分类: politics

  • US government bans humanoid robots manufactured abroad

    US government bans humanoid robots manufactured abroad

    In a sweeping move tied to long-running national security priorities and a broader push for domestic manufacturing, the Trump administration announced Tuesday it is blocking imports of most foreign-built humanoid and quadruped robots into the United States. The new restriction, added to an existing list of prohibited high-tech imports by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), covers two-legged humanoid models and four-legged animal-inspired robots, which the regulator classifies as advanced mobile robotic devices.

    Existing import bans already target a range of foreign technology, including certain unmanned drones and major Chinese telecommunications firms Huawei and China Telecom. The new extension of the ban follows a formal review by a White House-convened task force, which determined that foreign-built robotic devices pose unaddressed cybersecurity threats to U.S. critical infrastructure and the personal safety of American citizens.

    Currently, the vast majority of humanoid robots sold in the U.S. market are manufactured overseas, with China accounting for a large share of global production. To address specific operational needs, the policy carves out exceptions: the U.S. Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security retain authority to grant individual exemptions to the ban for use cases that serve national interests.

    The task force pointed to a high-profile data access incident to back up its security concerns: French programmer Sammy Azdoufal was able to extract user data from thousands of robotic vacuum cleaners produced by Chinese manufacturing giant DJI, a case that policymakers framed as evidence of the risk posed by connected foreign-built robotic devices. Notably, the ban only applies to new robot models seeking import authorization; units already sold or cleared for operation in the U.S. will not be affected by the new rule.

    Alongside robotic devices, the FCC added foreign-made power inverters to the prohibited import list. These devices, which convert direct current from batteries or solar arrays into grid-compatible alternating current, are a core component of renewable energy and battery storage systems, making their security a key priority for national infrastructure planners.

    The policy aligns with the Trump administration’s broader goal of expanding domestic advanced manufacturing in the robotics sector, and several U.S.-based and foreign-owned firms already have domestic production plans in motion. South Korean automotive conglomerate Hyundai, which completed its acquisition of Boston Dynamics earlier this month, is moving forward with plans to open a new U.S. robotic manufacturing facility with an annual production capacity of 30,000 units. Electric vehicle maker Tesla aims to launch mass production of its in-house developed Optimus humanoid robot imminently at two of its U.S. factories, with long-term targets of producing 1 million units annually at its Fremont, California campus and 10 million units per year at its Austin, Texas facility – though the company will rely on partial assembly rather than full domestic manufacturing of all components.

    Other domestic players already have operational production capacity in the U.S. Growing startup Figure AI currently assembles its humanoid models at a facility in San Jose, California, while Oregon-based Agility Robotics operates a production plant in Salem that can turn out 10,000 units per year. A senior Trump administration official clarified the scope of the new rule: the ban applies not only to fully assembled robots imported from abroad, but also to units assembled within the U.S. that source more than 35 percent of their components from foreign manufacturers.

  • Netanyahu holds first White House talks with Trump since Iran war began

    Netanyahu holds first White House talks with Trump since Iran war began

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu traveled to Washington D.C. on Tuesday to hold his first face-to-face meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House since the outbreak of open hostilities with Iran, a gathering that came as U.S. military forces confirmed they had intercepted a fresh volley of ballistic missiles launched by Iranian operatives against American personnel in the Middle East.

    The closed-door discussions, which the White House characterized as “positive and productive,” ran for approximately 90 minutes. The meeting was intentionally scheduled to repair visible public rifts between the two leaders over the conduct of the war against Iran, which erupted in late February following coordinated U.S.-Israeli airstrikes on Iranian targets. A temporary ceasefire has held in recent days, as the U.S. has signaled it is willing to create space for diplomatic negotiations to de-escalate the conflict.

    Shortly after wrapping up the talks, Netanyahu released a video statement praising the discussion, calling it “one of the best conversations I’ve ever had with the president of the United States.” He added that the talks centered on the two sides’ shared core objective: preventing the Islamic Republic from acquiring a functional nuclear weapons arsenal.

    Even as the two leaders met, new signs of regional instability linked to the Iran conflict emerged. On Tuesday, Yemen’s Iran-aligned Houthi movement announced it had launched a ballistic missile attack on the Saudi oil tanker NCC Ghazal in the Red Sea, accusing the vessel of breaking a Houthi-imposed blockade on Saudi commercial ports. While Riyadh had not issued an official response to the tanker attack claim by Tuesday evening, Saudi defense officials confirmed they had intercepted a drone assault targeting eastern Saudi oil infrastructure, blaming the attack on pro-Iranian militias operating out of Iraq.

    U.S. Central Command also released a formal statement Tuesday confirming that “Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps forces launched multiple ballistic missiles from Iran in an attempted surprise attack on US forces based in the Middle East.” The command added that all incoming missiles were successfully intercepted before they could reach their targets, with no casualties or damage reported. This recent attempted attack came after nearly two weeks of sustained nightly U.S. airstrikes on Iranian targets, paired with repeated missile and drone strikes from Tehran targeting U.S. allies across the Persian Gulf. A mutual ceasefire held over the weekend, after the previous ceasefire brokered in April collapsed earlier this month, reigniting open hostilities that Israel has opted not to join in this latest round.

    Tuesday’s meeting marked the eighth face-to-face encounter between Netanyahu and Trump since Trump returned to the U.S. presidency in early 2025. The gathering also comes as both leaders face critical electoral contests later this year: Israel will hold national legislative elections, while Trump will lead Republican efforts in U.S. midterm congressional polls.

