分类： politics

During an unprecedented Seoul summit held on Friday, French President Emmanuel Macron and South Korean President Lee Jae Myung announced a shared commitment to collaborative diplomatic action aimed at reopening the Strait of Hormuz and easing cascading global economic turbulence sparked by ongoing Middle East conflict. The meeting marked Macron’s first visit to South Korea since he assumed office in 2017, wrapping up the East Asian leg of a regional tour that already included a stop in neighboring Japan. It also unfolded against a backdrop of growing public friction between U.S. President Donald Trump and U.S. global allies, with Trump repeatedly lashing out at partners for failing to back Washington and Israel in their campaign against Iran.

Opening the bilateral talks, Macron emphasized that both middle-power nations France and South Korea hold unique influence to help de-escalate tensions across the Middle East, particularly around the Strait of Hormuz, where Iran’s control of the strategic waterway has sent major shocks through global energy markets. In a subsequent joint televised briefing to the public, Macron reiterated that coordinated action between Paris and Seoul was critical to clearing the waterway for commercial transit and rolling back rising hostilities across the region. Lee echoed this commitment, confirming the two leaders had “affirmed their resolves to cooperate to secure the safe shipping route in the Strait of Hormuz.”

Notably, the two leaders did not take questions from reporters, nor did they lay out specific operational details for how their cooperation would unfold to reopen the strait. The 21-mile waterway, wedged between Iran and Oman, typically carries roughly one-fifth of the world’s daily oil supplies, making its disruption a critical threat to global energy and economic stability.

“We need to clearly define, at the international level, the conditions for a process to ease the crisis and conflict in the Middle East,” Macron stated during the briefing. “We need to ensure that the Strait of Hormuz is reopened.” The French leader has previously ruled out a unilateral military operation to reopen the waterway, calling that approach unrealistic.

Beyond their Middle East diplomacy, the two leaders also used the summit to advance deepened bilateral cooperation across technology, energy, and critical resource sectors. Officials from both countries signed three landmark agreements covering collaboration on nuclear fuel supply chains, joint investment in a large-scale offshore wind project off southern South Korea, and partnership on critical minerals development. For South Korea, these agreements align with ongoing domestic energy policy shifts: President Lee has prioritized ramping up output at existing nuclear reactors to ease ongoing energy shortages, and accelerated the transition to renewable energy, noting the Middle East conflict has laid bare the country’s dangerous overreliance on imported fossil fuels.

Macron’s Asian tour comes as Trump has stepped up public criticism of U.S. allies over their lack of engagement on the Hormuz issue. During a speech Wednesday, Trump claimed the United States “doesn’t need” the strait, and argued that other major economies that depend on the waterway “must grab it and cherish it.” At an earlier Easter event at the White House, Trump explicitly called on U.S. Asian allies and China to take the lead on reopening the waterway. “Let South Korea, you know, we only have 45,000 soldiers in harm’s way over there, right next to a nuclear force — let South Korea do it,” Trump said. “Let Japan do it. They get 90% of their oil from the strait. Let China do it.” Official U.S. deployment data contradicts Trump’s claim: roughly 28,000 U.S. troops are stationed in South Korea, a deployment meant to deter potential aggression from North Korea, not for Middle East operations. South Korean officials have confirmed they are in ongoing communication with Washington about the Hormuz issue, but have ruled out the option of paying transit fees to Iran to secure South Korean fuel shipments through the waterway.

In a widely anticipated move that has renewed global scrutiny of Myanmar’s military-backed political order, the country’s rubber-stamp parliament voted Friday to install Min Aung Hlaing, the senior general who seized power from Aung San Suu Kyi’s democratically elected civilian government in a 2021 coup, as the nation’s new president. The vote caps a years-long push by the military to cement its control behind a veneer of civilian rule, even as a brutal civil war rages across large swathes of the country and international powers reject the process as illegitimate.

Min Aung Hlaing was one of three handpicked nominees for the presidency, and his lopsided victory was never in doubt: lawmakers from military-aligned parties and directly appointed military representatives hold an unassailable majority in the new assembly. Held in Naypyitaw’s newly earthquake-repaired parliament building, the final vote count gave the coup leader 429 of 584 total cast ballots. His two competitors will take vice presidential posts: Nyo Saw, a retired general and long-time Min Aung Hlaing adviser, and Nan Ni Ni Aye, an ethnic Karen politician from the pro-military Union Solidarity and Development Party, who will become Myanmar’s first female vice president. All three are scheduled to be inaugurated next week.

Consistent with constitutional requirements that bar the president from holding the top military command post, Min Aung Hlaing stepped down as commander-in-chief earlier this week, handing the powerful role to close ally Gen. Ye Win Oo, a move that leaves the military’s core leadership structure unchanged despite the nominal transition to civilian government.

