博客

In a bombshell revelation shared during the David Hearst Podcast, former British Permanent Representative to the United Nations Jeremy Greenstock has pulled back the curtain on a controversial diplomatic demand tied to Donald Trump’s Board of Peace, the U.S.-established body tasked with overseeing post-war Gaza reconstruction. According to Greenstock, the board tapped former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair to pressure the Palestinian Authority (PA) to strip all references to the word ‘Palestine’ from its national school curricula, replacing the term with ‘Samaria’ – the Jewish historical designation for the region. Greenstock, who served as Blair’s senior diplomatic envoy during his time in Downing Street, confirmed the condition was explicit: only if the PA complied with the erasure would the Board of Peace recognize it as a legitimate negotiating partner for a final peace deal with Israel to end the ongoing Gaza conflict.

The demand was immediately and unequivocally rejected by PA President Mahmoud Abbas, Greenstock confirmed. This revelation has sparked fierce debate over the underlying principles guiding the U.S.-backed peace body, with Greenstock questioning the board’s commitment to basic concepts of justice, historical fairness, and longstanding diplomatic norms in the Middle East.

Blair’s own policy institute, the Institute for Global Change, has issued a flat denial that the former prime minister made the request. Still, the disclosure lines up with a growing, coordinated global campaign led by Israel and its supporters to eliminate references to ‘Palestine’ and Palestinian identity from educational materials and public cultural institutions, multiple recent investigations and on-the-ground actions confirm.

Greenstock, speaking from his decades of firsthand experience in Middle East diplomacy, also pulled no punches in his assessment of Blair’s current role heading postwar Gaza planning for the Board of Peace, noting the former prime minister has already encountered significant headwinds in the position. ‘Because of his record on Iraq and on Palestine since he left government, he will be seen as prejudiced. So I think he will have, and is having, difficulties,’ Greenstock explained. He went further, dismissing the entire Board of Peace as an ‘abstract and arbitrary committee’ structurally incapable of shouldering the weight of the high-stakes decisions required to resolve the future status of the Palestinian territories. ‘I don’t think the Board of Peace is a strong enough construct to bear the weight of the difficult decisions that are going to have to be made,’ he emphasized.

The timeline of diplomatic activity confirms Blair travelled to Israel in mid-August alongside Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and senior political advisor, and Nickolay Mladenov, the board’s high representative for Gaza. The trio held closed-door, high-stakes talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has already rejected the board’s proposed postwar roadmap for Gaza. Following the Israel meetings, the delegation travelled to Cairo to meet with a proposed Palestinian technocratic interim government that would take control of Gaza post-conflict, as well as representatives of Hamas.

Greenstock’s criticism extends far beyond the Board of Peace and Blair’s role. In a sharp rebuke to Britain’s new Prime Minister Andy Burnham, the former envoy urged the UK government to stand firm on principle in its Middle East policy, questioning the contradiction of British support for Ukraine in the face of illegal Russian invasion, while failing to hold Israel accountable for its actions in occupied Palestinian territories. ‘How can Andy Burnham go to Kyiv and support President Zelensky because the Russians invaded Ukraine illegally against United Nations principles, to be condemned around the world for going against the United Nations Charter, and not stand up for justice in the Middle East in the Arab-Israel question?’ Greenstock asked.

He called for a full review of British arms sales to Israel, and argued that under international law, the UK is obligated to arrest both Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant if they enter British territory, as both men face active arrest warrants from the International Criminal Court. ‘We’re under an obligation through our treaty position in the UN and through our support for the statute of the ICC. I think as far as the ICC is concerned, and if anybody who had been indicted by the judges of the ICC, they should be arrested,’ he stated.

Greenstock also outlined his analysis of Netanyahu’s long-term strategic goals, arguing the Israeli prime minister is acting to fulfill a promise to his late father, historian Benzion Netanyahu, to annex the entire West Bank (referred to by Israelis as Judea and Samaria) and bring it under permanent Israeli sovereignty. He said Netanyahu saw the October 7, 2023 attacks as a unique opportunity to advance that goal.

