标签: Asia

亚洲

  • How Andy Burnham could set Britain on a new course on Israel and Palestine

    How Andy Burnham could set Britain on a new course on Israel and Palestine

    For weeks, Andy Burnham, the incoming UK prime minister set to take office as early as next month, has intentionally avoided public discussion of foreign policy. Multiple anonymous Labour party sources confirm that Burnham and his campaign team judged that weighing in on international issues would do little to boost his chances in the Makerfield by-election, a predominantly white working-class constituency he ultimately won to secure his seat in parliament.

    During one of the few recent occasions he was pressed on the conflict in Gaza, Burnham refused to publicly label Israeli actions in the territory as genocide. “I can’t judge things of that enormity from where I am as mayor of Greater Manchester,” he stated at the time, though he added that he held deep concerns over the “disproportionate nature of what has happened in terms of the destruction” and called for a full international investigation and accountability for all parties.

    The conflict has already claimed a devastating human toll since the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack that killed 1,200 people in southern Israel. Data confirms that Israeli military operations in Gaza and the West Bank have killed more than 73,000 Palestinians and wounded an additional 170,000 people to date.

    Now that Burnham has secured his parliamentary seat and is on track to become prime minister unopposed in what is widely described as a political coronation, long-simmering pressure over his foreign policy stance is set to intensify. To win over the bulk of Labour’s membership, which overwhelmingly backs tougher critical action against Israel, and to win back disillusioned left-wing voters who have abandoned the party in droves over the issue, Burnham will be forced to confront the topic head-on.

    Recent electoral data underscores just how costly the party’s current vague stance on Gaza has been. Polling from last month’s local elections shows that Labour lost more former voters to the left-wing Green Party than to the right-wing Reform UK. A subsequent study found that more than half of former Labour voters who plan to support another centre-left or left-wing party in the next general election cited Israel’s military campaign in Gaza as a key factor in their decision to abandon the party.

    Labour MP Kim Johnson has urged Burnham to demonstrate the moral clarity that current leader Keir Starmer has repeatedly failed to show on the Gaza crisis. “If Andy wants to win back traditional Labour voters, especially those who feel abandoned on foreign policy, he has to show the moral clarity [Starmer] has too often lacked on Gaza,” Johnson told Middle East Eye. She added that Burnham must be willing to state openly what Starmer would not: that a genocide is ongoing in Gaza, and the party’s refusal to speak honestly and act decisively on the issue has come at a severe political cost.

    “People wanted Labour to call it what it is, to stand up for international law and to listen to the Palestine solidarity movement,” Johnson explained. “Instead, that silence has alienated core voters and driven support away from the party. Take the May local elections for example – Palestine was on the ballot for millions of progressive voters. We lost 58 percent of the seats we were defending in England and lost almost four times as many voters to the Greens than to Reform UK. We cannot deny that Gaza is a major reason many have walked.”
    Johnson emphasized that foreign policy is not a peripheral issue, saying: “Foreign policy isn’t a side issue. It’s about values, credibility and whose side you are on when it matters.”

    Burnham’s history on Middle East policy is nuanced, leaving room for questions about what stance he will ultimately take. In 2015, he joined Labour Friends of Israel (LFI), a pro-Israel party grouping, a move that positioned him as a non-radical alternative to strongly pro-Palestinian figures like then-party leader Jeremy Corbyn. During his unsuccessful 2015 Labour leadership bid, Burnham even stated that his first overseas trip as prime minister would be to Israel.

    But records also show Burnham has long been willing to criticize the Israeli government. Within days of Benjamin Netanyahu’s re-election as Israeli prime minister in 2015, Burnham wrote on X that the news was “depressing,” noting that Netanyahu had run on a pledge to expand illegal Israeli settlements and adding that “Palestine will need more international support.” That same year, he told the Palestine Solidarity Campaign that he backed full recognition of Palestinian statehood, calling it “not a gift to be given but a right to be recognised,” and acknowledged that Israeli settlements and their ongoing expansion remain a core barrier to lasting peace.