The military frames the new government as a return to democratic governance after four years of direct military rule following the 2021 coup. But independent observers and political opponents universally dismiss the process as a sham, designed only to legitimize the military’s hold on power after a national election the junta organized last December and January. Major opposition parties, including Suu Kyi’s former ruling National League for Democracy (NLD), were either barred from participating or refused to contest the vote over pre-determined unfair rules. Widespread armed conflict also prevented voting from being held in nearly a third of the country’s 330 townships, due to persistent security risks for election organizers.

For the country’s main opposition, the National Unity Government (NUG), which claims to be Myanmar’s legitimate elected administration, Min Aung Hlaing’s elevation only confirms that the military has no intention of ceding power to a genuinely popular government. “Min Aung Hlaing is responsible for countless war crimes, and his easy ascent to the presidency proves the nominal political change some foreign actors hoped for will never come to pass,” NUG spokesperson Nay Phone Latt told the Associated Press. “The people of Myanmar do not accept this outcome. Our revolution will continue with undiminished momentum.”

Myanmar’s modern political history has been defined by military dominance: the armed forces ruled the country directly from 1962 until 2016, when the NLD won a landslide election victory that ended decades of direct military rule. The party secured an even larger mandate in 2020, but the military refused to accept the result, launching a coup days before the new parliament was scheduled to convene. Suu Kyi, now 80 years old, has been detained ever since, serving a 27-year prison sentence on charges widely condemned as politically motivated.

Peaceful mass protests against the coup were crushed with lethal force by the junta, pushing pro-democracy activists to launch an armed resistance movement that allied with long-running ethnic minority insurgencies fighting for greater regional autonomy. That conflict has since escalated into a full-scale civil war that has killed thousands and displaced millions.

Independent human rights monitors have documented widespread atrocities committed by junta forces since the 2021 takeover. The Assistance Association for Political Prisoners, an independent watchdog that tracks rights violations in Myanmar, confirms that nearly 8,000 civilians and activists have been killed, and more than 22,870 political prisoners remain detained as of 2025. The U.S.-based Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project reports that junta warplanes carried out 1,140 airstrikes across the country in 2025 alone, a tactic that has killed hundreds of civilian non-combatants.

International rights groups warn that Min Aung Hlaing’s new civilian title does not grant him immunity from prosecution for widespread violations of international law. “If Min Aung Hlaing believes that holding an official civilian presidency will protect him from accountability for the grave crimes he is accused of overseeing as military chief, that is not how international justice works,” said Joe Freeman, Myanmar researcher for Amnesty International, in a public statement.

The senior general already faces international legal action over the military’s persecution of the Rohingya Muslim minority. In 2024, the International Criminal Court launched an investigation into crimes against humanity, after the chief prosecutor requested an arrest warrant for Min Aung Hlaing over the mass atrocities committed against the Rohingya starting in 2017. Earlier this year, the International Court of Justice held long-delayed public hearings in the genocide case brought against Myanmar by Gambia, which first accused the country of orchestrating a campaign of genocide against the Rohingya in 2019.

The nominal transition to civilian rule is widely viewed as a strategic move by the junta to repair strained relations with some Southeast Asian neighbors and shore up international legitimacy, after the 2021 coup left the regime diplomatically isolated. The military government has retained steady backing from major powers China and Russia throughout the post-coup period, while Western governments have imposed harsh economic sanctions on junta leaders and institutions.

A closed-door, press-excluded Easter gathering between U.S. President Donald Trump and a select group of handpicked Christian leaders took an unexpected turn this week, when the White House accidentally livestreamed portions of the private event before hastily pulling the footage from its official YouTube channel within hours. The originally closed designation was not out of the ordinary for such off-the-record meetings with conservative religious allies, but the leaked footage laid bare a series of unscripted, controversial comments that offer a rare unvarnished look at Trump’s relationships with his evangelical base and his approach to foreign and domestic politics.

Opening his remarks, Trump immediately called on Erika Kirk, widow of late Turning Point USA CEO and conservative commentator Charlie Kirk, urging her to “sue the hell out of” those pushing conspiracy theories that question the official narrative of Kirk’s killing. The arrested young suspect was identified as the perpetrator in official accounts, though emerging forensic evidence has fueled unfounded speculation that other parties were involved, and Trump’s open call for legal action against the spread of these conspiracies marked an unusually blunt intervention into the case.