Turning to broader trends in global power and the ongoing regional conflict, Greenstock warned Israeli citizens that their country is rapidly losing soft power influence across the globe, a shift that will have long-term consequences for Israeli security. He emphasized that lasting peace can only come through compromise with regional actors, noting that military solutions to long-standing political disputes have repeatedly failed in the modern era. ‘If I was an Israeli citizen, I would worry that my country was losing soft power appeal around the world. It matters in the long term, and it matters for peace and security in the Middle East that there should be some sense of compromise,’ he said.

Greenstock, who served as a senior coalition official in Iraq immediately after the 2003 invasion, reflected on his firsthand experience with U.S. foreign policy, arguing that America’s overreliance on hard power has led to repeated military failures across the Middle East over the past two decades. He noted that since the 1999 Kosovo conflict, neither the U.S. nor the UK has achieved a decisive, lasting victory in any military intervention, a trend he attributes to a fundamental misunderstanding of modern power dynamics. ‘We are in a world now where power has been diffused in all sorts of ways. And soft power has become more important. The capacity to persuade rather than compel has become extremely important… The legitimacy of using weaponry to force your will has become diminished in world opinion,’ he explained.

On the recent U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran, Greenstock argued the Trump administration failed to adequately plan for the consequences of the attack, miscalculating Iran’s asymmetric military capabilities, including its ability to disrupt global oil trade through the Strait of Hormuz. He also suggested the timing of the strike was not accidental, noting it aligned with growing domestic political pressure on Trump over the Jeffrey Epstein files and multiple legal challenges facing his administration. ‘It’s not an accident that the timing of that attack on Iran might have been affected by things that were happening domestically,’ he said.

Greenstock also addressed the recent Mecca Agreement signed by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, framing the pact as a clear response to growing Arab and Muslim distrust of U.S. leadership in the region. He explained that two key factors have eroded confidence in U.S. leadership: the repeated failure of U.S. hard power to deliver stable political outcomes in the Middle East, and the Trump administration’s explicit prioritization of ‘Make America Great Again’ domestic interests over the needs and priorities of U.S. allies in the region.

Looking at the broader shift in global diplomacy, Greenstock noted that the core moral and legal principles enshrined in the UN Charter are increasingly being set aside in favor of unilateral pursuit of narrow national interest, a shift that has reshaped Middle Eastern politics more than any other region. Today, he argued, there is no shared framework of principles guiding regional negotiation, unlike the cooperative security model developed in Europe after the Cold War.

Contextualizing the reported textbook demand, recent weeks have seen multiple high-profile actions advancing the erasure of ‘Palestine’ from public life. Just days before Greenstock’s interview, Israeli authorities began imposing their national curriculum on more than 45,000 Palestinian students in state-run East Jerusalem schools, part of a broader crackdown on Palestinian education in the occupied city. Earlier this year, UNRWA Lebanon, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees that Israel has banned from operating, faced intense pressure that forced it to replace the word ‘Palestine’ with ‘West Bank’ and ‘Gaza Strip’ on sixth-grade geography maps, a move that sparked widespread protests and strikes across Palestinian communities. That pressure came even after an independent review led by former French Foreign Minister Catherine Colonna found no evidence to support Israeli claims that UNRWA staff participate in terrorist organizations.

In the United Kingdom, a cross-party group of members of Parliament has recently called for a formal investigation into the British Museum’s decision to remove references to ‘Palestine’, ‘Palestinian’ and ‘Israelite occupation’ from its public displays. An investigation by Middle East Eye confirmed the museum’s decision came directly in response to targeted lobbying by pro-Israel activists between October and December 2024.

