompassing more than 500 affiliated groups including mosques, educational institutions, local representative bodies, professional networks and advocacy organizations — first condemned the late April stabbing of two Jewish men in a northwest London neighborhood with a large established Jewish population. The organization emphasized that it stands unwavering in solidarity with the British Jewish community, which has faced an alarming and abhorrent uptick in antisemitic attacks in recent months.

    The core of the MCB’s pushback centers on the UK government’s recent framing of the rising hate crime trend. The organization stressed that attempts to hold British Muslims, and all people who advocate for Palestinian human rights, collectively responsible for growing antisemitism are both factually inaccurate and politically counterproductive. While the statement did not name specific officials, it is widely understood to target the administration of Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who earlier the same week drew a direct connection between antisemitic attacks and pro-Palestine protests opposing Israeli military operations in Gaza.

    A key detail the MCB highlighted that has been largely omitted from mainstream public discussion is the attacker’s additional targeting of a Muslim man earlier on the same day of the London stabbings. The 29 April attack suspect, who had recently been discharged from a psychiatric care unit, is accused of carrying out three separate attempted murders that day: first targeting Ishmail Hussein, a Muslim resident of Southwark, at his home, before carrying out the attacks on the two Jewish men. The MCB pointed out that the near-total lack of media and political attention to the attack on Hussein exposes a troubling disparity that demands serious scrutiny.

    That gap in coverage has been challenged by other public figures as well. Ayoub Khan, a Member of Parliament for Birmingham, raised the issue on social media platform X, noting that the suspect faces three charges of attempted murder for an attack that targeted both Jewish and Muslim communities. He called the media’s widespread erasure of the Muslim victim deeply disturbing. Award-winning journalist Owen Jones echoed that criticism, questioning what editorial justification could exist for failing to even acknowledge the third charge of attempted murder and the Muslim victim of the attack.

    The Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) issued its own separate statement echoing the MCB’s criticism, arguing that the attack is being intentionally weaponized to advance a pre-written political narrative targeting Muslim communities, pro-Palestine solidarity organizing, and the fundamental right to political dissent. MAB added that the wave of anti-Muslim rhetoric that has flooded mainstream media in the wake of the attack is not accidental or subtle — it is the entire point of the misleading narrative.

    The organization further noted that repeated calls to ban pro-Palestine marches, while far-right extremist groups are allowed to march through central London with no restrictions, makes the government’s selective approach to civil liberties clear. What is being framed as a public safety measure is in fact a targeted attack on fundamental rights, MAB argued, warning that when hatred is deliberately instrumentalized for political gain, no community in the UK is ultimately safe.

  • The Iran war has strengthened Ukraine in surprising ways. Could a ceasefire with Russia be closer?

    The Iran war has strengthened Ukraine in surprising ways. Could a ceasefire with Russia be closer?

    When Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky walked across a lilac carpet at a high-profile event in Saudi Arabia earlier this year, the moment caught many international observers off guard. What seemed like an unlikely detour for a leader mired in a full-scale war with Russia actually marked the start of a shrewd strategic gambit: leveraging the ongoing Iran conflict to turn an initially bad situation for Kyiv into a series of tangible gains.

    When the conflict in Iran escalated, early forecasts painted a grim picture for Ukraine. The crisis threatened to pull U.S. attention away from Russian-Ukrainian peace talks, and the disruption to global oil markets handed Moscow an unexpected financial windfall. As shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global energy chokepoint bordering Iran, was disrupted, Russia was able to sell its oil at elevated prices to more buyers. The Trump administration, facing soaring global energy costs, even renewed a waiver that allowed nations to purchase sanctioned Russian crude, further padding Russia’s war budget. More revenue for Moscow meant a longer, more brutal war in Ukraine, a reality that spelled disaster for Kyiv’s position.

    But since Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, Ukraine has repeatedly defied gloomy international projections, and this moment proved no exception. Zelensky quickly moved to capitalize on the shared threat Gulf states faced from Iranian drone and missile attacks – the same type of assault Russia has pounded Ukraine with for years. Today, Kyiv confirms it has signed new agreements with Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar to share battlefield-honed drone defense expertise and technology. The partnerships deepen Kyiv’s alliances with wealthy U.S.-aligned Gulf nations, open new business opportunities, and lay the groundwork for future defense deals Zelensky hopes will follow.