    Burnham also has longstanding ties to the Council for Arab-British Understanding (Caabu), a leading UK policy group focused on the Middle East. He joined Caabu on a 2012 trip to the occupied West Bank, and in March 2025 praised the organization as a critical parliamentary partner, saying “in these times that we live now, Caabu is needed more than ever.”

    Caabu director Chris Doyle argues that the next UK prime minister must implement a dramatic shift in the country’s Middle East policy. A meaningful course correction, Doyle says, would require ending the current climate of impunity Israel enjoys, holding parties that violate international law accountable through tangible consequences including backing International Criminal Court arrest warrants for Israeli officials, and guaranteeing full unimpeded access for UN and other humanitarian aid agencies to Gaza.

    Doyle added that the UK must embrace a more humble role in global conflicts: “We need to accept that we are a middle-ranking power, that we don’t have the ability to go and determine conflicts abroad. But where we can make a difference is through creative, imaginative, determined diplomacy rooted in international law, rooted in basic core principles of how to resolve conflicts.”

    In the immediate aftermath of the October 7 attack and Israel’s subsequent siege and bombardment of Gaza, Burnham broke with Starmer’s Labour leadership to join London mayor Sadiq Khan and Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar in calling for an immediate permanent ceasefire. In a column for The Independent, he warned Starmer against branding MPs who disagreed with the party line on the issue “as disloyal or as if they don’t care about innocent lives.”

    Just last month, Labour party delegates voted overwhelmingly at the annual conference to officially recognize that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza and to back sanctions on Israel, a shock rebuke of the party’s current stance that underscores how deep support for a tougher line is among grassroots members.

    Caabu and the British Palestine Project have already outlined five core Palestine policy pledges they are demanding the next Labour prime minister adopt: ban all UK trade with goods and services produced in illegal Israeli settlements, uphold and enforce international law, guarantee unrestricted access for UN agencies and humanitarian organizations to Gaza, open occupied Palestinian territories to independent journalists, politicians and international investigators, and work with global allies to end all unlawful regional occupations.

    Doyle also notes that the next prime minister will need to resist intense pressure from the incoming second Trump administration to maintain the UK’s current uncritical support for Israel, rather than caving to unilateral American demands. Calls for a full ban on settlement goods are already growing among Labour backbenchers, and internal polling shows 87 percent of rank-and-file Labour members support such a ban, with just 6 percent opposing it. Privately, senior Foreign Office ministers have already acknowledged that a ban on settlement goods would align fully with the UK’s official stated position on the occupied Palestinian territories, sources confirm.

    Rohan Talbot, director of advocacy and campaigns at Medical Aid for Palestinians, laid out clear expectations for whoever takes office at Downing Street: “Whoever walks into Downing Street next must do what Starmer would not to end these horrors: stop providing arms to Israel, stop trading with illegal settlements in the West Bank, guarantee unrestricted humanitarian access, and ensure that those responsible for crimes against humanity are held fully accountable. Respect for international law is measured by actions, not rhetoric. The next prime minister must not be an ally to atrocities.”

  • A brutal gang rape in India revives painful memories of 2012 Delhi assault

    A brutal gang rape in India revives painful memories of 2012 Delhi assault

    Thirteen years after the 2012 Delhi bus gang rape that shook the world and forced India to overhaul its sexual assault laws, a new incident of comparable brutality has emerged from one of India’s most underdeveloped northern states, Bihar, reigniting long-simmering debates over systemic apathy toward gender-based violence across rural India.

    To protect the survivor’s identity in compliance with Indian law, the 28-year-old mother of four is being referred to as Soma, a pseudonym. Speaking to BBC Hindi from her hospital bed, Soma detailed the horrific attack that unfolded on the night of June 11 in her village in Begusarai district, a region officially classified as one of India’s most socially and economically backward.

    On that night, Soma had stepped into the outdoor toilet attached to her family’s cramped one-room home — a space with no door, only a thin cloth curtain for privacy — when five men barged in. The attackers stripped her, bound her hands, gagged her to muffle her screams, and slashed her chest with a blade when she fought back, before gang-raping her and inserting foreign objects, including an empty bullet casing, into her body.