Since the October 2024 ceasefire brokered by the U.S. that established the Board of Peace, violence has continued unabated in Gaza. Israel has carried out repeated air and drone strikes across the enclave, killing at least 1,300 Palestinians and wounding more than 4,000. Just this week, at least seven rapid air strikes hit an area west of Gaza City, followed by drone attacks on any moving person in the area, local reports confirm. While Hamas and other Palestinian factions have agreed to a disarmament plan as part of the ceasefire framework, Israel has refused to withdraw its forces from Gaza until the disarmament process is fully completed.

A major escalation of conflict has erupted across the Middle East after Iran launched coordinated missile and drone attacks against multiple United States military facilities in the region, a retaliatory move following deadly US airstrikes that killed 18 people on Iranian soil earlier this week.

Among the casualties of the US strikes was a family gathering in the village of Kuhestak, located near the southern coastal city of Sirik, where at least four civilians—including two children attending a wedding—were killed. The strike has sparked widespread outrage across Iran, with top political and military leaders condemning the attack as an unprovoked act of aggression against innocent civilians.

Iran’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) confirmed it carried out the multi-site retaliatory operation, targeting US positions in three regional countries. First, in Erbil, the capital of Iraq’s autonomous Kurdistan Region, Iranian missiles and drones destroyed a US maintenance facility, weapons storage warehouses, and the guidance system of an American surveillance aerostat, according to state-run Iranian news agency IRNA.

The strikes extended further into the Arabian Peninsula, hitting two key US military bases in the United Arab Emirates: Al Dhafra Air Base and Al Minhad Air Base. The IRGC stated that dozens of Iranian army kamikaze drones targeted radar systems and core US personnel positions at both installations, noting that Al Dhafra serves as a primary operational hub for US military air operations, reconnaissance, and surveillance missions across the region.

A third strike targeted Ali Al Salem Air Base in Kuwait, hitting the headquarters and official residence of the US commander stationed at the facility. The IRGC reported that the attack ignited a blaze in a drone hangar and launch infrastructure that the US has used to carry out strikes on Iran, destroying multiple American drones in the process.

Colonel Ebrahim Zolfaghari, spokesperson for Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, announced in a report broadcast by state broadcaster IRIB that the retaliatory strikes inflicted heavy damage on US military infrastructure, weapons, and equipment. He added that a “significant number” of American commanders and service members were killed or wounded in the attacks, though this claim has not yet been independently verified. Zolfaghari stressed that offensive operations against US forces will continue until Washington faces consequences for its actions, warning that any future US strikes will trigger “heavier, broader and more destructive” Iranian responses. He also cautioned that regional countries that host and assist US military operations will be held responsible for any resulting fallout.

Top Iranian political and military figures have sharpened their rhetoric in the wake of the civilian deaths. Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf issued a scathing rebuke of Washington, labeling US forces “Satan” in a post on the social platform X. “If a power acts like Satan, picks targets like Satan, and kills like Satan, it’s Satan,” he wrote. IRGC political deputy General Yadollah Javani called on regional governments to expel US forces from their national territories, specifically warning Kuwait, Bahrain, and Jordan that any facility used to launch attacks against Iran will become a legitimate target for Iranian strikes.

In response to the attacks, Bahrain confirmed its air defense systems intercepted incoming Iranian drones after authorities ordered residents to seek shelter across the country. Separately, the IRGC announced that two commercial oil tankers hit sea mines and became disabled while attempting to traverse the Strait of Hormuz, after US operatives directed the vessels onto what Tehran calls an “illegal route.” The IRGC noted it had previously warned shipping companies of the dangers of using the unapproved passage, adding that additional penalties will soon be imposed on companies that ignore official guidance and cooperate with the US.

The sharp escalation of hostilities has sent shockwaves through global energy markets, as investors fear new disruptions to oil supplies and a slide into open direct conflict between the two countries. Brent crude prices climbed above $95 per barrel in immediate trading following the attacks.