Over the course of his 40-minute address delivered to a crowd of long-time religious supporters who have repeatedly backed Trump through prayer and political mobilization, the former real estate developer leaned into uncharacteristically candid banter, leaning into jokes and personal asides that he rarely shares in public settings. Reflecting on the Easter story of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem as king, Trump seized the moment to reference the widespread “No Kings” protests organized by Democrats across the country just days earlier, joking to the room: “They call me king. Now, do you believe it? I’m such a king. I can’t get a ballroom approved.” The quip came just one day after a federal judge ruled Trump had exceeded his executive authority to approve demolishing part of the White House grounds to construct a resort-style ballroom, adding a sharp topical punchline that drew laughter from the friendly crowd. “Pretty amazing… I could be doing a lot more if I was a king,” he added.

Trump went on to repeat a long-held talking point pushed by conservative evangelical leaders that has become a core part of his campaign messaging around religious freedom: “I’ve often said that to be a great nation, you have to have religion. I believe that so strongly. You have to have religion, and you have to have God.” This line of rhetoric aligns with claims from leading conservative groups including The Heritage Foundation that Christians face widespread marginalization in the U.S., with liberals allegedly replacing traditional greetings like “Merry Christmas” and “Happy Easter” with generic, secular holiday language. Multiple independent fact-checking efforts have found no documented evidence to support this claim of systemic erasure of Christian expression. Notably, Trump himself has never been outwardly religious, having said publicly on two separate occasions that “nothing will get me into heaven” during his decades in the public eye. Even so, evangelical Christian voters and groups—most of whom identify as Christian Zionists—remain some of the largest donors to Trump’s political campaigns, a loyalty he acknowledged in his remarks, noting, “When someone’s nice to me, I love that person. Even if they’re bad people. I couldn’t care less. I’ll fight to the end for them.”

Trump’s remark on religion came without any acknowledgment of the ongoing military campaign being waged by the U.S. and Israel against Iran, a conflict that has drawn widespread international condemnation for civilian casualties. He also made only a passing reference to the history of conflict tied to religious difference, noting, “There have been more wars over religion than trade, and everything else.”

Following Trump’s address, the president’s long-time spiritual advisor Paula White, a prominent televangelist, took the stage to draw a parallel between Trump’s political struggles and the story of Jesus Christ’s resurrection. “Because of his resurrection, you rose up,” White told Trump. “Mister president, no one has paid the price like you have paid the price. It almost cost you your life. You were betrayed and arrested and falsely accused.” Her comments referenced the multiple federal criminal charges Trump faces over his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and two documented assassination attempts against him. “It’s a familiar pattern that our lord and saviour showed us, but it didn’t end there for him, and it didn’t end there for you. God always had a plan.”

White, who recently called on Christian donors to tithe 10 percent of their income to her ministry, which funds Israeli settler projects in the occupied West Bank, has long been tied to pro-Israel politics within Trump’s orbit. Middle East Eye has previously reported that White was the key figure behind the firing of anti-Zionist Catholic activist Carrie Prejean-Boller from Trump’s Religious Liberties Commission during his first term.

Leading evangelical figure Franklin Graham, son of iconic evangelist Billy Graham, followed White with a prayer for the president that included fiery anti-Iranian rhetoric. “The Persians, Iranians, are wanting to kill every Jew, woman, child, and do it all in one day,” Graham claimed. “Father, we pray for the people of Iran who want freedom and be set free from these Islamic lunatics. The wicked regime of this government wants to kill every Jew and destroy them with an atomic fire, but you have raised up President Trump. You have raised him up for such a time as this. And Father, we pray that you’ll give him victory.”

Trump echoed Graham’s calls for victory in the Iran conflict, but blamed North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies for failing to back his administration’s efforts to forcibly reopen the Strait of Hormuz to shipping linked to the U.S. and Israel. “Nato treated us very badly, and you have to remember, because they’ll be treating us badly again if we ever need them. And hopefully we’re never going to need them,” Trump told the crowd. He called out specific allies, noting that British King Charles III will visit the U.S. in two weeks, saying “He’s a nice guy… but they [the UK] weren’t the best.” Charles has faced widespread international criticism for accepting the invitation amid the ongoing U.S.-led bombing campaign in Iran that has hit civilian targets including schools and hospitals.

Trump then turned to French President Emmanuel Macron, mocking both Macron’s refusal to deploy French naval assets to the Gulf and making a crude joke about his marriage to Brigitte Macron. “Then I call up France, Macron, whose wife treats him extremely badly,” Trump said to laughter from the room. He recounted his request for French military support, saying he asked Macron to send ships immediately to the Gulf as the U.S. campaign continues, claiming Macron responded: “No, no, no, cannot do that, Donald. We can do that after the war is won.” Trump delivered the response in a mocking exaggerated French accent, pushing back: “No, no, I don’t need after the war is won, Emmanuel.”

On Thursday, a day after the closed event, Macron publicly responded to Trump’s comments, calling them “neither elegant nor up to par.” The jab came just one week after Brigitte Macron visited the White House to meet with former first lady Melania Trump to work on a joint initiative to protect children and adults from cyberbullying.