    Trapped inside the home which the attackers had locked from the outside, Soma’s groans were initially mistaken for the sounds of a stray cat by her husband, an e-rickshaw driver. After growing suspicious, he called a neighbor to help break open the lock, and the pair discovered Soma’s battered, unconscious body.

    What followed the attack, women’s rights campaigners say, is a familiar pattern of neglect and insensitivity that sexual assault survivors routinely face from police and medical institutions across rural India. When Soma’s husband carried his wife to the nearest police station three kilometers away, officers refused to register an official complaint and turned the couple away, telling them to seek medical care instead. The local police station head, Rajiv Kumar, has since been suspended by district authorities over confirmed charges of negligence, apathy, and insensitivity. An official First Information Report (FIR) was only registered two days after the attack, on June 13.

    Access to proper medical care proved equally difficult in the immediate aftermath of the assault. A nearby private clinic turned the couple away, claiming it did not handle emergencies and had no on-duty physician. They were then directed to a government community health center, where Soma received only basic first aid before being referred to the district hospital.

    Soma told the BBC that initial medical treatment at the district hospital was deeply inadequate, recalling that even after she regained consciousness on June 12 and explicitly told medical staff she had been gang-raped, staff dismissed her report. Civil Surgeon Ashok Kumar of Begusarai disputed this account, telling the BBC that staff were only informed of the gang rape on June 13, after which an immediate medical examination was conducted. Soma was discharged after the initial exam, but collapsed and lost consciousness again the next day, forcing her return to the hospital. It was only on June 18, after a village midwife alerted the family that a foreign object remained inside Soma’s body, that a spent bullet casing fell out, prompting a second, more thorough examination where doctors removed other remaining objects from her body. District authorities have confirmed that Soma is now in stable condition and recovering.

    As of late June, Begusarai Superintendent of Police Maneesh (who uses a single name) confirmed that the official medical report has verified the sexual assault. Three of the five attackers have been named, two have already been arrested, and a dedicated Special Investigation Team has been formed to launch manhunts for the remaining three accused. Police confirmed that several of the identified suspects have prior criminal records, and have filed formal charges of gang rape against them.

    The horrific details of Soma’s attack have sent shockwaves across India, with countless public figures and activists drawing immediate comparisons to the 2012 Delhi gang rape, where a 23-year-old physiotherapy student was gang-raped and violated with objects on a public bus, later dying from her injuries. That 2012 case sparked global outcry and mass nationwide protests, pushing the Indian government to introduce harsher anti-rape legislation, including the provision of the death penalty for the most brutal cases. Four of the six convicted perpetrators were executed in 2020, one died in prison, and a minor offender was released after a three-year sentence in a youth reform facility.

    Despite the legislative reforms and increased national attention on sexual violence that followed the 2012 attack, official data still records more than 30,000 rape cases across India every year, and activists say the vast majority of cases go unreported, with many never reaching public attention. Anti-rape campaigner Yogita Bhayana argues that India has failed to learn the lessons of the 2012 case, noting that the threat of harsh punishment has never filtered down to rural and marginalized communities, and society has grown desensitized to extreme brutality against women. “Such cases keep happening because the message has not percolated down to every last corner of India that rape can get them capital punishment. Fear has not been instilled in society,” Bhayana told the BBC. She added that Soma’s case only received national media attention because of the shocking detail of the bullet casing, but that Soma’s survival is a small positive in an otherwise devastating case.

    Now recovering in the hospital, Soma says she is in constant pain and distracted by a steady stream of visits from journalists, politicians, and social workers. Her greatest worry remains for her four young children, who are currently staying with relatives 35 kilometers away from the hospital. “I am very worried about my children, they are so young,” she said. “I want to get back home to them soon.”

  • How Keir Starmer supported Israel throughout its genocide in Gaza

    How Keir Starmer supported Israel throughout its genocide in Gaza

    Keir Starmer’s sudden resignation as British prime minister, delivered less than two full years after he secured a historic landslide general election victory, has brought a abrupt end to a premiership undone largely by his inconsistent and deeply unpopular approach to Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. The collapse of Labour’s public support has benefited rising right-wing party Reform UK and left-wing rivals the Green Party, with new polling confirming more Labour voters defected to the Greens than to Reform in last month’s local elections.