    Ahead of the official talks, Netanyahu participated in a private memorial dinner in Washington Monday night honoring the late U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, a long-standing outspoken supporter of Israel. He also attended a formal public memorial service for the senator earlier Tuesday.

    Relations between the two leaders hit a public low point during April ceasefire negotiations with Iran, when multiple reports confirmed Trump launched a profane public tirade against Netanyahu, later describing the Israeli prime minister as a “very difficult guy” in a media interview. Netanyahu has sought to downplay the friction, framing the exchange as nothing more than “tactical disagreements” and insisting the two sides remain fully aligned on the core goals of the war against Iran.

    In comments ahead of Tuesday’s talks, Israeli officials emphasized that there has been no lasting rift in the U.S.-Israeli alliance. On the agenda for the meeting was discussion of implementing the U.S.-brokered framework agreement between Israel and Lebanon signed last month, an agreement that has faced significant challenges in on-the-ground execution. Leaders also planned to address the ongoing stalemate in Gaza, where international diplomatic efforts to launch reconstruction of the war-ravaged Palestinian territory have stalled entirely.

    Nearly three years after the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war, the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip remains catastrophic, with widespread food insecurity, collapsing healthcare infrastructure, and ongoing Israeli military operations targeting individuals the Israeli Defense Forces identify as Hamas militants.

    Israel’s United Nations Ambassador Danny Danon told reporters Tuesday that Netanyahu’s visit came at a “critical time for the Middle East,” arguing that Iran continues “to choose terrorism over negotiations” and has blocked the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical global oil shipping chokepoints.

    Yonatan Freeman, an international relations scholar at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, told Agence France-Presse that the core goal of the White House meeting was to push back against widespread media reports that the U.S.-Israeli alliance was fraying. “I think that the main issue…is to show the world, to show Iran, and also even Lebanon and others…that there is no break or any kind of major disagreement between the United States and Israel,” Freeman explained.

  • Watch: Trump delivers eulogy honouring Lindsey Graham

    Watch: Trump delivers eulogy honouring Lindsey Graham

    A high-profile state funeral for late United States Senator Lindsey Graham drew global attention this week, as former U.S. President Donald Trump stepped to the podium to deliver a commemorative eulogy celebrating Graham’s decades of public service. In his remarks, Trump lauded the departed lawmaker as a “true American original”, highlighting Graham’s unique political style, decades of legislative work, and lasting influence on American political life. The service, held at a prominent venue in Washington D.C., brought together a host of domestic political figures as well as two of the most watched global leaders: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Both leaders traveled to the U.S. capital to pay their respects to Graham, who had long advocated for strong U.S. alliances with both Israel and Ukraine throughout his tenure in Congress. Graham, who served in the Senate for over 27 years, built a reputation as a dealmaker who crossed party lines on key issues, while also becoming one of the most recognizable Republican voices on foreign policy and national security. His death earlier this month prompted tributes from across the political spectrum, with lawmakers from both major parties noting his outsized impact on Capitol Hill. Monday’s funeral service brought together competing political factions for a moment of shared mourning, with attendees from all walks of American political life gathering to honor Graham’s legacy before the ceremony concluded.

  • Peru’s new president says military will lead crime operations in emergencies

    Peru’s new president says military will lead crime operations in emergencies

    On a historic yet tense Tuesday in Lima, Keiko Fujimori took the oath of office as Peru’s first female elected president, capping four attempts at the nation’s highest office and extending a wave of conservative political leadership across Latin America. Her inauguration comes at one of the most unstable periods in Peru’s modern history: she is the country’s 10th president in 10 years, a tumultuous stretch where no chief executive has managed to complete a full five-year constitutional term.

    Fifty-one-year-old Fujimori, who defeated left-wing challenger Roberto Sánchez in a razor-thin June runoff election, used her first address to the nation to lay out her administration’s core policy priorities, starting with a hardline approach to Peru’s spiraling security crisis. The country is currently grappling with its worst public safety emergency in decades, driven by the rapid expansion of local and transnational criminal gangs that run large-scale extortion rings and contract killing operations across wide swathes of the territory. In response, Fujimori announced that the Peruvian armed forces will temporarily lead all security operations in violence-plagued regions during declared states of emergency, until public order can be fully restored. This policy echoes the heavy military deployment central to the anti-insurgency campaign of her father, Alberto Fujimori, who served as Peru’s president through the 1990s before being jailed on convictions for corruption and systemic human rights abuses. The elder Fujimori died in 2024.

    Beyond security, the new president acknowledged the deep challenges facing the South American nation, noting she inherited a country in “catastrophic condition.” She also pledged to take aggressive action to protect Peruvian communities from the damaging impacts of the El Niño weather phenomenon, raise the national minimum wage, and address staggering economic inequality – a problem she admitted leaves Peru with the worst wealth gap in all of Latin America, despite the nation’s long-term potential for growth.

    The inauguration was not without unrest. Agence France-Presse reported that more than 100 demonstrators gathered in central Lima to protest Fujimori’s assumption of office. Many of the protesters were relatives of people killed or disappeared during past periods of state violence, including dozens of victims from her father’s crackdown on left-wing guerrilla insurgencies in the 1990s. Riot police clashed with demonstrators in the capital on inauguration day, as seen in on-the-ground reporting from Reuters.

    A cohort of foreign dignitaries attended the swearing-in ceremony to mark Fujimori’s victory, including the conservative sitting presidents of Argentina, Ecuador, and Chile, reflecting the regional shift toward right-wing leadership that Fujimori’s win reinforces.