Trump concluded his criticism of NATO, arguing the alliance is unreliable when the U.S. needs military support: “Many of them said, ‘We’ll be there after the war is completed.’ And so I learned about Nato. Nato won’t be there if we ever have a big one. You know what I mean by the big one,” he said, in an apparent reference to a potential large-scale military conflict between the U.S. and another global great power.

In a significant moment that underscores the military’s continued grip on power in Myanmar, the man who led the 2021 coup against the country’s democratically elected government, Min Aung Hlaing, has appeared at what is being billed as his final military parade ahead of his formal swearing-in as the nation’s next president.

The parade, held on a sprawling ceremonial ground in the capital Naypyidaw, brought together thousands of uniformed military personnel, armored vehicles, and military aircraft in a display of force organized to project unity and authority to both domestic audiences and the international community. The event comes years after Min Aung Hlaing led the military’s seizure of power in February 2021, ousting the elected government led by Aung San Suu Kyi and plunging the country into a protracted period of political instability, armed conflict with ethnic and pro-democracy militias, and deep economic hardship that has impacted millions of ordinary citizens.

For years following the coup, Min Aung Hlaing has served as the head of Myanmar’s ruling State Administration Council, acting as the de facto leader of the country while holding the formal position of prime minister. The move to elevate him to the presidency has long been expected by political analysts, who frame it as a calculated step to legitimize the military’s rule through a nominal civilian structure, even as most of the international community continues to refuse recognition of the military-led government.

Widely sanctioned by Western governments and the United Nations over his role in the coup and the subsequent crackdown on opposition, the 67-year-old former military chief has maintained a firm grip on the country’s state institutions, despite ongoing challenges from pro-democracy resistance groups that have gained ground in many border regions in recent years. As he prepares to take on the presidential title, analysts note that the parade served not just as a ceremonial send-off for his current military role, but also as a demonstration that the armed forces remain the ultimate center of power in Myanmar, regardless of formal political titles.

The event has drawn renewed attention to the ongoing crisis in Myanmar, where human rights groups have documented widespread abuses against civilians by military forces, and millions of people have been displaced by conflict since the 2021 takeover. The international community has largely remained firm in its rejection of the military’s seizure of power, with most countries continuing to recognize the ousted National Unity Government as the legitimate representative of the Myanmar people.

Geopolitical friction between the United States and China has intensified in recent weeks, sparked by a high-stakes dispute over two strategically critical ports along the Panama Canal that has drawn Washington directly into a growing confrontation in the Western Hemisphere. The conflict traces back to January, when Panama’s Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling deeming the operating concession for the Balboa and Cristóbal terminals — held by a subsidiary of Hong Kong-based conglomerate CK Hutchison Holdings — unconstitutional. Following the ruling, Panama’s government moved to seize control of the two ports, triggering a sharp response from Beijing, which has pledged to protect the legal interests of its domestic companies.

In a public statement posted to social media Thursday, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio leveled serious allegations against Beijing, claiming China had engaged in coercive “bullying” by disproportionately detaining Panama-flagged commercial vessels at Chinese ports in retaliation for the port seizure. Rubio argued that China’s actions, which saw detentions last between one and 10 days before vessels were released, undermine lawful global trade, destabilize critical international supply chains, raise operational costs for shippers, and erode trust in the rules-based global trading system. “The United States stands with Panama against any retaliatory actions against its sovereignty and will always support our partners in the face of bullying,” Rubio said.

Data compiled by the Tokyo MOU, a regional port state control coordination body made up of 22 maritime authorities across the Asia-Pacific, appears to show a sharp upward spike in Panama-flagged vessel detentions at Chinese ports in March. Of the 124 total ships detained for inspection that month, 92 — nearly 75 percent — sailed under Panama’s flag. That marks a dramatic jump from earlier in the year: in February, Panama-flagged vessels accounted for just over 40 percent of detained ships (19 out of 45 total), and in January that share stood at just over 30 percent (23 out of 71).

China has forcefully rejected the U.S. accusations, with Chinese Embassy Washington spokesperson Liu Pengyu arguing that repeated baseless claims from the U.S. only expose Washington’s own ambition to seize control of the Panama Canal. Liu did not directly address the recorded uptick in detentions in his public statement.

This dispute is the latest flashpoint in a broader, long-running rivalry between Washington and Beijing for influence in Latin America and the Caribbean. The Trump administration has made curbing China’s growing economic and diplomatic sway in the Western Hemisphere a core foreign policy priority, a pledge Donald Trump first articulated during his initial presidential campaign, when he openly discussed the possibility of the U.S. retaking control of the strategically vital Panama Canal. The administration has ramped up U.S. engagement in the region more aggressively than any U.S. administration in decades, highlighted by the military raid that captured Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in January.