    A recent survey of former Labour supporters who plan to back another centre-left or left-wing party in the next general election found that more than half cited UK collaboration with what they frame as Israel’s genocide in Gaza as the primary reason for abandoning Starmer’s party. These findings underscore how the Gaza conflict, and Starmer’s response to it, has come to define his toxic political legacy.

    Critics across the UK left have condemned Starmer’s tenure as a betrayal of core progressive values. His predecessor as Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn told Middle East Eye that Starmer “swapped political principles for corporate donors – and leaves behind a legacy of broken pledges, grotesque inequality and complicity in genocide. If that isn’t moral bankruptcy, then what is?” Green Party leader Zack Polanski offered an equally scathing assessment, listing “shit in our rivers, pensioners jailed for protesting, migrants thrown under the bus, supporting a genocide” as Starmer’s core contributions to public life.

    To understand the roots of Starmer’s political downfall over Gaza, it is necessary to trace his shifting positions from his time in opposition through his premiership. The conflict began on 7 October 2023, when a Hamas attack killed roughly 1,200 people in southern Israel. In the months that followed, Israeli military operations in Gaza killed nearly 73,000 Palestinians, wounded more than 170,000, and left thousands more missing and presumed dead beneath the rubble of destroyed infrastructure.

    Immediately after the 7 October attacks, while still leading the Labour opposition, Starmer aligned firmly with the then-Conservative government’s pro-Israel stance. In an 11 October 2023 interview with LBC, when asked whether Israel’s siege of Gaza – involving cuts to power and water access for the entire enclave – was appropriate, Starmer replied: “I think that Israel does have that right, it is an ongoing situation, obviously everything should be done within international law but I don’t want to step away from the core principles that Israel has the right to defend herself.” He refused to condemn the collective punishment of Gaza’s civilian population for days, only issuing a partial retraction of his comments on 20 October.

    That same November, Starmer ordered all Labour Members of Parliament to reject a Scottish National Party (SNP) parliamentary motion calling for an immediate end to the collective punishment of Palestinians. Weeks later, after an Israeli strike on a Gaza refugee camp killed more than 50 civilians alongside a Hamas commander, Starmer’s shadow foreign secretary David Lammy argued that “it’s clear to me that it’s wrong to bomb a refugee camp but clearly if there is a military objective it can be legally justifiable.”

    In early 2024, Starmer was accused of undermining parliamentary procedure to block a ceasefire motion: reports emerged that he had lobbied House of Commons Speaker Lindsay Hoyle to break with longstanding convention and allow a watered-down Labour motion to be debated ahead of a stronger SNP ceasefire proposal, effectively killing the latter. The move triggered widespread procedural chaos, with SNP and Conservative MPs walking out of the chamber in protest before Labour’s watered-down amendment passed.

    It was not until later in 2024 that Labour began to draw modest distinctions between its position and that of the outgoing Conservative government. Lammy called on the Conservative administration to publish legal advice it had received on arms sales to Israel, accusing the then-foreign secretary of avoiding democratic scrutiny. In May 2024, Labour broke with the Tories to back the International Criminal Court after its chief prosecutor announced applications for arrest warrants for senior Israeli ministers.

    Once in office, Starmer maintained Britain’s deep military and intelligence cooperation with Israel throughout the campaign in Gaza. Under his premiership, the Royal Air Force conducted at least 518 surveillance flights over Gaza, with British officials claiming the flights were “solely to locate hostages” despite the operation being shrouded in official secrecy. British intelligence collected from these flights was shared directly with Israeli forces, including footage captured on days when Israeli strikes killed British citizens in Gaza.

    One high-profile case that exposed the secrecy around this cooperation was the April 2024 Israeli strike on a World Central Kitchen aid convoy that killed seven aid workers, including former British Royal Marine James Henderson. The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) held RAF surveillance footage of the strike site from the day of Henderson’s death, but repeatedly refused to release the footage under Freedom of Information requests, citing national security and defence exemptions.