    “We want to help [Gulf states] defend themselves. And we will continue building such partnerships with other countries,” Zelensky said of the new agreements. He has emphasized that Ukraine’s hard-won knowledge of countering low-cost Iranian-designed attack drones, like the Russian-used Shahed-136, fills a critical gap for nations targeted by Tehran. Zelensky points out that Ukraine has developed interception methods that cost as little as $10,000 per drone, a fraction of the multi-million-dollar price tag of traditional air defense missiles – a value proposition that has drawn attention not just from Gulf states, but from NATO members facing growing Russian drone threats across Europe.

    The benefits of this outreach run both ways. Zelensky has made clear he is seeking reciprocal support from Gulf nations to bolster Ukraine’s own air defenses, at a moment when U.S. military stockpiles are strained by commitments to the Middle East. The Trump administration has openly acknowledged it is reallocating defense supplies between regions, leaving Ukraine scrambling to secure alternative sources of critical air defense missiles that Kyiv already lacks.

    Beyond diplomatic and defense gains, the Iran conflict has also let Ukraine apply a key lesson on its own soil: targeting Russia’s critical energy export infrastructure. Using domestically produced long-range drones, Kyiv has made Russian energy facilities a top priority. While higher oil prices and eased sanctions boosted Russian export revenues to 2.3 times their pre-conflict levels in the third week of the Iran crisis, Ukrainian strikes in the following week erased roughly two-thirds of those gains, cutting $1 billion from Moscow’s earnings in a single week. Zelensky says Russia is already suffering billions of dollars in critical losses to its energy sector as a result of the campaign.

    One of the most significant wins to come out of the crisis for Ukraine is the long-stalled release of a €90 billion EU-backed loan, which Kyiv says it urgently needs to purchase and manufacture military equipment over the next year. The loan had been blocked for months by Hungary’s pro-Kremlin former prime minister Viktor Orbán, a close ally of Donald Trump. But growing public anger over energy price hikes driven by the Iran conflict contributed to Orbán’s resounding election defeat last month, and his successor has adopted a far less Russia-friendly stance. The path is now clear for the funds to flow to Kyiv.

    These cumulative gains have shifted Kyiv’s negotiating position ahead of any potential future peace talks with Russia. For months, Ukraine was forced onto the back foot as the Trump administration’s promised peace efforts stalled. Before his re-election, Trump pledged to end the war in 24 hours; since taking office, his administration’s focus has shifted entirely to the Middle East, and the president’s designated peace envoys – Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff – have repeatedly postponed planned trips to Kyiv. The pair have made multiple trips to Moscow, however, and Witkoff, who has a long history of private business in Russia, has met Putin on multiple occasions.

    Trump has recently claimed he remains confident a solution for Ukraine can be reached “relatively quickly” following a “very good” conversation with Putin, adding that “some people” have made a deal difficult for the Russian leader – comments widely interpreted as implicit criticism of Zelensky. Ukraine’s president has called the repeated absence of Trump’s envoys from Kyiv “disrespectful,” noting that only low-level technical talks are ongoing, and no real progress can be expected until the Iran conflict is resolved – a timeline that remains entirely unclear.

    Compounding Kyiv’s concerns is the Trump administration’s broader policy shift toward Russia. The recent U.S. National Security Strategy notably declined to label Russia a security threat, a position that stands in direct contrast to the view of Washington’s NATO allies, and drew public praise from the Kremlin. The document frames ending the war not as a push for a durable, fair peace for Ukraine, but as a step toward achieving “strategic stability” and a potential future partnership with Moscow that would free up U.S. resources for other priorities. Under Trump, harsh new sanctions that could force Russia to the negotiating table on acceptable terms have failed to materialize, and U.S. military and economic assistance for Ukraine has all but dried up.

    With the world distracted by events in Iran, Russia has only stepped up its attacks on Ukrainian civilians and civilian infrastructure. European intelligence officials broadly believe the intensified assaults reflect Moscow’s ongoing determination to continue the war, not a last-minute push before negotiations. While Russia’s economy is stagnant under sanctions, it has fully transitioned to a war footing and is not collapsing. Many European leaders and analysts warn that if Russia secures a favorable peace in Ukraine, it will quickly turn to destabilizing other parts of Europe, potentially even targeting a NATO member.

    Many international analysts argue that Putin’s imperial ambitions, not just economic considerations, are driving the conflict. “If Russia had a rational government, it would end the war,” explained Luke Cooper, Associate Professorial Research Fellow in International Relations at the London School of Economics and Director of the Ukraine programme at pro-peace consortium PeaceRep. “The economy is stagnant or in recession. Russia is sending enormous numbers of men to die who could be in work, the private commercial civilian economy is suffering by the imposition of the war economy… and what has Russia achieved? A sliver of Ukrainian territory. Surely, a ceasefire would be advantageous, if it included sanctions relief? But Putin isn’t thinking in those terms. This is all about the decisions of one person, with imperial ambitions, running an autocratic system.”

