博客

During a campaign rally in Perry, Georgia on a Saturday ahead of the 3 November midterm elections, sitting U.S. President Donald Trump made derogatory public remarks referring to a group of majority Arab, Muslim, and low-income nations including Libya, Yemen, Haiti, and Somalia as “shithouse countries”, and falsely labeled all these states as “terror-infested”. He went on to question existing U.S. immigration policies, arguing that the country should prioritize accepting migrants from majority white Nordic nations such as Norway, Sweden, and Denmark rather than residents from the nations he had just insulted.

The comments immediately drew dismay from Amer Ghalib, the newly appointed Yemeni-born Arab-American affairs adviser to the president. Ghalib first sent a text message to Trump on Sunday to express his firm rejection of the remarks, before raising the issue again in a face-to-face meeting with the president ahead of his scheduled rally in Port Huron, Michigan that same day. In a Facebook post published exclusively in Arabic (a break from his usual practice of pairing Arabic content with an English translation), Ghalib stated that Trump had acknowledged the concerns raised, promised to address the fallout, and pledged the offensive language would not be repeated.

However, at the subsequent Michigan rally, Trump avoided repeating his earlier broad insults against Arab and Muslim nations, instead launching a series of unsubstantiated personal attacks against Abdul El-Sayed, a surging Arab-Muslim Democratic candidate running for U.S. Senate in the state. Trump falsely claimed El-Sayed was a “jihadist Muslim Brotherhood member” who intended to impose Sharia law across the United States, despite no verified public links existing between El-Sayed and the Muslim Brotherhood, a regional political movement with no centralized global leadership that only has three of its regional offshoots formally designated as terrorist organizations by the U.S. government.

These divisive rhetorical tactics have drawn sharp criticism even from longstanding Trump allies within the Arab-American community. Bishara Bahbah, the Palestinian American former Harvard academic and founder of the 2024-founded group Arab Americans for Trump, described the remarks as a sign of desperation in an interview with Middle East Eye on Monday. Bahbah noted that the 2025 version of Trump stands in stark contrast to his 2024 campaign persona, when he carefully avoided offending Arab and Muslim voters and actively courted their support. Bahbah, who had previously served as a critical backchannel between U.S. negotiators and Hamas to facilitate the 10 October 2025 Gaza ceasefire deal, added that his efforts to push the administration to end Israel’s genocide in Gaza had been repeatedly rebuffed by the White House in recent weeks, a outcome he described as deeply upsetting. He also revealed that Trump had repeatedly broken past promises to stop using the term “Palestinian” as a slur, even after community representatives had explicitly raised objections.

Jenin Younes, president and legal director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, issued a formal statement slamming the rally rhetoric as tired, dangerous, and a deliberate distraction from the pressing economic hardships facing ordinary U.S. residents, including widespread affordability crises, high fuel prices, and the disruptive, often violent mass deportation operations that have displaced tens of thousands of families.

Political analysts have widely predicted a “blue wave” in the upcoming midterms that could deliver both the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate to Democratic control, a outcome that would block most of Trump’s remaining policy agenda in his final two years in office and potentially trigger impeachment proceedings against Secretary of War Pete Hegseth over the administration’s handling of the ongoing conflict with Iran. Trump’s current approval rating has fluctuated narrowly between 34% and 40% this month, and he has opted to host campaign events almost exclusively in safe, deeply Republican districts rather than attempting to persuade undecided swing voters, even openly telling reporters at the White House last week that voters should “pretend I’m on the ballot” to drive turnout. The midterm contests are widely framed as a public referendum on Trump’s performance in office.

Arab and Muslim conservative voters who previously backed Trump in 2024 have expressed particular hurt over the recent string of offensive remarks, according to Omar Shajrah, former legal counsel to the Michigan House and a longstanding Republican voter. Shajrah noted that many in the conservative Yemeni-American community, who traditionally aligned with the GOP on values issues, feel betrayed by the rhetoric, and that he will no longer support Trump-endorsed Republican Senate candidate Mike Rogers in Michigan, despite having backed Rogers in previous electoral cycles, even though he did not cast a vote for El-Sayed during early voting.