U.S. federal regulators have already begun monitoring the situation closely. Laura DiBella, chair of the Washington-based Federal Maritime Commission, confirmed the agency has been tracking detentions of Panama-flagged vessels in Chinese ports, and echoed Rubio’s criticism of Beijing’s actions. “Secretary Rubio’s statement highlights the disruptive effects of the government of China’s actions against Panama-flagged vessels,” DiBella said, adding that the commission “is not aware of any other country in recent history conducting vessel safety inspections and detentions in a punitive manner.” DiBella also revealed that China’s Ministry of Transport had summoned senior representatives from Danish shipping giant A.P. Moller-Maersk to Beijing for high-level talks, after Panama announced Maersk’s subsidiary APM Terminals would take temporary control of the two seized canal ports while a new long-term operating concession is awarded.

Panama’s government has sought to de-escalate tensions, downplaying the geopolitical implications of the rising detentions. Panamanian officials have not yet responded to requests for comment on Rubio’s recent allegations, and have previously rejected claims that the detentions are tied to the canal port dispute between Beijing and Panama. In March, Panamanian Foreign Minister Javier Martínez acknowledged the increase in detentions but framed the checks as standard routine maritime safety procedures, noting that vessel detentions for inspection occur at ports across the world, regardless of a ship’s flag. “We want to maintain a respectful relationship with China,” Martínez added. Beijing has previously stated it would “take all measures necessary to firmly protect the legitimate and lawful rights and interests of Chinese companies” following the supreme court ruling that invalidated CK Hutchison’s concession.

For Panama, a global leader in international ship registration that generates roughly $100 million annually in revenue from its flag registry, the dispute carries significant economic risks. José Digeronimo, former president of the Panama Maritime Chamber, warned that widespread punitive actions against Panama-flagged vessels could cause lasting damage to the country’s flagship maritime industry. Digeronimo compared ship registration to a shipowner choosing a travel passport, noting that operators choose registries that allow unimpeded access to the largest number of global ports. If China, the world’s largest exporter, begins imposing restrictions on vessels using the Panama flag, Digeronimo argued, shipowners will rapidly abandon the registry to avoid delays, threatening a critical source of government revenue for Panama.

As the United Kingdom prepares for local elections across 136 English councils on May 7, Keir Starmer faces what may be the biggest test of his premiership since he took office in July 2024. With more than half of the 5,000 contested seats currently held by his Labour Party, the vote is widely framed as a public referendum on Starmer’s leadership — one that could leave his political career hanging in the balance.

Starmer enters the election cycle facing a perfect storm of headwinds: a stagnating national economy exacerbated by fallout from the US-Israeli military campaign against Iran, plummeting Labour poll numbers, and personal approval ratings that hit historic lows for a sitting prime minister. The right-wing populist party Reform UK, led by veteran campaigner Nigel Farage, has led national opinion polls for more than a year and is positioning the May elections as a breakthrough opportunity to seize control of local authorities. Recent polling projections suggest Reform could capture as many as 17 councils and claim up to 1,500 council seats, in what would be a landmark upset for the insurgent right.

But the threats to Labour do not end on the right of the political spectrum. The party is facing a coordinated, multi-pronged challenge from the left that experts say could split its traditional base and deliver key seats to anti-establishment opponents.

The Green Party, led by Zack Polanski since mid-2024, has surged in popularity, drawing overwhelming support from young voters across the UK. The party proved its growing electoral strength in a shocking February by-election victory in Greater Manchester’s Gorton and Denton constituency, where Green candidate Hannah Spencer flipped a seat long held by Labour, overturning a previous Labour majority of more than 13,000 votes and outpacing Reform to claim the win.

Alongside the Greens, the new left-wing political movement Your Party has emerged as a major contender, built from the Independent Alliance of five independent MPs who entered parliament following the 2024 general election. The bloc was formed after four pro-Gaza, anti-establishment Muslim independent candidates unseated sitting Labour MPs in what was widely labeled a political earthquake, alongside former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, who won re-election as an independent after splitting with Starmer’s leadership over policy disagreements. After a period of internal infighting that marked its launch late last year, Your Party stabilized following Corbyn’s election as its parliamentary leader in February 2025.

Contrary to Labour’s initial hopes that the Greens and Your Party would split the anti-Labour left vote, the two groups have launched a coordinated electoral offensive across England. Your Party has adopted a targeted strategy focused on endorsing community-backed independent candidates, rather than running a full slate of its own politicians, to maximize the impact of the left-wing challenge.