US President Donald Trump rejected widespread speculation that Washington is seeking to push Iran back into nuclear negotiations, writing on his social platform Truth Social that he prefers the current US strategic position, which he claims gives the US “almost total control of the Hormuz Strait” and has left Iran’s economy “totally collapsing.” He added that Iran was “playing out the inevitable” before asking, “When are the Iranian people going to rise up and fight?”

In a separate, unrelated development, the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier arrived in Thailand for a five-day port call after more than 200 consecutive days deployed at sea. The extended deployment has been marked by reports of worsening onboard conditions and growing concerns over the mental health of the carrier’s sailors. Thousands of US personnel will stay near the coastal resort city of Pattaya, a destination widely known for its nightlife industry, for the duration of the port visit.

Ten years after his last state visit to Egypt, Chinese President Xi Jinping has arrived in Cairo, marking a new chapter in China’s evolving engagement across the Middle East and Africa. For decades, China’s policy in the Middle East has centered on Gulf energy supplies, robust trade ties with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and careful diplomatic balancing between Iran and Arab states. These relationships remain critical to Beijing’s regional strategy, but President Xi’s visit underscores a deliberate shift: China is expanding its footprint west and south, positioning Egypt as a strategic gateway to African markets, infrastructure networks, and political influence.

Ahead of the presidential visit, China deployed J-16 fighter jets, aerial refueling tankers, and early-warning aircraft on a 6,000-kilometer journey to Egypt for the second iteration of the “Eagles of Civilization” joint military exercise. While some observers frame this deployment as evidence that China seeks to displace the United States as the dominant security power in the region, that claim overstates current realities. Washington maintains extensive military basing, command infrastructure, and formal defense alliances that Beijing has yet to build, and Egypt continues to integrate military equipment from the U.S., France, Russia, and China simultaneously.

Rather than seeking to replace existing security arrangements, China is building a targeted, durable network of economic, technological, and limited security partnerships that do not require Egypt to abandon its other longstanding allies. The geographic core of this network is clustered around the Suez Canal, just east of Cairo. What began as Chinese construction contracts has evolved into a full-fledged manufacturing hub: by the end of 2025, the China-Egypt TEDA industrial zone in Ain Sokhna was home to nearly 200 companies, attracted over $3.8 billion in foreign direct investment, and created approximately 10,000 local jobs, according to data released earlier this year.

The zone already produces fiberglass, electrical machinery, consumer appliances, and industrial chemicals, with a large-scale tire manufacturing facility set to launch phased production in the near future. Cairo has also prioritized attracting investment in solar cells, battery manufacturing, and electric vehicle production, aligning with global clean energy transitions. This industrial base offers China a strategic advantage that its Gulf partnerships alone cannot provide: a permanent manufacturing foothold in Africa, positioned directly along the shortest maritime trade route connecting Asian production centers to European consumer markets. Egypt’s membership in the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) also grants Chinese firms operating here access to integrated commercial networks across the Arab world and the entire African continent.

Chinese companies based in the Suez zone are not just geographically closer to sub-Saharan African markets; they can also leverage the cross-continental trade networks that Cairo has spent decades building, which Egypt now aims to expand under the AfCFTA framework. For Egypt, the partnership brings equally tangible benefits. Cairo is grappling with urgent needs for foreign currency inflows, job creation, and expanded export capacity, and it has long sought to address a lopsided trade balance with China. In 2025, China was Egypt’s largest non-oil trading partner, but official data shows Chinese exports to Egypt reached $19.9 billion, while Egyptian exports to China totaled just $819 million – a stark imbalance that Cairo is eager to correct.

A growing total volume of trade does not automatically translate to a healthier, more mutually beneficial bilateral relationship. The long-term success of the partnership will hinge on whether local Egyptian suppliers are integrated into supply chains, whether Egyptian exporters gain greater access to the huge Chinese market, and whether the partnership restructures Egypt’s economy rather than just increasing its import dependency. Technology transfer is emerging as the next critical test of this dynamic. Chinese tech giant Huawei has submitted a bid to build artificial intelligence data centers for the Egyptian government using 2,008 Ascend chips, while the U.S. State Department has coordinated a rival proposal backed by Nvidia, AMD, and Microsoft. As President Xi arrives in Cairo, this tender has turned Egypt into the site of an open competition between the two superpowers’ competing technology ecosystems.