In a show of Democratic support, former U.S. President Barack Obama traveled to Detroit to headline a rally for El-Sayed, drawing explicit parallels between Trump’s current unsubstantiated attacks on the candidate and the 2011 birther conspiracy theory Trump launched to delegitimize Obama’s presidency, a racist smear campaign that eventually forced Obama to publicly release his long-form Hawaii birth certificate and served as the unofficial launchpad for Trump’s 2015 presidential run. Obama told the crowd that such bigoted, fear-based tactics had failed to sway Michigan voters during his own campaigns, and would not work against El-Sayed. A victory for El-Sayed would make him the first Muslim U.S. senator in history, and signal broad mainstream support for progressive policy ideas in the key working-class swing state of Michigan.

The only positive reference to an Arab-American figure at Trump’s Michigan rally came when he praised Massad Boulos, the Lebanese-born father of his daughter’s husband and a senior Arab and African affairs adviser, for his work delivering Arab-American support for Trump in Michigan two years prior. MEE confirmed it was unable to reach Boulos for comment on the controversy on Monday.

Exclusive reporting from Middle East Eye reveals that the United Kingdom, a permanent, veto-wielding member of the United Nations Security Council, is edging toward extending its support to Emirati veteran diplomat Lana Nusseibeh for the top post of UN Secretary-General, even as no final governmental decision has been formalized to date. Multiple well-placed sources close to Whitehall’s foreign policy apparatus confirmed the tentative shift, though the UK Foreign Office has not yet responded to MEE’s formal request for comment as of press time.

Nusseibeh’s 2024 entry into the global leadership race arrived after six rounds of informal UN straw polls failed to produce a single candidate that secured the unanimous backing of the Security Council’s five permanent members: the UK, United States, Russia, China, and France. Current Secretary-General Antonio Guterres is set to wrap up his tenure in December, leaving a tight window for the Security Council to nominate a candidate for formal sign-off by the 193-member UN General Assembly, with no clear timeline for a consensus pick on the horizon. If elected, 48-year-old Nusseibeh would make history as the first woman ever to lead the global intergovernmental body, and only the second Arab national to hold the top role following Egypt’s Boutros Boutros-Ghali.

The potential UK endorsement comes against a fraught backdrop of escalating tensions between London and Abu Dhabi, sparked by a high-profile regulatory ruling last month that found Abu Dhabi-owned Manchester City Football Club, chaired by Emirati royal and UAE vice-president Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nayhan, breached 114 Premier League financial regulations by concealing more than £830 million ($1.1 billion) in unreported, illicit funding. The club has formally denied all the allegations, and multiple Emirati officials have reportedly threatened to pull planned investments out of the UK in retaliation for the Premier League’s disciplinary actions. Insiders note that backing Nusseibeh’s bid could serve as a diplomatic olive branch to repair the frayed bilateral relationship and win much-needed Emirati goodwill during a period of heightened friction.

Yet Nusseibeh’s candidacy has already drawn widespread public criticism over two core controversies tied to UAE foreign policy. The first relates to the UAE’s alleged role in Sudan’s ongoing civil war, where independent UN investigators have documented mass killings carried out by the powerful Rapid Support Forces (RSF) paramilitary that bear “the hallmarks of genocide” against non-Arab communities in Darfur. Extensive on-the-ground reporting from MEE and findings from leading human rights groups have amassed substantial public evidence linking the UAE to arms shipments and logistical support for the RSF, a pattern of actions the Emirati government and Nusseibeh herself have repeatedly denied. The second point of contention centers on the UAE’s close diplomatic ties to Israel, particularly Nusseibeh’s documented instrumental role in brokering the 2020 Abraham Accords normalization agreement.

Just days prior to MEE’s revelation about the UK’s tentative position, the British government announced a new round of sanctions targeting 15 senior commanders from both the RSF and Sudan’s regular Sudanese Armed Forces, citing their alleged involvement in widespread atrocities including weaponized sexual violence. UK Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband emphasized that one year on from the RSF’s brutal civilian massacre in Al Fasher, UK-funded investigative teams had confirmed rape and starvation are still being systematically deployed as weapons of war against Sudanese communities, demanding all external backers of the country’s warring factions immediately cut all support to perpetrators of crimes against humanity.