    Starmer’s government also enshrined legal protections for roughly 2,000 British-Israeli dual nationals who served in the Israeli military during the Gaza campaign, formally recognising “the right of British dual nationals” to serve in Israeli operations.

    While Starmer never fully broke with the UK’s longstanding pro-Israel posture, his government did adopt some limited policy shifts that put it at odds with the Israeli leadership. Most notably, Starmer’s administration ended Britain’s longstanding objection to the ICC’s jurisdiction over territories occupied by Israel, and imposed sanctions on far-right Israeli cabinet ministers Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich. In June 2026, it became the first British government to formally announce “that there should be no economic involvement in illegal Israeli settlements” in the occupied West Bank, and joined France, Norway, Canada, New Zealand and Australia in imposing new sanctions on networks that fund and enable violent settler attacks against Palestinians. Even so, Starmer resisted widespread calls from his own backbenchers to implement a full ban on imports of goods produced in illegal settlements.

    The most contentious domestic and international debate surrounding Starmer’s Gaza policy centered on UK arms sales to Israel. In September 2024, shortly after taking office, Starmer’s Labour government suspended roughly 30 direct arms export licenses to Israel after an official assessment concluded there was a “clear risk” UK-made weapons could be used to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza. This included a suspension of licenses for direct exports of F-35 fighter jet components to Israel. Critically, however, components sent to a global F-35 spare parts pool – which can still be diverted to Israeli aircraft – were exempted from the ban.

    UK-made components make up 15 percent of every F-35, one of the most advanced fighter jets in the world, which Israel deployed extensively across its Gaza campaign as well as strikes in Lebanon and Iran. The Starmer government argued that a full halt to all F-35 component exports would disrupt the entire global F-35 fleet and threaten international security, justifying the partial ban.

    Even with the partial suspension, Starmer’s government approved $169 million in new military exports to Israel in just three months – more than the total value of arms approvals granted by the Conservative government between 2020 and 2023. Lammy, who served as foreign secretary under Starmer, told parliament that most of the exports were “defensive in nature” such as helmets and goggles, and “not what we describe routinely as arms.” Official records show the shipments included 8,630 separate munitions exports classified as “bombs, grenades, torpedoes, mines, missiles and other similar munitions.”

    Starmer faced the most damaging internal criticism in March 2025, when a close ally and former cabinet member accused him of deliberately suppressing evidence of Israeli war crimes. Former Health Secretary Wes Streeting told the News Agents podcast that he had shared a dossier of war crime evidence collected by British doctors who had worked in Gaza, only for Starmer to accuse him of leaking the document for political gain. Streeting explained: “I had met British doctors, I had been distressed by what they told me, I had seen serious and substantial allegations of war crimes being committed and I felt this country had a moral and legal responsibility to respond.” Starmer has consistently refused to publicly describe Israeli actions in Gaza as war crimes, and previously walked back comments by Lammy that Israeli operations amounted to a “breach of international law.”

    Throughout his premiership, Starmer’s Gaza policy was marked by growing contradictions. In July 2025, his government announced it would formally recognise a Palestinian state, but infuriated left-wing Labour MPs by tying recognition to a series of preconditions related to Israeli security demands. It ultimately extended recognition in September 2025, triggering a furious diplomatic backlash from the Israeli government.

    These contradictions extended to other areas of foreign policy as well. After aligning closely with United States foreign policy during his time in opposition, Starmer clashed with US President Donald Trump earlier this year even as he continued to cooperate with US military operations against Iran. Starmer initially announced Britain would not participate in February 2026 US strikes on Iran, and told the US it could not use British military bases for the attacks. He quickly reversed course, however, allowing the US to launch strikes on Iranian missile sites from British bases – a move legal experts described as a violation of international law. Starmer then campaigned in last month’s local elections on the claim that he had kept Britain out of the war with Iran.