    Privately, many Ukrainian officials say they are skeptical that the Trump administration will ever deliver the hard action or ironclad security guarantees Kyiv needs to ensure any peace deal is permanent and lasting. Analysts note that reaching a consensus on reliable security guarantees that satisfies all parties – Ukraine, Russia, the U.S., and European nations – remains an enormous hurdle.

    European leaders are under growing pressure to take more decisive action, analysts say. Tom Keatinge, Director of the Finance & Security Centre at the Royal United Services Institute, argues that Trump’s well-documented impatience could lead him to pivot away from the Iran conflict at any moment if a solution there proves elusive, making it critical for Europe to act now. Keatinge criticizes European leaders for timidity in confronting Russia, noting that while the EU is one of the world’s largest trading blocs, it has hesitated to use the full weight of the €210 billion in frozen Russian central bank assets held in EU jurisdictions, instead opting for a €90 billion loan underwritten by European taxpayers. Critics argue Europe has prioritized managing the conflict over aggressively pursuing a just peace.

    Despite the many challenges Zelensky and Ukraine face, the recent string of wins has left Kyiv in a far stronger position than it was just months ago. While the Trump administration has reacted coolly to Ukraine’s drone technology deals in the Gulf, declining to take up Zelensky’s offer to share Kyiv’s expertise publicly, Zelensky says he remains undeterred. For him, the visibility of these deals serves a core purpose: keeping Ukraine on the global agenda at a moment when all eyes are on the Middle East, and pushing Washington to turn its attention back to Eastern Europe sooner rather than later.

  • NATO, top Republicans question US troop withdrawal from Germany

    NATO, top Republicans question US troop withdrawal from Germany

    A new wave of transatlantic tension has emerged after U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered the withdrawal of approximately 5,000 American military personnel from Germany, a move that has drawn pushback from NATO leadership and top congressional Republicans alike. The decision unfolds against a backdrop of growing friction between the second Trump administration and European capitals, rooted in disagreements over the ongoing Middle East conflict, trade policy, and burden-sharing for regional collective defense.

    The Pentagon’s withdrawal order, announced Friday by spokesman Sean Parnell, is projected to wrap up over a six to 12-month timeline. As of the end of 2025, the U.S. maintained 36,436 active-duty troops stationed in Germany — by far the largest American force footprint in any European NATO member, dwarfing the 12,662 troops in Italy and 3,814 in Spain. The withdrawal marks the first major step forward on a threat Trump has wielded against European allies across both of his presidential terms, centered on his demand that European nations take ownership of their own defense rather than relying on U.S. security guarantees.

    In a statement posted to X Saturday, NATO confirmed it was collaborating with U.S. officials to parse the details of the new force posture adjustment. NATO spokeswoman Allison Hart framed the shift as a reminder of the urgency for European allies to ramp up their defense investment and carry a larger share of responsibility for shared transatlantic security. German officials have struck a measured tone in response, with Defense Minister Boris Pistorius noting that a drawdown of U.S. troops from Germany and broader Europe was an anticipated development. Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul added that Berlin has been preparing for the reduction and is holding structured, trust-based discussions on the change across all NATO bodies. He did, however, draw a clear line around large strategic American installations, noting that critical hubs like Ramstein Air Base — which serves as a linchpin for both U.S. and NATO operations across the region — are not on the table for any changes, as they serve an irreplaceable role for both sides.

    The decision has already faced skepticism from senior Republican lawmakers who oversee U.S. military policy. In a joint public statement released Saturday, Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Roger Wicker and House Armed Services Committee Chair Mike Rogers warned that pulling thousands of troops from Germany sends a dangerous, misaligned signal to Russian President Vladimir Putin at a moment of heightened global security tension. The pair acknowledged that Germany has already followed Trump’s calls to increase defense spending, and has granted U.S. aircraft access to German bases and airspace for operations tied to the ongoing Iran conflict. Still, they argued that even with increased European investment, it will take years for allies to convert that spending into the conventional military capability needed to take full ownership of deterrence on the continent.

    The troop drawdown comes on the heels of a public verbal clash between Trump and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who earlier this week claimed Iran was “humiliating” Washington at the negotiating table over the conflict in the Middle East. It also coincides with a separate escalation in transatlantic trade tensions: Trump announced this week that tariffs on EU-produced cars and trucks will rise from 15% to 25% starting next week, arguing the bloc has failed to honor the terms of a trade agreement reached between the two sides last summer. Analysts view the dual moves as a clear sign of the Trump administration’s willingness to use economic and military leverage to force European allies to align with its foreign policy priorities, particularly in the Middle East.