  • Zelensky and Netanyahu meet Trump as wars in Ukraine and Iran drag on

    Zelensky and Netanyahu meet Trump as wars in Ukraine and Iran drag on

    Two key Middle Eastern and European leaders traveled to Washington D.C. in late July 2026 for back-to-back closed-door meetings with U.S. President Donald Trump, held on the sidelines of the funeral of longtime Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a prominent cross-partisan advocate for both Israeli security and U.S. military assistance to Ukraine who passed away earlier that month.

    Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky used his high-profile White House meeting to press the Trump administration for progress on a longstanding Ukrainian defense priority: securing U.S. approval to domestically produce American-made Patriot air defense interceptors, a capability Kyiv says is critical to countering intensifying Russian aerial assaults on Ukrainian civilian and infrastructure targets. Zelensky noted ahead of the meeting that Trump had previously raised the possibility of granting production licensing at the recent NATO summit, and Ukrainian officials have repeatedly emphasized that expanding domestic access to the advanced interceptor systems would drastically improve Ukraine’s ability to shield its population from Russian drone, cruise missile, and ballistic missile attacks that have ramped up in recent months.

    Following the closed-door discussion, no formal binding commitment on the Patriot license or new U.S. military assistance packages was announced by either side. Still, Zelensky struck a constructive tone in a public post on the social platform X, thanking Trump for ongoing U.S. support and confirming that the pair had addressed the Patriot licensing request alongside other bilateral defense and diplomatic priorities. He added that the two leaders agreed on the need to reinvigorate diplomatic efforts to end the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine.

    Beyond his talks with Trump, Zelensky also held a separate meeting with executives from Lockheed Martin, the U.S. defense prime contractor that manufactures the Patriot system, to outline a path forward for deepening bilateral defense industrial cooperation. In a follow-up post, Zelensky noted that discussions covered joint production capabilities for Patriots and other air defense systems, with working-level teams already advancing concrete proposals to speed up the launch of co-production and expand Ukraine’s air defense capacity.

    The Ukrainian leader also planned to meet with a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators advancing new legislation that would impose harsh secondary sanctions on buyers of Russian oil and natural gas, a measure designed to increase economic pressure on Moscow for its ongoing invasion.

    Shortly after Zelensky concluded his White House visit, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrived for his own one-on-one meeting with Trump, at a moment when U.S.-Israel relations have been strained by growing disagreements over policy toward Iran and ongoing cross-border conflict between Israel and Lebanese militant group Hezbollah. In recent months, Trump has publicly criticized Netanyahu for refusing to pursue a ceasefire in Lebanon and for expanding Israeli strikes that risk triggering a broader regional conflict.

    After their closed-door discussion, Netanyahu told Israeli reporters that the meeting produced aligned outcomes on core shared priorities, most notably preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. He described the conversation as one of the most productive he has ever held with President Trump, and an official photograph released from the meeting showed the two leaders smiling together in the Oval Office, signaling at least a public reset of their previously tense relationship. The White House characterized both back-to-back meetings with Zelensky and Netanyahu as “positive and productive” in an official readout released after the sessions concluded.

  • Lindsey Graham remembered by Trump as ‘giant of the US Senate’ at funeral

    Lindsey Graham remembered by Trump as ‘giant of the US Senate’ at funeral

    A state funeral service for sitting US Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who passed away unexpectedly earlier this month at age 71 from an aortic dissection, was held Tuesday at Washington National Cathedral, drawing an extraordinary cross-section of domestic and international leaders to honor the outspoken foreign policy hawk. The South Carolina Republican died just days after returning from a diplomatic trip to Kyiv, where he met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky – fitting, in the words of former President Donald Trump, who delivered the keynote eulogy, that Graham “died doing the work he was born to do.”

    In his 15-minute address to mourners gathered in the cathedral’s nave, Trump remembered Graham as a “giant of the United States Senate” and a “true American original” who left the nation far too soon. Trump reflected on the unlikely evolution of their relationship: the pair traded bitter public attacks during the 2016 Republican presidential primary, when both sought the party’s nomination, but Graham ultimately emerged as one of Trump’s most loyal congressional allies after Trump’s election victory. Trump recalled a viral 2015 incident where he shared Graham’s personal phone number with a rally crowd in retaliation for a profane insult Graham had leveled at him, joking that the senator’s device “exploded” – but quipped that Graham had the last laugh. “While I blew up his phone for one day, we became great friends and Lindsey did not stop calling me for the next 10 years,” Trump told the crowd, eliciting chuckles from assembled mourners. He added that no major global development occurred without Graham weighing in with a clear stance.

    Notably, the funeral drew heads of state from two nations Graham championed fiercely throughout his career: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky both attended the service to pay their respects. Throughout his four years in the Senate, Graham staked out a reputation as one of Washington’s most unapologetic foreign policy hawks: he was a leading advocate for robust US military aid to Ukraine amid Russia’s ongoing invasion, even as congressional Republicans remained deeply divided over the scale of American intervention in global conflicts. He was also one of Israel’s most outspoken supporters in Congress, and pushed publicly for US military action against Iran in his final years in office.