“All across the country, there will be community independent groups offering an alternative to the despair of Labour and the division of Reform,” Corbyn said in a recent campaign statement. “We are proud to support those candidates and groups standing up for redistribution, inclusion and peace.”

This wave of anti-establishment left politics builds on a trend that first emerged in the 2024 local elections, when Labour lost roughly a third of its vote share in areas with large Muslim populations, with many voters shifting to independent candidates running on pro-ceasefire platforms in Gaza or to Green candidates who adopted similar positions. That momentum carried into the July 2024 general election, producing the parliamentary upset that paved the way for Your Party’s launch.

The ongoing US military campaign against Iran, and the UK government’s decision to allow American forces to use UK military bases to strike Iranian missile sites, has become a major flashpoint for voter anger, particularly among left-leaning and Muslim communities who have long criticized Labour’s support for British and American foreign policy in the Middle East. Your Party confirmed this week that local council divestment from entities linked to Israel will be a core campaign plank, alongside addressing longstanding underfunding of local authorities and advocating for increased public investment and insourcing of public services.

Your Party announced Thursday it is backing roughly 250 candidates across England, most running as endorsed independents or as members of local community-aligned parties. One of its top targets is the East London borough of Tower Hamlets, currently controlled by Lutfur Rahman’s Aspire Party. A former Labour politician, Rahman was first elected mayor in 2010, but was removed from office in 2015 after being found guilty of electoral fraud and banned from running for office for six years. He reclaimed the mayoralty and council control for Aspire in the 2022 local elections.

With a population that is 39% Muslim — the highest share in the UK — alongside some of the country’s highest poverty rates, Tower Hamlets has become a showcase for left-wing alternative governance. Your Party has labeled the borough a “beacon council,” pointing to Aspire’s policy wins: expanding free school meals to all primary and secondary students, restoring the Education Maintenance Allowance cut by the previous Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, and reinstating the Winter Fuel Payment that was eliminated by Starmer’s Labour government.

“In Tower Hamlets, we’ve shown how socialist, redistributive policies can transform lives and provide the hopeful, ambitious alternative needed to take on the far right — something Labour has utterly failed to do,” Rahman said.

East London has emerged as the central battleground for the left-wing challenge. In nearby Redbridge, the local Redbridge Independents group, endorsed by Your Party, is aiming to seize council control. Noor Jahan Begum, a recently elected Redbridge councillor who now serves as Your Party’s spokesperson, said the movement is “taking the fight to Labour in their heartlands.”

“In Redbridge and across the country, people are telling us that they feel let down and abandoned by Labour, outraged by their complicity in genocide and fed up of the status quo,” Begum said. “We are offering something different: a politics rooted in and accountable to our communities, a politics that campaigns for the social transformation people are crying out for.”

The challenge has already sparked pushback from senior Labour figures: last week, local MP and Health Secretary Wes Streeting drew criticism for a campaign letter to Redbridge voters that urged residents to vote Labour to stop the borough from “becoming a rotten Borough like Tower Hamlets.” Vaseem Ahmed, leader of the Redbridge Independents, called the comment an unfair attack on a diverse group of local residents campaigning for change.

In neighboring Newham, another East London Labour stronghold, the local Newham Independents Party has already won multiple recent council by-elections and is mounting a serious challenge to Labour’s majority. Further south in Lewisham, southeast London, former Labour councillor Liam Shrivastava is running as the Green mayoral candidate, with polls predicting no party will win an overall council majority. National projections suggest the Greens could capture up to nine councils overall, including long-time Labour strongholds Hackney and Lambeth in London.

The challenge extends far beyond the capital. In Birmingham, Britain’s second city, where 22% of the population is Muslim and all 101 council seats are up for election, polling shows a coalition of independents and Greens has a strong chance of stripping Labour of its majority. In Newcastle upon Tyne, where Labour currently runs a minority administration and 78 seats are contested, former Labour mayor Jamie Driscoll — now running as a Green candidate — said Greens and independent candidates are on track to take joint control of the council.

Rahman argued that the cross-party alliance between Your Party, local community groups, the Greens, and progressive independents presents a historic opportunity to replace Labour-led councils across the country with administrations accountable directly to local communities. Corbyn framed the upcoming elections as the opening of a broader movement against established political orthodoxy.

“These elections are the beginning of the fightback against austerity, privatisation and fear,” Corbyn said. “People in power underestimate the power of people at their peril — and arrogance in office always comes back to bite you in the end.”

A major political storm has erupted in UK politics after the immediate family of Green Party leader Zack Polanski, the only Jewish leader of a major British political party, lodged a formal complaint with the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) over persistent intrusion by reporters at their private residences.