A career diplomat with a long track record of high-level UN engagement, Nusseibeh brings a diverse professional background spanning roles as a UNESCO consultant, analyst at the Gulf Research Centre, and founding director of the UAE foreign ministry’s policy planning department, before making history as the UAE’s first female permanent representative to the United Nations, a post she held from 2013 to 2024. During her decade at the UN, she served as vice-president of the General Assembly, executive director of UN Women, and sat in the rotating presidency of the Security Council on two separate occasions. Of Palestinian heritage with family roots in Jerusalem, Nusseibeh is the granddaughter of Anwar Nusseibeh, a prominent 20th century Palestinian politician who held multiple ministerial posts in the Jordanian government during its control of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and later served as Jordan’s ambassador to the UK. Colin Shindler, emeritus professor of Israeli studies at SOAS University of London, who taught Nusseibeh during her graduate studies at the institution, recalled in a 2020 Jewish Chronicle column that she produced “wonderfully insightful and incisive essays on Zionism and Israeli history” while completing her master’s degree in Israeli studies. In her official campaign launch statement last week, Nusseibeh framed her bid as a call for accelerated global collective action: “I am standing to be secretary-general because I believe this is a moment to act with greater urgency: to act earlier, bring people together across difference, and drive the work forward until it produces concrete results.” In 2025, as Israel moved to weigh formal annexation of segments of the occupied West Bank, Nusseibeh publicly reaffirmed that the UAE had always framed the Abraham Accords as a mechanism to advance Palestinian interests, and called on the Israeli government to immediately abandon its planned annexation policies.

On the cusp of a major Communist Party plenum that has removed 45 of the 376 full voting members from its ranks, Beijing is grappling with a defining existential question: does its current governing and development model align with the unique historical phase the nation now occupies?

There is no easy consensus within Chinese leadership circles. Domestically, a stack of unaddressed structural challenges mounts, while traditional global reference points no longer offer clear, reassuring blueprints. Once the United States stood as a potential positive paradigm for Beijing to adapt, but the MAGA-era Washington of today, which prioritizes Pentagon hard power and recently designated China’s long-running Confucius Institute cultural exchange programs as national security threats, no longer serves as a usable, aspirational model for Chinese policymakers.

This uncertainty echoes two earlier pivotal moments in modern Chinese political history: in the wake of the 1978 Xidan Democracy Wall protests in the early 1980s, and after the 1989 Tiananmen pro-democracy demonstrations, when the current generation of senior leaders first cut their teeth in political life. Back then, the core strategic fear driving Communist Party thinking was the concept of *heping yanbian*, or “peaceful evolution”: the gradual, non-violent transformation of a communist state into a liberal capitalist democracy, advanced not through military invasion or revolution, but through cross-border trade, cultural exchange, and the spread of Western ideas.

For decades of veteran Chinese officials, this was framed as an existential peril that could collapse the entire communist system — yet paradoxically, it was also recognized as an unavoidable global force. The only viable path forward, leadership concluded at the time, was to embrace targeted market reforms that mirrored elements of that “peaceful evolution” to avoid total stagnation.

Today, Beijing observes a very different iteration of that same “peaceful evolution” unfolding across the Pacific: the United States itself is undergoing an unrecognizable, turbulent transformation. The central open question for Chinese analysts now is whether this turmoil marks the terminal decline of the U.S. system, or simply a messy new stage of its long-term development.

This lack of definable clarity across Western societies stands in stark contrast to the unshakable ideological certainty of 40 years prior, during the final stretch of the Cold War and immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union. At that time, the U.S. held unrivaled cultural hegemony over both China and the global stage, projecting unassailable confidence in its liberal democratic model. Today, that aura of unchallenged superiority has evaporated.

Chinese political culture has long been rooted in pragmatic, empirical problem-solving, famously summed up by Deng Xiaoping’s iconic adage: “It doesn’t matter if a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice.” In the 1980s, Deng himself concluded that the U.S. model was the “cat” that delivered proven results. For decades, the U.S. stood as an explicit aspirational benchmark for China, whose stated goal was to first match, then surpass, American levels of prosperity and global influence. That widespread Chinese admiration for the U.S. was an unspoken, powerful diplomatic lever Washington wielded, intentionally or otherwise, to shape bilateral relations.

But now that China no longer views the U.S. as a model worth emulating, that entire historic channel of U.S. leverage disappears. Beijing is now fully committed to advancing its interests on the global stage using its own self-defined governing framework, under the conviction that its path is the correct one. The core unresolved question hanging over the country today is whether that “Chinese cat” actually delivers the tangible results it promises: widespread domestic frictions cast doubt on that assumption, but the visible chaos unfolding across the U.S. seems to validate Beijing’s rejection of the Western model.