    Trump has made no secret of his willingness to extend troop cuts beyond Germany to other European NATO allies that have refused to back U.S. policy in the Iran conflict. Speaking to reporters Thursday, he confirmed he is considering pulling U.S. troops from both Italy and Spain, citing their lack of support for Washington’s efforts in the region. “Italy has not been of any help to us and Spain has been horrible, absolutely horrible,” Trump told reporters. “Yeah, probably, I probably will. Why shouldn’t I?” He added that the drawdown is in part targeted at allies that have refused to contribute to a U.S.-backed peacekeeping force for the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global energy waterway that Tehran has effectively closed in recent months. The continuing rift over the Middle East war has already deepened divides between Washington and many European capitals, and the troop withdrawal is expected to accelerate negotiations over the future of the NATO alliance’s force posture across the continent.

  • Pro-Palestine coalition condemns Starmer for suggesting ban on marches

    Pro-Palestine coalition condemns Starmer for suggesting ban on marches

    A coalition of major British campaign groups coordinating nationwide pro-Palestine demonstrations has pushed back aggressively against growing political and media efforts to discredit their movement and impose a full ban on planned protests, affirming that the fundamental democratic right to protest remains non-negotiable.

    In an official statement released Friday evening, the coalition — which includes the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), Stop the War Coalition, and Friends of al-Aqsa — confirmed that the annual Nakba Day commemoration march scheduled for central London on May 16 will go ahead as planned, despite mounting pressure from Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s administration to cancel the event.

    The backlash against the protests erupted in the wake of a fatal stabbing attack earlier this month in Golders Green, a majority-Jewish neighbourhood in northwest London. A 45-year-old Somali-born British national, Essa Suleiman, was arrested on suspicion of stabbing two Jewish men, aged 34 and 76, shortly after he was accused of attempting to murder a Muslim acquaintance he had known for 20 years. London’s Metropolitan Police confirmed Friday that Suleiman, who had been released from a psychiatric facility just days before the attacks, has been charged with three counts of attempted murder and one count of illegal public possession of a bladed weapon, with no terrorism charges brought against him.

    Despite the lack of any proven link between the attack and pro-Palestine demonstrations, senior political figures including Prime Minister Starmer have publicly tied the violence to the marches, called for sweeping restrictions on protest activity, and opened the door to a full national ban. In an interview with the BBC’s *Today* programme Saturday, Starmer argued that law enforcement should crack down on rhetoric used during marches, specifically calling out the chant “globalise the intifada”, and suggested a legal case existed to ban the demonstrations entirely. Though no antisemitic attacks in the UK have ever been linked to use of this chant, British police forces launched a policy in December 2023 allowing arrests for anyone chanting the phrase or displaying it on protest placards.

    When asked about a proposed moratorium on all pro-Palestine marches — a suggestion put forward by Jonathan Hall, the UK government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation — Starmer said his administration would explore expanding state powers to restrict repeated protests, citing feedback from members of the UK Jewish community about the cumulative impact of regular demonstrations. The prime minister acknowledged that views on the Gaza conflict are widely held and legitimate, but maintained that new restrictions were necessary.

    Starmer’s remarks have drawn fierce condemnation not only from protest organisers, but also from senior community leaders and policy analysts who warn that tying the unrelated Golders Green attack to peaceful pro-Palestine protest is a dangerous distortion of facts. Senior north London rabbi Herschel Gluck, a prominent Jewish community figure, rejected any causal link between the marches and the stabbing, noting that banning protests over antisemitism concerns would be counterproductive given the high participation rate of Jewish activists in the rallies. “There are many Jews who participate in the marches. Pro rata, there are more Jews than any other community. And the idea of banning speech is something that is a very un-Jewish thing to do,” Gluck told Middle East Eye.

    Lindsey German, convenor of the Stop the War Coalition, framed Starmer’s call for a ban as a direct attack on core British democratic freedoms. “The marches are protests at the role of the Israeli government in its genocidal attacks on Gaza, and at the complicity of Starmer’s own government in supporting Israel,” German said. “This is an attack on our freedom of speech and long held right to assembly and we will not give up that right.”