Huawei has already outlined a 12-month construction timeline for its proposal, while the U.S.-backed consortium is expected to offer more advanced chips and access to a deeper global software ecosystem. For Egypt, this competitive dynamic puts Cairo in a uniquely advantageous position to negotiate favorable terms, as both blocs are eager to secure a foothold in the market. This pragmatic flexibility defines Egypt’s approach to military and diplomatic engagement more broadly: its air force operates American F-16s, French Rafales, and Russian MiG-29s, and now adds joint training with Chinese aircraft to its portfolio. Egypt joined the BRICS bloc last year and has deepened ties with Beijing, but it still receives substantial annual military assistance from Washington and maintains strong economic links with Europe and the Gulf states.

This flexible approach works to China’s advantage as well. Beijing’s low-profile, non-intrusive model of engagement allows it to deepen its regional presence without taking on the burdens of addressing every regional crisis, from the ongoing conflict in Gaza to security challenges in the Red Sea. Chinese firms can expand industrial capacity, sell cutting-edge technology, and strengthen defense cooperation, while Cairo retains primary responsibility for local security and regional mediation efforts.

That said, there are clear limits to the current scale of cooperation. While the TEDA industrial zone has created jobs and expanded production, Egypt’s trade imbalance with China remains stark. If Beijing is to frame this relationship as a model development partnership, it will need to ensure that more economic value is retained locally within Egypt. The joint military exercises also need to be kept in perspective: they offer Chinese pilots valuable operational experience in the region and give Egypt another option for security partnership, but they do not signal an imminent replacement of the existing regional security order.

China’s overall military and security presence in the Middle East remains far smaller than that of the United States. Chinese commercial shipping and companies still rely on the freedom of navigation provided by the U.S.-led regional security architecture – a system that Beijing has often criticized, but has not yet put forward a viable alternative to replace.

For these reasons, the true significance of Xi Jinping’s visit will not be measured in the warmth of public diplomatic statements, but in the tangible outcomes that emerge after the visit concludes. New factories will only deliver long-term benefit if they support the growth of local Egyptian supply chains. Technology agreements will only be meaningful if Egyptian workers and institutions are trained to operate, maintain, and govern these systems. Expanded bilateral trade will only benefit both sides if Egyptian exports to China grow significantly alongside Chinese exports to Egypt.

While the Gulf region will remain central to China’s Middle East strategy for the foreseeable future, Egypt offers Beijing an unprecedented gateway into the broader African continent. For Cairo, this strategic position allows it to negotiate more favorable investment terms that align with its own economic development goals. Once the visit ends, the real test will be how much of this expanding partnership is ultimately built, managed, and owned by Egyptians themselves.

In the wake of catastrophic flash floods that have erased an entire rural community from the map in South Asia, a BBC correspondent has documented the raw human suffering unfolding amid ongoing search and rescue efforts. Azadeh Moshiri, the BBC’s South Asia correspondent, traveled to the disaster zone to speak with survivors still grappling with unthinkable loss after the floodwaters swept through their settlement. One local resident, who asked to speak on condition of anonymity to share his grief, told the reporter that he has been stuck in limbo for days, still waiting for recovery teams to retrieve the body of his wife, who was swept away when the flood hit the village. The disaster, which has already been marked as deadly by regional authorities, left no part of the small settlement untouched; entire homes, infrastructure, and community spaces were destroyed by the surging water. Rescue teams have been working around the clock to reach remote affected areas, but challenging terrain and lingering flood hazards have slowed progress, leaving many grieving families like this man’s waiting for answers and closure. The visit to the destroyed village shines a stark light on the human cost of extreme weather events that have grown more frequent and severe across South Asia in recent years.