    Vice President JD Vance, along with multiple senior officials from the Trump administration, also attended the service, and offered his own tribute that wove personal anecdotes with a summary of Graham’s career. Vance highlighted the pair’s shared love of golf, Graham’s relentless dedication to foreign policy work, and his famously magnetic personality, marked by consistent “vim and vigour.” Fox News host Sean Hannity, another featured speaker, called Graham a “force of nature” and a “true original,” addressing his remarks directly to Graham’s sister Darline Graham, who was appointed by state officials to fill her brother’s remaining Senate term shortly after his death. “You were his life,” Hannity told Darline, who sat in the front pew for the service. The pair shared a decades-long close bond after losing both parents by the time Darline was a teenager; Lindsey Graham, then a young adult, formally adopted his sister to raise her himself.

    Washington National Cathedral, the site of many of America’s most high-profile state memorials, has hosted funeral services for sitting senators and former presidents alike. Most recently, former President Jimmy Carter’s memorial service at the cathedral drew all five living former and sitting US presidents last year. In 2018, the cathedral hosted the memorial for John McCain, the late Arizona senator who was one of Lindsey Graham’s closest friends in Congress. While Tuesday’s service was more intimate than the packed funerals for former presidents, the breadth of attendees – ranging from sitting US leaders to foreign heads of state – underscores the outsize influence Graham wielded in Washington despite his relatively short tenure in the Senate. He won his first Senate election in 2022, and represented South Carolina until his unexpected death earlier this month.

  • Exclusive: Does the UK’s ‘don’t talk to the Muslim Council of Britain’ policy actually exist?

    Exclusive: Does the UK’s ‘don’t talk to the Muslim Council of Britain’ policy actually exist?

    Andy Burnham’s new UK administration has publicly pledged to uphold a long-stated policy of refusing formal engagement with the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), the nation’s largest umbrella body representing British Muslim communities. But an in-depth investigation by Middle East Eye (MEE) has upended official claims, revealing the so-called non-engagement policy is effectively a phantom: no written government records confirm its existence as an official, codified measure.

    Multiple government departments and agencies have disclaimed any ownership of the policy when responding to Freedom of Information (FOI) requests filed by MEE. In responses dated mid-June, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Home Office both confirmed they hold no documents that outline or reference a formal non-engagement policy with the MCB. A May response from the Cabinet Office echoed this conclusion, stating searches of both physical and digital archives turned up no matching records. To date, no government body has stepped forward to claim responsibility for the policy, nor has any official justification for the ongoing boycott been made public.

    These questions around the policy’s shadowy origins come on the heels of a recent revelation that one UK mosque is targeted in an attack every five days, highlighting growing tensions around anti-Muslim hate across the country. The MCB, which remains the most expansive representative body for British Muslim groups, counts more than 500 affiliated organizations across the nation.

    Contradictions in the government’s stance have already emerged publicly. The Telegraph reported this month that new equalities minister Sir Stephen Timms appeared on a discussion panel alongside an MCB representative last December, months before Burnham’s government took office. Despite this, an official government spokesperson reaffirmed the line that “there has been no change to our non-engagement policy regarding the Muslim Council of Britain, and there are no plans for ministers to meet with the group.”

    When MEE reached out to the UK Office for Equality and Opportunity and its parent ministry for clarification on the policy’s basis and rationale, officials only repeated the standard non-engagement statement, adding that “the government recognises the importance of engaging meaningfully with faith and belief groups.”

    MCB spokespeople have dismissed the policy as a relic of anti-Muslim politics. “This so-called policy of non-engagement is a historic relic. It was built to appease those who trade in Islamophobia, and it survives only by recycling decades-old allegations that have never withstood scrutiny,” the organization said in a statement.

    Public records further unravel the official narrative of a long-standing policy dating back to 2009, a claim that circulates widely in UK political discourse. That year, Gordon Brown’s Labour government briefly boycotted the MCB after its then-deputy secretary general Daud Abdullah signed the Istanbul Declaration. The government at the time claimed the document endorsed attacks on Royal Navy vessels intercepting weapons shipments bound for Hamas in Gaza. Abdullah denied ever condoning attacks on British troops, and the MCB clarified he had signed the statement in a strictly personal capacity. After Abdullah stepped down from his role, the Brown government resumed formal engagement with the body.

    Coalition government ministers held regular meetings with MCB leadership between 2010 and 2015, and civil servants continued routine engagement with the organization until 2020. That year, the MCB published a detailed dossier documenting alleged Islamophobia linked to more than 300 people, including Conservative MPs, party councillors, members and Downing Street special advisers. Shortly after the dossier’s release, civil servants cut off formal contact for reasons that were never publicly explained.

    Even after 2020, low-key cooperation continued: the MCB served as a reference for imams applying to serve as military chaplains in partnership with the Ministry of Defence. This collaboration only became public in late 2023 via a Telegraph report, prompting ministers to order the MoD to immediately cut all ties with the organization.

    In 2024, the Inter Faith Network, a major UK interfaith charity, was forced to shut down after the previous Conservative government pulled its public funding, solely because one of the charity’s trustees was an MCB member. Keir Starmer’s Labour government retained the non-engagement approach after taking office earlier in 2024. MEE reporting from July 2024 revealed that the Starmer administration ignored all communications from the MCB during the far-right riots that swept the UK that summer, and blocked a government working group tasked with developing an official Islamophobia definition from consulting the organization.

    Multiple sources close to Burnham’s administration say the new prime minister is eager to repair ties with British Muslim voters, a large voting bloc that largely abandoned Labour during Starmer’s tenure. Burnham himself has a history of direct engagement with the MCB, including delivering a keynote speech at the organization’s 2015 Muslim Leadership Dinner, years after the policy was supposedly codified.