This centuries-old Chinese preoccupation with selecting a viable external governing framework stretches back more than 100 years. In the interwar 1920s, in the aftermath of the Qing Dynasty’s total collapse, the nation faced an almost identical dilemma: which competing Western ideological system would best secure China’s survival and prosperity? The options on the table were Soviet communism, Italian and German fascism, and the liberal democratic model from Western Europe and the United States, each of which had vocal, organized supporters within Chinese intellectual and political circles. At that time, China was crippled by military defeat, cultural disorientation, and economic collapse, and its leadership concluded it had no choice but to adopt a proven foreign system, eventually aligning fully with the Soviet Union. Half a century later, post-Mao leaders concluded the Soviet model had failed to lift living standards meaningfully, and turned to selectively adapt elements of the U.S. system, which was then seen as the undisputed global victor of the Cold War that delivered widespread wealth to its population.

Today, for the first time in two centuries, Chinese leaders negotiate with the U.S. as formal equals, and many in Beijing openly argue their system is outperforming the American one. Donald Trump’s administration, which first took office vowing to erase China’s trade surplus and revitalize U.S. domestic industry, has after two years dragged the country into a new full-scale Middle East conflict with Iran, triggering the worst global oil crisis in 50 years and sending global financial markets into turmoil. For Beijing, there is little left to admire in the U.S. system: the American “cat” no longer appears to be working even for its own citizens, so there is no reason for China to attempt to adapt it to its own context. This fundamental shift upends 50 years of established U.S.-China bilateral dynamics.

Chinese analysts frame the current U.S. crisis through the lens of their own 19th century national trauma. They draw a direct parallel between the mass opium addiction that crippled the late Qing Dynasty and today’s widespread fentanyl and prescription opioid epidemic tearing through American working-class communities, and between the fanatical Taiping Rebellion pseudo-Christian movement that triggered a devastating 19th century civil war and modern U.S. social media platforms like TikTok that erode all shared boundaries between fact and fiction. Chinese observers note that U.S. regulators enforce strict quality controls for food and pharmaceutical products, but impose almost no oversight on social media platforms, which they argue systematically erode public critical thinking and educational outcomes for young people. Beijing frames its own strict drug prohibition regime and tightly controlled, party-curated domestic internet ecosystem as a deliberate protective “cultural bubble” designed to shield the nation from what it sees as a self-destructive Western cycle of substance abuse and information chaos, under the belief that its system will grow stronger as the U.S. decays.

Beyond these surface-level symptoms, Chinese analysts argue the U.S. foundational liberal *res publica* — the shared commitment to a common public good that binds its citizens together — is actively fragmenting. Two core fault lines drive this erosion: first, a new class of unaccountable American billionaires who prioritize personal, narrow agendas over collective national interests, with no unifying shared national purpose comparable to the anti-communist consensus of the Cold War era. Second, the growing spread of parallel sharia legal norms in parts of Western Europe, which they argue erodes the centuries-old liberal principle of equal citizenship under a single unified secular legal system, creating a patchwork of competing legal standards that undermines the foundation of liberal democracy. These observations lead many in Beijing to conclude that the entire Western liberal democratic model is no longer functional.

While the U.S. spent the years immediately after the 9/11 attacks prioritizing counter-terrorism and sidelining the China challenge, it has now spent more than a decade debating whether China, or domestic social divisions, or immigration, represents its primary national threat. This internal disorientation leads many Chinese policymakers to conclude the U.S. is too distracted and in decline to pose a meaningful challenge to China’s global ambitions. But this calculation carries significant risks: Washington is increasingly aligning with European and Indo-Pacific allies who now share a common wariness of China’s geopolitical ambitions, trade practices, and military support for Russia and Iran. If the U.S. successfully resets its priorities to focus on China, Beijing’s entire set of assumptions about Western decline could be proven wrong, creating a volatile new geopolitical landscape where miscalculation could trigger unintended, large-scale conflict across Asia’s many regional flashpoints. The recent U.S. decision to formally designate remaining Confucius Institutes as national security threats and accelerate their closure marks the latest step in Washington’s ongoing campaign to push back against Chinese influence operations on American soil, with no clear path yet for how the two powers will resolve their deepening ideological and strategic rivalry.