IPSO has confirmed it received the complaint from a legal representative acting for Polanski’s close family members — his mother, father, brother, and sister. In the formal submission, the family issued a clear request that all media outlets cease in-person visits to their homes, as well as unsolicited outreach via phone and email, as they have no intention of speaking to reporters on the story. The complaint directs all future press inquiries to the Green Party’s official press office, per the family’s wishes.

In its notification to all regulated UK media outlets, IPSO explicitly reminded editors of two key clauses from the industry’s Editors’ Code: Clause 2 covering privacy and Clause 3 covering harassment. The guidance warned that continued targeting of the Polanski family could put outlets in breach of these binding industry rules.

The complaint comes in the wake of a controversial article published by the Daily Mail, written by veteran journalist Nicole Lampert. The piece claimed Polanski faced internal rebellion from his own family, who reportedly feared they would be forced to leave the UK if Polanski ever became prime minister, citing unsubstantiated claims of widespread antisemitism within the Green Party.

Lampert claimed to have interviewed three members of Polanski’s extended family for the story, and printed an anonymous quote repeating the baseless conspiracy theory that the Green Party is evolving into “the future Islamic party of Britain” with no place for Jewish residents. Polanski has pushed back hard on the story, noting that his entire immediate family refused all contact with Lampert, forcing her to seek out anonymous, unaffiliated distant relatives to fabricate the narrative.

Notably, Lampert — a former Daily Mail showbusiness editor — is already one of four reporters facing formal investigation over the newspaper’s alleged use of private investigators to obtain stories. As recently as early March, she appeared in court to deny charges related to her role in the hacking of private voicemails between actors Sadie Frost and Jude Law.

In a defiant response to the story, Polanski highlighted newly released polling data from the Verian Group that placed the Green Party in second place nationally, outperforming both the Labour and Conservative parties and trailing front-runner Reform UK by just five percentage points. He argued the unflinching attack on his family was directly tied to the Greens’ rising electoral momentum.

“This is why Daily Mail journalists are going after my family now. The right-wing propaganda machine will not work on the Green Party. We’re ready to end Rip Off Britain, end the cost of living crisis and make hope normal again,” Polanski wrote on social media.

Polanski doubled down on his criticism of Lampert and the Daily Mail, labeling the reporter’s conduct “parasitic” and reiterating the tabloid’s well-documented historical support for fascist movements in 1930s Europe. He also shared a link to an Independent investigation into Lampert’s ongoing court case, which outlines allegations the journalist hired private investigators who committed unlawful acts to acquire information for stories.

Lampert, who has stated she is also Jewish, hit back by claiming Polanski’s use of the word “parasitic” amounted to trafficking in antisemitic tropes against Jewish people. The accusation has drawn widespread pushback from political commentators, who have highlighted the obvious hypocrisy of leveling an antisemitism claim against a sitting Jewish party leader responding to tabloid intrusion of his private family life.

Many observers have drawn clear parallels between the current attack on Polanski and the coordinated campaign against former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn ahead of the 2019 UK general election, when right-wing media outlets repeatedly levied unsubstantiated antisemitism claims against Corbyn to undermine his leadership. Recent reporting in journalist Paul Holden’s new book *The Fraud* has confirmed that Keir Starmer’s former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney and his lobby group Labour Together planted fabricated “antisemitism crisis” stories in national media to discredit Corbyn and seize control of the Labour party.

In a public statement posted to both Instagram and X on March 28, 2026, Polanski rejected all accusations of antisemitism against himself and the Green Party, noting his status as the only Jewish leader of a major UK political party, which is currently the third largest in the country by representation.

“The Daily Mail have been & always will be my enemy – they historically supported fascists & continue to do so. I’ll take no lectures from them on Antisemitism,” Polanski wrote. The post was accompanied by a famous archival photograph of Lord Rothermere, the Daily Mail’s founding owner, meeting with Adolf Hitler in 1937. The Daily Mail remains controlled by the Rothermere family to this day, and is registered in the offshore tax haven of Bermuda.

The centuries-old continuous presence of Christian communities across Israel and Palestine is facing an unprecedented existential threat, driven by a growing pattern of intimidation and violence targeting the minority group, a leading Jerusalem-based interfaith research institution has warned in a major new report.

The Rossing Center, an organization dedicated to advancing constructive Jewish-Christian relations, has documented a steady escalation of targeted aggression against Christian communities in occupied East Jerusalem — including the historic Old City — and wider Israel, labeling the trend as sustained and expanding in its latest analysis. The report confirms that Christians are targeted explicitly for their religious identity, while Palestinian Christians face additional persecution as a marginalized national minority.

The document places direct blame for the recent surge in open anti-Christian animosity on the far-right national government led by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The report notes that a renewed emphasis on exclusive Jewish identity has found its most extreme expression in right-wing ultranationalism, a force that has become increasingly dominant in mainstream Israeli society. This ideological shift, the authors add, has been amplified by the collective national trauma following the October 7, 2023 attacks, embedding extremist attitudes more deeply within governing circles.