    Today, the MCB retains substantial influence across British Muslim civil society, with a democratically elected leadership and a broad network of affiliates. Whether Burnham will choose to formalize a shift away from the shadowy non-engagement policy that no government department can claim or document remains an open question.

  • Oman proposes joint control of Strait of Hormuz as mediators expect talks ‘breakthrough’

    Oman proposes joint control of Strait of Hormuz as mediators expect talks ‘breakthrough’

    The strategic Strait of Hormuz, a linchpin of global energy trade that carried 20 percent of the world’s total oil and liquefied natural gas supplies before open conflict erupted between the United States and Iran in February, has become the central sticking point in diplomatic efforts to de-escalate tensions. Now, Oman has stepped forward with a new proposal to Iran for a collaborative regional management framework for the critical waterway, as international mediators hold out hope for a breakthrough in peace negotiations following a high-stakes meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

    Two anonymous sources familiar with the plan told Reuters the proposal, which has backing from other Gulf states, establishes a shared regional mechanism to oversee the strait’s operations. Under the framework, commercial vessels transiting the waterway would pay voluntary contributions to cover core operational costs, including navigation infrastructure upkeep, environmental protection initiatives, and search and rescue response capabilities. The plan draws direct inspiration from the long-standing cooperative model used for the Strait of Malacca, the key Indian Ocean-Pacific Ocean chokepoint that is jointly managed by neighboring states Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore.

    The current crisis around the strait traces back to a June memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed by Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian. That agreement granted Tehran authority to “make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels” through the strait. In response, Iran established a designated commercial shipping corridor located entirely within its own territorial waters. Just three days after the MoU was signed, the U.S.-backed Joint Maritime Information Center announced commercial vessels could transit the Hormuz via a southern route under American guidance, a move that directly challenged Iran’s newly formalized authority over the waterway.

    Iran retaliated by targeting commercial vessels operating in the area, prompting the U.S. to launch military strikes against Iranian positions, reigniting open conflict that had been paused by the June agreement. Over the past two weeks, the U.S. conducted daily strikes against Iran, but those attacks came to a halt over the weekend, a shift that has fueled cautious optimism for a diplomatic resolution. U.S. Central Command confirmed Saturday that it would maintain its existing naval blockade of Iran, adding that American military forces remain “highly vigilant, focused, lethal, and ready” for any resumption of hostilities.

    Iran’s Foreign Ministry released a statement Monday confirming that Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi held discussions on the Omani proposal with his counterparts from Oman and Saudi Arabia. In the talks, Araghchi “emphasised the need to strengthen cooperation and advance joint diplomatic efforts to establish stability in the region, and lift the insecurity imposed on the Strait of Hormuz due to the aggressive actions of the United States,” the statement read. Tehran has also pledged to halt retaliatory attacks against neighboring Gulf states, but has warned that it will respond to any new threat posed by the U.S.

    Citing two anonymous sources familiar with internal mediation discussions, The Times of Israel reported that mediators expect Trump will issue a formal decision on the new joint management proposal following his meeting with Netanyahu Tuesday. Mediators reportedly anticipate a potential breakthrough that could restore the terms of the June MoU, which collapsed after the competing transit route announcement.

    Speaking after the weekend pause in strikes, Trump described recent talks with Tehran as “good talks,” hinting that a viable diplomatic agreement could be within reach while cautioning that military strikes would resume if negotiations fail. “I think there’s a good chance that something could happen, and if it does, good, if it doesn’t, we go back to doing what we were doing two days ago,” he told reporters.

  • London council set to cut Haifa ties over Israel’s apartheid against Palestinians

    London council set to cut Haifa ties over Israel’s apartheid against Palestinians

    A Green Party-controlled local council in London is on track to terminate Hackney Borough’s 56-year-old civic twinning agreement with the Israeli coastal city of Haifa, a move driven by widespread condemnation of Israel’s ongoing occupation, systemic apartheid, and reported genocide against Palestinian people. The vote on the separation proposal, scheduled for Tuesday, will fulfill a key election pledge the Green Party made ahead of its May 2024 council election victory. The Greens currently hold 42 of the council’s 57 seats, leaving the proposal all but guaranteed to pass when put to a vote.

    The partnership between Hackney and Haifa was first established in 1968, and Palestine solidarity advocacy groups have spent years pushing previous Labour-led council administrations to end the arrangement. Advocacy pressure ramped up dramatically following the outbreak of Israel’s large-scale military campaign in Gaza starting in October 2023, which has been widely criticized by human rights groups for its devastating humanitarian impact on Palestinian civilians.

    Alongside calls to end the twinning agreement, campaigners have also pushed the council to divest its public employee pension fund from any corporations tied to Israel’s military occupation of Palestinian territories.

    The Palestine Solidarity Campaign, one of the leading groups organizing around the de-twinning demand, argues that ongoing formal civic ties between Hackney and Haifa effectively normalize the “racist domination” that Israel has imposed on Palestinian communities across the occupied territories. The organization also drew attention to Haifa’s key strategic role: it serves as the global headquarters of Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest private arms manufacturer and a primary supplier of military equipment to the Israeli Defense Forces.

    According to multiple human rights reports, Israel maintains a formal apartheid regime over Palestinian people living in the occupied West Bank, while Palestinian citizens of Israel also face widespread institutionalized discrimination across core sectors including land allocation, urban planning, municipal funding, and fundamental civil rights.