    At home, Starmer’s government drew accusations of authoritarianism for its crackdown on pro-Palestinian advocacy. In July 2025, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper designated direct action group Palestine Action as a proscribed terrorist organisation, making any public expression of support for the group a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. The High Court initially ruled the proscription was “unlawful” and “discriminatory” following a legal challenge by group co-founder Huda Ammori, but the Court of Appeal overturned that ruling last week after a government appeal. Since the ban was first introduced, thousands of people across the UK have been arrested on terrorism charges for holding pro-Palestine Action signs at silent vigils.

    Last month, high-profile American progressive political commentators Cenk Uygur and Hasan Piker were barred from entering the United Kingdom, a move widely attributed to their public criticism of Israel. By contrast, senior Israeli military and political figures have remained welcome in the UK under Starmer: in November 2024, Israeli military chief Herzi Halevi made a secret visit to London to meet UK Attorney General Richard Hermer, and the government granted him special diplomatic immunity for the trip. Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar visited in April 2025 to meet Lammy, and Israeli President Isaac Herzog held a formal meeting with Starmer in London that September.

    Rohan Talbot, director of advocacy and campaigns at Medical Aid for Palestinians, summed up the widespread criticism of Starmer’s legacy on Monday, saying: “Starmer’s ‘international record will forever be marred by half measures and inaction in the face of Israel’s atrocities. Under Starmer’s leadership, the UK continued to provide arms to Israel while its forces bombed Gaza’s hospitals into rubble and deliberately starved an entire population of the food and medicines they needed to survive.”

    Ultimately, Starmer’s inconsistent approach to Gaza left him unpopular with virtually all segments of the British electorate. He imposed a partial arms embargo but rejected a full ban, shared British intelligence with Israel while calling for an end to the war, and left office facing accusations from his own former cabinet of covering up evidence of war crimes. It remains to be seen whether the next British prime minister will shift course on UK policy toward Israel and Gaza.

    This article is produced by Middle East Eye, an independent outlet providing unrivaled reporting and analysis of the Middle East, North Africa and global issues connected to the region.

  • World Cup what to know: Cristiano Ronaldo aiming to get on track after disappointing start

    World Cup what to know: Cristiano Ronaldo aiming to get on track after disappointing start

    The 2026 FIFA World Cup has already delivered no shortage of star power and memorable storylines through its opening matches, with global superstars Lionel Messi, Kylian Mbappé and Erling Haaland living up to their billing as tournament favourites. But one iconic name has found himself at the centre of unexpected scrutiny: 41-year-old Portugal legend Cristiano Ronaldo.

    Ronaldo arrived in North America for this World Cup chasing a unique piece of history, aiming to become the first player to score in five different men’s World Cup tournaments, extending his record to six straight editions. Instead, his opening outing against debutants Congo was far from memorable: the forward squandered two clear second-half scoring chances as Portugal were held to a surprising 1-1 draw, leaving the Portuguese camp hungry for a bounce-back performance. Ronaldo and his side will get that opportunity on Tuesday, when they face Uzbekistan in Houston as they look to get their Group K campaign back on track.

    Portugal entered the tournament as one of the pre-tournament favourites to lift the trophy, and a three points against Uzbekistan are critical to stay in contention for knockout stage qualification. Group K opened with Colombia claiming a full three points in their opener against Uzbekistan, while Congo earned a historic point in their first World Cup appearance in 52 years. The Group K doubleheader concludes on Tuesday night when Colombia face Congo in Guadalajara, Mexico, looking to lock in their place in the knockout round just two matches into the group stage.

    Colombia, who missed out on qualification for the 2022 Qatar World Cup, got off to a flying start in their opener: Liverpool winger Luis Diaz notched one goal and one assist in a 3-1 victory over Uzbekistan, putting them on the cusp of early progression. However, they will face a tough test against a well-organized Congo side that already proved they can frustrate elite opposition by holding Portugal. Congo will look to forward Yoane Wissa, who made history for his nation by scoring their first World Cup goal in 52 years, a first-half stoppage-time header against Portugal, to repeat his heroics against Colombia.