Just 48 hours ahead of Israel’s critical legislative elections, a series of explosive developments has roiled the country’s political landscape, starting with a high-stakes rift at the top of the national security apparatus. Per a Sunday exclusive from Israel’s Channel 12 News, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and sitting military chief of staff Eyal Zamir engaged in a tense, direct confrontation over a classified directive that Zamir warned could inadvertently spark a full-scale military conflict with Iran, in the final days before citizens head to the polls. The report did not publish the full details of the contested order, but confirmed that Zamir pushed back forcefully against Netanyahu’s instruction, refusing to greenlight any operational military action until he received formal, binding legal assurances that the move was justified under national security protocols. Multiple anonymous insiders close to the heated altercation told Channel 12 that senior ranks of the Israeli Defense Forces harbored deep fears that Netanyahu’s governing political tier was attempting to weaponize long-running tensions with Iran to generate last-minute electoral momentum, casting widespread doubt on the prime minister’s underlying motivations for the proposed action. Netanyahu and his newly appointed Defense Minister Israel Katz swiftly issued blanket denials of the entire account: in a public post on X published Monday, Katz explicitly stated that the Israeli government had no plans whatsoever to launch any offensive operation targeting Iran in the window before Tuesday’s vote. Channel 12’s reporting further contextualized that the unprecedented public-facing rift between political leadership and the military top brass unfolded in parallel with unconfirmed claims that Netanyahu had held direct talks with U.S. President Donald Trump to restart the long-running joint U.S.-Israeli coordinated campaign of pressure and targeted actions against Iranian military infrastructure. The allegations immediately sparked fierce backlash from Israel’s opposition camp. Gadi Eisenkot, Netanyahu’s leading electoral rival, issued a sharp rebuke on X Sunday, writing “Do not you dare place your personal political interests above the fundamental security of the state of Israel.” Eisenkot’s coalition partner Avigdor Lieberman, leader of the right-wing nationalist Yisrael Beiteinu faction, went even further, labeling the alleged scheme an act of outright treason. Speaking to Radio 103FM on Monday, Lieberman stated flatly that Netanyahu was “betraying this country in plain sight by trying to drag our entire nation into an unnecessary war for electoral gain” and vowed to push for a full formal investigation into the prime minister on formal treason charges if his bloc secures power after the vote. Alongside the explosive security drama, a separate independent analysis published Monday by leading Israeli women’s magazine LaIsha paints a stark picture of plummeting female representation in the incoming 25th Knesset. The outlet’s data, compiled from the latest pre-election polling, projects that only 31 women will secure seats in the 120-member legislative body, amounting to just over 25% of total seats. The figure marks a sharp downturn from the 45 women elected in the 2021 legislative vote, the highest total in Israeli political history, and also represents a drop from the 35 women who held seats in the outgoing Knesset. The breakdown of projected female lawmakers shows a stark partisan divide: 23 of the 31 winning female candidates are expected to come from centrist and Zionist opposition factions, including Eisenkot’s Yashar party, former prime minister Naftali Bennett’s Together party, Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu, and the left-leaning The Democrats led by Yair Golan. By contrast, Netanyahu’s hardline governing bloc is on track to send a mere six women to the next Knesset. Two of the core factions in Netanyahu’s coalition, the ultra-Orthodox Shas and United Torah Judaism parties, bar women from running for public office entirely, meaning they will send zero female representatives, while his far-right Otzma Yehudit and Religious Zionism factions have also fielded almost no women in winnable slots. Palestinian-led political blocs, including the Islamist Ra’am party and the left-wing Joint List, are projected to send only two women total to the incoming legislature. Adding a final unexpected dynamic to the pre-election landscape, data compiled by Israeli financial daily Calcalist published Sunday reveals that roughly 90,000 Israeli citizens who normally reside abroad have already returned to the country in recent weeks, with the total expected to climb to 111,000 by election day. The figures, sourced from anonymized user location tracking data provided by a major Israeli telecommunications firm, represent a 94,000-person surge compared to average non-election periods. The unusual travel spike comes at a time when Israel has seen a major wave of emigration since 2023, with roughly 270,000 mostly highly educated, skilled citizens leaving the country for long-term residence abroad. The telecom firm’s analysts noted that the timing of the travel surge in mid-October, which does not align with typical holiday or tourist travel patterns, makes it overwhelmingly clear that the vast majority of the returning expats have traveled specifically to cast their ballots in the high-stakes vote. Independent cross-verification from Channel 13 News, drawing on passenger arrival data from Ben Gurion Airport, confirms the same scale of incoming expat arrivals. Political analysts note that a turnout of 90,000 eligible expat voters could translate to roughly two full Knesset seats, though outlets caution that the total arrival numbers include accompanying children who are not of voting age.