    In a public statement outlining its commitment to ending the twinning agreement, the Hackney Green Party noted that despite repeated mass calls from local residents and community groups for de-twinning, prior Labour-led council leadership consistently refused to cut formal ties with Haifa. “In Haifa, Palestinian people live under occupation and apartheid by the Israeli state; this is not a city that reflects Hackney’s values. Hackney’s current and future twinning relationships should reflect our values, rather than undermine them,” the party added.

    The proposal has drawn sharp criticism from pro-Israel political figures within the Labour Party. Michael Desmond, a sitting Labour councillor and self-identified avowed Zionist, previously characterized demands to end the twinning arrangement as an “appalling, abusive tirade” and has described Israel as an “inclusive” nation.

    Luke Akehurst, a pro-Israel Labour Member of Parliament who served 12 years as a Hackney councillor before his election to national office, said he was “disgusted” by what he called the Greens’ “performative and spiteful gesture politics.” Akehurst, who previously led the pro-Israel advocacy group We Believe in Israel, has publicly defended Israel’s military campaign in Gaza as proportionate.

    This report was originally covered by Middle East Eye, an outlet that provides independent, in-depth reporting and analysis on the Middle East, North Africa, and surrounding regions.

  • Who is Gadi Eisenkot, the former army chief challenging Netanyahu?

    Who is Gadi Eisenkot, the former army chief challenging Netanyahu?