    Alongside the Group K action, three critical Group L matches will unfold across North America on Tuesday, headlined by England’s showdown with Ghana in Foxborough, Massachusetts. English captain Harry Kane has already made history in this tournament, notching a brace in the Three Lions’ opening 4-2 win over Croatia to bring his career World Cup goal tally to 10, matching Gary Lineker’s all-time record for an English player. The result also pushed Kane into a seven-way tie for seventh on the men’s World Cup all-time scoring charts. Against Ghana, Kane has a chance to climb further: one more goal will draw him level with Germany legend Jürgen Klinsmann and Hungary great Sándor Kocsis for sixth on the all-time list. A win over Ghana would also book England’s spot in the knockout stage for the third consecutive World Cup.

    Ghana head into the match surprisingly tied with England atop Group L, having earned a dramatic 1-0 opening win over Panama thanks to Brandon Thomas-Asante’s goal in the fifth minute of second-half stoppage time. The Black Stars are targeting their first trip to the World Cup knockout round since a historic quarter-final run in 2010, and enter the match with historical context: England has never lost to an African nation at the World Cup, holding an unbeaten record of five wins and three draws across 88 years of tournament play.

    The day’s opening Group L fixture, which kicks off in Toronto before England face Ghana, is a do-or-die clash between Panama and 2018 runners-up Croatia. Both sides suffered opening-match defeats, leaving them rooted to the bottom of the Group L table, two points back from England and Ghana. For both nations, a loss will all but end their hopes of progressing to the knockout round, while a win keeps their tournament dreams alive. Panama looked set to earn a credible point against Ghana before Thomas-Asante’s late strike broke the deadlock, while Croatia, who finished third in Qatar 2022 and second in Russia 2018, are already on the brink after a 4-2 defeat to England in their opener.

    The busy day of World Cup action is bookended by a series of the tournament’s latest off-field and on-field milestones. Defending champion Argentina already booked their knockout spot after a 2-0 win over Austria, where Messi scored his 17th and 18th World Cup goals, breaking Miroslav Klose’s all-time record of 16 World Cup goals. Messi also notched an unwanted personal record: his first-half missed penalty marked his third non-shootout penalty miss in World Cup play, one more than Ghana’s Asamoah Gyan for the most all-time, while he also set the record for most penalty kicks taken in tournament history.

    Additional late tournament updates include United States star Christian Pulisic returning to team training after missing his side’s last group match with a soft tissue injury, Germany defender Nico Schlotterbeck being ruled out of the rest of the tournament with an ankle injury, and the tournament already seeing a record-breaking goal surge, with 121 goals scored across the first 40 matches, with many analysts crediting the official tournament match ball for the open play scoring surge.

    For fans looking to tune into the full slate of June 22 matches, all fixtures will be broadcast across Fox Sports networks and Peacock in the United States, with Telemundo providing Spanish-language coverage. The full kickoff schedule (in EDT) is as follows: Portugal vs Uzbekistan at 1 p.m. in Houston, England vs Ghana at 4 p.m. in Foxborough, Panama vs Croatia at 7 p.m. in Toronto, and Colombia vs Congo at 10 p.m. in Guadalajara.

  • Iranian foreign minister declares ‘major progress’ in peace talks

    Iranian foreign minister declares ‘major progress’ in peace talks

    High-stakes peace negotiations hosted in Switzerland have achieved “major progress” toward regional de-escalation, Iran’s top diplomat announced late Sunday, even as belligerent threats from former U.S. President Donald Trump and ongoing Israeli military assaults in Lebanon have created severe risks of derailing the talks.

    Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi highlighted that tireless mediation efforts from Pakistan and Qatar have delivered key breakthroughs aligned with the recently signed memorandum of understanding (MOU), including binding commitments to launch a specialized deconfliction cell tasked with overseeing the full termination of Israeli military operations across Lebanon.

    Beyond the Lebanese ceasefire framework, Araghchi confirmed that negotiators have reached consensus on three additional critical points: an end to the long-running U.S. economic blockade on Iran, the unfreezing of a portion of Iran’s overseas sovereign assets, and the adoption of a major national reconstruction and development plan tailored for Iran.