    Global Justice Now director Nick Dearden accused Starmer of cynical political opportunism tied to upcoming UK local elections, arguing the prime minister is stoking division to avoid electoral losses rather than fostering national unity. “Demanding Israel stops its genocidal rampage on Palestine is clearly not antisemitic, and by trying to draw the comparison, Starmer is belittling antisemitism,” Dearden said. “Starmer’s government is utterly complicit in Israel’s war crimes. He has blood on his hands and now risks further fuelling antisemitism, rather than taking the important steps necessary to undermine it.”

    PSC director Ben Jamal added that using an isolated act of violence to strip citizens of their democratic right to protest weakens, rather than strengthens, global anti-racist efforts. Daniel Levy, a British-Israeli analyst and former advisor to the Israeli government, called the call for a moratorium on protest “appalling”, warning that it risks increasing antisemitism rather than increasing community safety. “You can’t have a false dichotomy between Jewish safety and Palestinian rights,” Levy told Channel 4 News. “First we’ll be told you can’t protest on this and then you won’t be able to protest on anything and then we’re living in a fundamentally different society.”

    In their formal statement, the protest coalition reaffirmed the purpose of the May 16 rally: to mark the annual commemoration of the Nakba, the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians during the 1948 establishment of the state of Israel, and to oppose the British government’s ongoing diplomatic and military support for what the groups call Israel’s ethnic cleansing, apartheid, and genocidal campaign in Gaza. The rally will also counter a far-right march organised by British agitator Tommy Robinson, scheduled to take place in London the same day.

    Organisers stressed that as with all previous pro-Palestine marches, thousands of Jewish activists will participate, including a dedicated Jewish Bloc, with many Jewish organisers and speakers featured on the event program. The ongoing Israeli military campaign in Gaza, which began after the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks, has killed at least 72,601 Palestinians and wounded more than 172,400, according to Gaza-based medical officials. Since a recent ceasefire ended, Israeli strikes have killed an additional 824 Palestinians, wounded 2,316, and left 764 people dead under destroyed buildings, local health authorities report.

  • UK PM says some pro-Palestinian marches could be banned

    UK PM says some pro-Palestinian marches could be banned

    Against a backdrop of surging antisemitic incidents across the United Kingdom and growing political pressure to respond, Prime Minister Keir Starmer has publicly backed justified bans on specific pro-Palestinian demonstrations, singling out events that incite violence with chants calling for a global intifada. Starmer, who leads the Labour Party, has found himself in a precarious position after a recent stabbing attack in a major London Jewish neighborhood left two people injured. The incident, which took place in Golders Green – an area well-known for its large, longstanding Jewish community – has amplified calls for the new prime minister to take stronger action to protect Jewish residents.

    On Friday, the 45-year-old suspect, a British national born in Somalia, made his first court appearance on attempted murder charges and was remanded into custody ahead of further proceedings. The attack came amid months of ongoing pro-Palestinian protests across UK cities that began in the wake of Hamas’ October 7, 2023, attack on Israel, which triggered the ongoing Israel-Gaza war. During a visit to the attack scene and a local Jewish volunteer ambulance service on Thursday, Starmer faced public backlash from local residents, who booed him and accused his administration of failing to take adequate steps to keep the community safe. Many of those critics also blamed ongoing pro-Palestinian marches for creating a climate of fear.

    In a broadcast interview with the BBC on Saturday, Starmer, a former human rights lawyer and ex-chief public prosecutor who is married to a woman of Jewish descent, said repeated protests had left a profound negative impact on many British Jewish people. “I’m a big defender of freedom of expression, peaceful protests,” he told the outlet. “But when there are chants like ‘globalise the intifada’, that’s completely off limits. Clearly, there should be tougher action in relation to that.”

    The term intifada refers to two historical Palestinian uprisings against Israeli occupation, the first running from 1987 to 1993 and a second occurring in the early 2000s. Starmer emphasized that the chant is viewed as deeply threatening by the UK Jewish community, and argued for much stricter enforcement of acceptable language at demonstrations. He confirmed that there are scenarios where entire protests should be prohibited, and that senior government officials have been holding ongoing discussions with policing leadership for weeks about what additional regulatory and enforcement action can be implemented.

    This stance aligns with a position police in London and Manchester first took last December, when officers announced they would arrest any person chanting “globalise the intifada” at public demonstrations. In a related development Thursday, UK security officials upgraded the national terror alert level to “severe” – the second-highest tier on the country’s threat scale. Officials cited the Golders Green attack, alongside persistent threats from both Islamist extremism and far-right extremism, as core factors driving the upgrade. UK police have confirmed that they will conduct enhanced, thorough reviews of all notifications for upcoming protests to assess potential risks to public safety.