    As Israel heads to snap parliamentary elections on October 27, three months out from polling day, the country’s political landscape has been upended by cascading crises that have left long-serving Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu facing the greatest electoral challenge of his decades-long career. A confluence of fallout from the devastating October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attacks, the ongoing controversial military campaign across Gaza and the wider region, and mass public anger over the stalled policy of conscripting ultra-Orthodox Jewish men has gutted support for Netanyahu’s right-wing governing coalition, opening a clear path for a newly emerged opposition leader to claim power. That leader is Gadi Eisenkot, a retired 35-year Israeli military veteran and former chief of staff, who has rapidly grown into Netanyahu’s most formidable opponent to date. Public opinion polling has consistently shown that Netanyahu’s right-leaning Likud party and its existing far-right allies are on track to fall well short of the 61-seat Knesset majority required to form a new government. In contrast, Eisenkot now leads a cross-ideological broad opposition bloc that unites right-wing, centrist, left-wing Jewish factions and even Palestinian-majority parties, with recent surveys indicating he holds the strongest chance any challenger has had in years to end Netanyahu’s extended grip on Israeli leadership. Middle East Eye has profiled the former military commander who is on track to become Israel’s next prime minister. Born in 1960 in the northern Israeli city of Tiberias to Moroccan Jewish immigrant parents, Eisenkot grew up in Eilat, Israel’s southernmost Red Sea port city. He enlisted in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in 1978 after completing secondary school, launching a 41-year military career that culminated in his appointment as IDF Chief of Staff in 2015, before he retired from active service in 2019 after four years in the service’s top role. Over his decades-long military tenure, Eisenkot rose steadily through the ranks to hold a series of key senior command positions. During the Second Intifada in the early 2000s, he led IDF operations across the occupied West Bank, before going on to head the military’s influential Operations Directorate and later its Northern Command, which oversees borders with Lebanon and Syria. It was during his tenure leading Northern Command that Eisenkot became closely linked to the controversial “Dahieh Doctrine”, a military strategy named after Beirut’s predominantly Shia Muslim southern suburbs, which was developed during the 2006 Lebanon War. The doctrine calls for the use of overwhelming disproportionate military force against civilian infrastructure in any area from which attacks on Israel are launched, with the explicit goal of inflicting widespread destruction to achieve strategic military goals. In a 2008 interview with Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, Eisenkot laid out the framework of the strategy in plain terms: “In every village from which they fire at Israel, we will use disproportionate force and cause tremendous damage and destruction there. From our standpoint, these are military bases.” Seven years after outlining that doctrine, Netanyahu tapped Eisenkot to become IDF Chief of Staff, appointing him to the role after he served four years as deputy to outgoing chief Benny Gantz. During Gantz’s tenure, with Eisenkot as his second-in-command, the IDF killed more than 2,000 Palestinians during the 2014 Gaza war, which stood as Netanyahu’s largest military campaign until the 2023 offensive that followed the October 7 attacks. At Eisenkot’s 2015 swearing-in ceremony, Netanyahu framed the appointment around shared priorities of countering regional threats, stating: “The Middle East is falling apart. States are collapsing. Into this vacuum an empire is charging: Iran. It aspires to arm itself with nuclear weapons. The people of Israel trust you, the government of Israel trusts you, and Gadi, I trust you.” Upon taking command, Eisenkot echoed that commitment, saying: “We will strive to deter the enemy, keep war at bay, threaten and win.” A decade later, what began as a cooperative relationship between the two men has evolved into bitter political rivalry. While Eisenkot’s tenure as chief of staff did not include a large-scale military offensive on the scale of the 2014 Gaza war, violence across the occupied Palestinian territories escalated significantly during that period. During the 2018-2019 Great March of Return protests along the Gaza-Israel separation barrier, IDF forces killed more than 200 Palestinian protesters and wounded thousands more, many of whom were shot while approaching the fence. One of the most defining moments of Eisenkot’s military career came in 2016, after IDF soldier Elor Azaria shot and killed injured Palestinian Abdel Fattah al-Sharif in the Tel Rumeida neighborhood of Hebron. Sharif, who had carried out a stabbing attack on Israeli soldiers, was already incapacitated and lying on the ground when Azaria shot him in the head, an incident captured on viral cellphone video that sparked international condemnation. Despite intense public and political pressure from right-wing parties and protesters to drop charges against Azaria, Eisenkot insisted the soldier face a military court martial, arguing that Azaria’s actions violated the IDF’s formal code of ethics. Azaria was ultimately convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 18 months in prison, though Eisenkot later approved a reduction of the sentence to 14 months; Azaria was released after serving just nine months behind bars and never expressed remorse for the killing. After retiring from the IDF in 2019, Eisenkot entered electoral politics in 2022, joining his former superior Benny Gantz’s right-of-center National Unity party. He won a seat in the Knesset later that year, shortly after Netanyahu returned to power as prime minister following the 2022 elections. The October 7, 2023, attacks prompted National Unity to join Netanyahu’s wartime emergency unity government, with both Gantz and Eisenkot taking seats on the small, powerful Israeli war cabinet. But tensions between the former generals and Netanyahu quickly boiled over into public view, as Eisenkot repeatedly slammed Netanyahu’s management of the war, accusing the prime minister of failing to prioritize the release of the 251 hostages taken by Hamas during the October 7 attacks. He argued that extreme political pressure from Netanyahu’s far-right coalition partners Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir had undermined international efforts to negotiate a hostage release deal. Speaking to Israeli outlet Channel 12 News in January 2026, Eisenkot said: “Forty-six hostages who should have returned did not return, some of whom we could have brought back. We made mistakes. Netanyahu sabotaged an agreement with Hamas early in the war after initially approving it. Everyone who held a command or leadership position during the October 7 attacks must pay a price and go home.” In September 2025, Eisenkot left Gantz’s flagging National Unity party, which had seen its support collapse amid growing public dissatisfaction, to launch his own independent political movement called Yashar – Hebrew for “straight” or “honest”. Announcing his new party, Eisenkot framed it as a break from the divisive, self-serving politics of the current government, saying it would work toward “repair, healing, and hope for Israeli society” while placing “the security and national interests of the State of Israel above every other consideration” – a direct rebuke of Netanyahu, whom Eisenkot has repeatedly accused of prioritizing his own political survival over the good of the country. The decision to strike out on his own has proven to be a successful political gamble. Recent opinion polls have consistently ranked Yashar among Israel’s top two parties, with some surveys putting it ahead of Netanyahu’s Likud, and indicating that the broad opposition bloc aligned with Eisenkot holds enough projected support to secure a 61-seat governing majority. But leading Israeli political analyst Dahlia Scheindlin notes that Eisenkot’s rapid rise is as much a reflection of broader anti-Netanyahu sentiment across the country as it is of his own personal popularity. “Some of the support for Eisenkot is not because of him,” Scheindlin told Middle East Eye. “There is a whole constituency who opposed Netanyahu since the first months of the government’s formation. This camp is not small. Its support first went to Gantz after October 7 and later to former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett. It’s not really thanks to Eisenkot, but because there is a political camp searching for a leader.” Scheindlin adds that Eisenkot’s decades-long military career has significantly boosted his public standing, a common advantage for former IDF leaders in Israeli politics. “Military leaders enjoy public support since the founding of the state, due to the high level of trust the Israeli public places in the army. Like other former generals who entered politics, Eisenkot is widely viewed as efficient, pragmatic, and professional.” Beyond his military credentials, Scheindlin argues that Eisenkot’s personal story of loss has resonated deeply with a public traumatized by nearly three years of ongoing war. Between October 2023 and November 