While the report avoids naming National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir explicitly, its findings are widely understood as a direct rebuke of his leadership, which carries formal responsibility for policing across Israel and occupied Palestinian territories including Jerusalem’s Old City. In late 2023, after a wave of documented incidents where Jewish extremists spat on Christian worshippers and holy sites, Ben Gvir defended the behavior as an “old Jewish tradition” and argued it did not qualify as criminal conduct. Earlier this year, he pushed through a sweeping expansion of firearms access that now makes more than 300,000 Jewish residents of Jerusalem eligible to carry concealed weapons, according to local Israeli outlet *Times of Israel*. Private conversations with Christian leaders held with Middle East Eye reveal widespread fear in the community that a potential future premiership for Ben Gvir would be catastrophic for Christianity’s place in the Holy Land.

The Rossing Center recorded 155 verified incidents of anti-Christian harassment in 2025 alone, but the report emphasizes that this number represents only the small tip of a much larger iceberg, with countless unreported cases going uncounted. The majority of documented incidents involved physical assaults, with clergy — including monks, nuns, friars, and priests — disproportionately targeted due to their distinct religious vestments and visible Christian symbols. In high-risk areas such as Mount Zion and the Old City’s Armenian Quarter, clergy reported that harassment has become so daily and routine that stepping outside their places of residence virtually guarantees verbal or physical abuse.

One of the report’s most concerning findings is the near-total lack of legal accountability for these attacks. The think tank has supported dozens of victims in filing formal police complaints, but the vast majority of these cases have been closed without action; only a tiny fraction have resulted in indictments, a rate wildly disproportionate to the scale of the violence. The report also notes a critical institutional gap: there is no designated police liaison to work with and address concerns from the Christian community across the country. This systemic failure has reinforced a widespread perception among Christians that they are not seen as an integral part of the region’s social fabric, but rather as unwelcome outsiders in the land their community has inhabited for millennia.

Beyond attacks on people, the report documents 59 separate acts of vandalism targeting church property, including defacement with extremist graffiti, damage to religious statues, arson attacks, illegal garbage dumping on sacred grounds, and targeted spitting at holy sites. These attacks, the authors note, erode a sense of safety around sacred spaces and fuel growing anxiety over the steady collapse of public respect for Christian religious life in Israel’s public sphere. An additional 18 incidents involved the defacement of Christian-owned public signage. Cumulatively, the persistent aggression creates a humiliating, draining climate that pushes many Christians to conceal their religious identity in public and leaves community leaders uncertain about the long-term survival of their congregations.

In its concluding analysis, the report emphasizes that Christian communities have been continuously and proudly rooted in the Holy Land for more than 2,000 years. But growing pressure from multiple directions is now pushing younger generations to consider leaving the region entirely. A 2024 survey conducted by the center found that nearly half of all Christians under the age of 45 are actively considering relocating out of Israel and Palestine.

The report’s release coincides with a high-profile incident that underscored its findings: just days before publication, Israeli police blocked Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, from entering the Church of the Holy Sepulchre — the site Christian tradition holds as the place of Jesus’ crucifixion, burial, and resurrection — to lead the annual Palm Sunday Mass marking the start of Holy Week. Pizzaballa’s office confirmed that this was the first time in centuries that the patriarch had been blocked from leading the iconic service at the site.

Israeli security forces maintained a pervasive, overwhelming presence across the Old City throughout Holy Week, with an armed officer posted outside the locked doors of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre to prevent worshippers from approaching. A permanent Israeli police security post, labeled the “Israeli Police Division of the Holy Sepulchre Church,” operates just outside the church’s outer courtyard, flying an Israeli flag directly outside one of Christianity’s most sacred sites. Multiple worshippers told Middle East Eye that armed Israeli police routinely enter the ancient church in intrusive patrols, even accessing the Tomb of Christ itself, and that Palestinian worshippers routinely feel intimidated by the armed presence inside sacred spaces. Middle East Eye requested comment from Israeli police on these claims, but received no response prior to publication.

The incident comes more than a year after the International Court of Justice issued a landmark 2024 ruling that Israel’s ongoing occupation of East Jerusalem is illegal under international law, and ordered the Israeli state to end its illegal security presence and occupation. The Israeli government has rejected the ruling outright, maintaining that all of Jerusalem is its undivided capital. Netanyahu has repeatedly framed Israel as the “guardian of Christianity” in the Middle East — a claim that stands in stark contrast to the dire picture of escalating anti-Christian persecution laid out in the Rossing Center’s report, released in Christianity’s holiest city during its most sacred week of the year.