2024, Eisenkot’s son Gal and two of his nephews were killed fighting in the IDF’s ground offensive in Gaza. “He lost his son and two nephews while the government sealed its heart to the bereaved families and to the suffering of people, at a time when most Israelis wanted a deal,” Scheindlin said. “Eisenkot is seen by many Israelis as someone who himself suffered along with the people and sacrificed his son and nephews. This creates a sharp contrast between him and Netanyahu, generates anger towards the government, and channels public rage toward the current administration.” His ethnic background has also become a core part of his political identity: if elected, Eisenkot would become Israel’s first prime minister from Mizrahi Jewish descent, the community of Jews whose families trace their origins to the Middle East and North Africa. As the son of Moroccan immigrants, he has recently been targeted by what critics describe as overtly racist dog whistles from Netanyahu’s reelection campaign. Mizrahi Jews have long faced systemic discrimination from Israel’s historically dominant Ashkenazi (European-origin) political and social elite, though Likud has long positioned itself as the political home for Mizrahi voters. Responding to the attacks from Likud, Eisenkot said: “My parents immigrated from Morocco, and I am proud of them and of my origins, but I would be glad if, first and foremost, we were proud to be Israelis.” Eisenkot has also built tentative support among Palestinian citizens of Israel, who make up roughly 20% of the country’s electorate, according to Palestinian human rights lawyer Amal Oraby. “He has a good starting point in the Palestinian society in Israel,” Oraby told Middle East Eye. “Unlike Benny Gantz, Eisenkot did not conduct a full-scale war against the Palestinians when he was chief of staff. Despite the disappointment of the Palestinian public in Israel with generals, Eisenkot’s image isn’t bad, also because he doesn’t run a racist campaign.” While Oraby notes that Eisenkot has largely stayed silent as opposition parties compete to adopt increasingly hardline anti-Palestinian rhetoric, many Palestinian citizens of Israel still view him as a far more pragmatic alternative to Netanyahu. Oraby quoted his father saying: “Netanyahu made us miss Golda Meir and Menachem Begin. The level of violence and fascism of this government led the Palestinian public to want someone normal, someone they can see as a partner for dialogue.” Eisenkot has positioned himself as a unifying leader focused on healing Israel’s deep political divides after nearly three years of war and mass internal unrest. “The difficult and prolonged war has exposed the depth of the rift and the need for a different kind of leadership – professional, unifying and committed to democratic conduct,” the Yashar party states on its official website. The party has pledged to prioritize mandatory conscription for ultra-Orthodox Jewish men, strengthen independent democratic institutions, and reduce crippling political polarization. Earlier this month, Eisenkot also vowed to repeal the controversial exemption legislation passed by Netanyahu’s government, accusing the prime minister of weakening the IDF by protecting ultra-Orthodox communities from military service. Yet analysts point out that Eisenkot has remained deliberately vague on many of the core issues that would define his premiership, most notably the decades-long Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “Eisenkot says nothing,” Scheindlin said. “He focuses on things that can be implemented immediately and on his personal life story. His ambiguity extends even to the judicial overhaul that triggered mass protests in 2023. His advisers have adopted the approach that there’s no need to talk about the Palestinian issue. It’s possible that centrist voters think Eisenkot has a willingness to reach some kind of agreement with the Palestinians, but he’s like a blank canvas onto which you project all your wishes.” Oraby argues that Eisenkot largely favors a return to Israel’s long-standing pre-Netanyahu policy of managing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict rather than pursuing permanent annexation or a two-state solution. Even so, many Palestinians see him as a more moderate option: “Palestinians can take comfort in the fact that he is not a settler,” Oraby said, referencing the current government’s push for rapid settlement expansion across the occupied West Bank. At the same time, Oraby notes that Eisenkot has made almost no effort to directly engage Palestinian citizens of Israel, or address the ongoing crisis of violent organized crime in Palestinian communities inside Israel, which has killed roughly 150 Palestinian citizens since the start of 2026, most of whose cases remain unsolved. “He doesn’t speak to the Palestinian electorate as a public he wants to persuade, and he has offered no proposals to tackle violent crime in Palestinian communities inside Israel,” Oraby said. “There is an understanding among the Palestinian public in Israel that a government led by Eisenkot won’t perform miracles and certainly won’t resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Palestinian public just wants a return to normalcy.” Scheindlin agrees that the core difference between Eisenkot and Netanyahu is less about long-term ideological vision and more about political style. “While Eisenkot is vague, he doesn’t want to establish the Kingdom of Judah that controls the entire territory and expels Palestinians,” she said. “That’s the meaning of pragmatic. He won’t move toward a fundamentalist vision.” Eisenkot’s own public comments confirm that framing: he has voiced support for maintaining Israeli control over large parts of the occupied West Bank while opposing full unilateral annexation, a priority for Netanyahu’s far-right coalition partners. “A reality in which we annex the Palestinians to Israel would be a severe threat to the Zionist project,” he told Channel 13, adding that Jewish settlement construction should continue within existing Israeli legal frameworks. “I have never spoken about a Palestinian state,” he said earlier this month, pushing back against claims from the right that he is a secret left-wing candidate, but added that he will do everything in his power to block Smotrich’s full annexation plan for the West Bank, calling the proposal “foolish, completely insane”. He has also stated that Israel needs to separate “between terror and the population” when it comes to Palestinian communities. On the future of Gaza, Eisenkot has argued that Hamas must be completely eliminated as a military and governing force, and replaced by a reformed, de-radicalized Palestinian Authority. “The Palestinian Authority in Gaza is a less bad solution than Hamas,” he told i24News last month. “Hamas must be eliminated as a military and governmental force, and a different leadership must arise, one affiliated with an upgraded Palestinian Authority, which will undergo a thorough process of de-radicalisation.” Whether Eisenkot can convert his strong polling numbers into an outright electoral victory and a working governing majority remains uncertain. “His chances aren’t bad,” Scheindlin said. She notes that opposition parties have held a majority in most public opinion polls ever since Netanyahu returned to power in 2022. “For three and a half years now the opposition parties have had a majority in most public opinion polls, it is now much harder for Likud to form a government after the elections.” Much of the final outcome will likely depend on whether Eisenkot is willing to formally include Palestinian-majority parties in his governing coalition. Most polls show that Eisenkot’s Yashar party and its Jewish opposition allies fall just short of the 61-seat majority needed to form government without the support of Palestinian factions. Together, the United Arab List (known by its Hebrew acronym Raam) and the Hadash-Taal alliance are projected to win roughly 10 seats, which would make them the decisive kingmakers in post-election coalition negotiations. Many Israeli opposition parties have already ruled out working with Palestinian parties, an unnecessary move that limits their coalition options, Scheindlin argues. But Eisenkot has left the door open to cooperation, at least with the conservative Raam party. “He leaves the door open to cooperation with Raam,” Scheindlin said, noting that Eisenkot’s three core principles – maintaining Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, upholding the values of the Declaration of Independence, and supporting military or civilian national service – provide enough common ground to work with the party. Eisenkot’s emphasis on civilian national service as an alternative to military conscription, a policy long supported by Raam, is widely seen as a clear signal that he would be open to including the party in a future coalition. Even so, Scheindlin warns that Netanyahu remains an extremely formidable political opponent, even with his coalition’s weak polling numbers. By consolidating his base on the far right and reshaping his coalition ahead of election day, “there’s a not-small chance that Netanyahu will be able to form a government”, she said. Even if neither side secures a clear parliamentary majority, Scheindlin notes that Netanyahu could still force Israel into yet another round of snap elections – a scenario that has repeatedly prolonged his time in power over the past decade.