    The Iranian delegation departed the Swiss negotiating venue shortly after Trump issued extreme threats that included vows to assassinate Iranian diplomatic personnel and forcibly “take over” the sovereign state of Iran. These threats directly violate core terms of the existing MOU, which mandates all participating parties to refrain from any threat or use of military force against one another.

    In a joint official statement released Sunday evening, the governments of Pakistan and Qatar, the two lead mediating nations, confirmed that negotiators have finalized a 60-day roadmap to reach a binding final peace agreement. The framework clears the way for immediate technical talks to begin, laying the groundwork for sustained progress.

    “In addition, a direct communication line between the relevant parties has been established to prevent unintended incidents and miscommunication, with the core goal of guaranteeing safe passage for commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz,” the joint statement added. “The mediating parties will continue to exert every possible effort to maintain a constructive negotiating environment and advance toward a comprehensive final agreement.”

    The optimistic outlook from Araghchi and the mediator governments comes after the first round of formal talks got off to a rocky start. The Iranian delegation initially delayed its arrival to Switzerland in response to a deadly wave of Israeli airstrikes that targeted southern Lebanon late last week.

    Notably, Israeli leadership is not a participating party to the Swiss negotiations, and it has repeatedly refused to end its military occupation of southern Lebanon — a key sticking block that remains a major obstacle to a final deal ending the broader conflict that the U.S. and Israel launched against Iran in late February. Iran has repeatedly stated that the Trump administration must pressure Israeli authorities to end their offensive in Lebanon as a core condition for any final agreement.

    Over the weekend, as talks unfolded in Switzerland, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz reaffirmed his government’s hardline stance in a social media post. “Israel has no intention of withdrawing from the Beaufort, which is an integral part of the security zone in Lebanon and essential for the defense of the Galilee settlements and IDF forces,” Katz wrote. He added that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and he have repeatedly made clear that Israel will not withdraw from its occupied security zone in Lebanon, leaving a key unresolved hurdle for the ongoing negotiation process.

  • Once Keir Starmer had beaten the left, he had no plan for government

    Once Keir Starmer had beaten the left, he had no plan for government

    When Keir Starmer first launched his bid for the UK Labour Party leadership, his core pitch to party voters was straightforward: retain the bulk of Jeremy Corbyn’s left-wing policy platform, but package it in the polished, establishment-friendly image of a suited, buttoned-up professional. Long before Labour’s crushing 2019 general election defeat at the hands of Boris Johnson that forced Corbyn out of the leadership, Starmer’s inner campaign circle had already identified him as the perfect candidate to pull off this rebranding.

    Backed by a bloc of Labour right-wing figures including Morgan McSweeney, Peter Mandelson and Roger Liddle, Starmer secured the leadership after making 10 explicit left-wing pledges to the Labour members who voted him into office. Within months, every single one of those commitments had been either fully abandoned or quietly watered down. For his entire tenure, first as opposition leader and later as prime minister, Starmer clung to that carefully crafted image of competent, managerial professionalism, while systematically discarding the policies he had promised to carry over from Corbyn — the man he once publicly called a friend. To the party’s left-wing members, who he publicly disparaged as antisemites, he sent a clear message: “The door is open, and you can leave.”

    But according to multiple insiders — serving and former civil servants, Starmer’s former legal colleagues, and senior Labour Party sources who spoke on condition of anonymity to Middle East Eye — the now-resigned Starmer, who leaves office as the most unpopular British prime minister in decades, also failed to deliver on his core promise of being a competent, results-focused grown-up in office. This failure, they say, rippled through every area of his governance, most glaringly in the UK’s approach to Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, where long-held international legal norms were cast aside.

    People who have interacted with Starmer in personal settings — including regular football teammates near his north London home in Kentish Town — describe him as a man defined almost entirely by raw ambition and ruthless competitiveness. He hates losing, they say, but once he climbed to the highest office in the UK, he had no clear plan for what to do with power. In less than two years, he lost it entirely.

    “He was rubbish on all metrics, apart from the fact that he isn’t a liar or a cheat – but really that should be an entry requirement,” one senior civil servant who worked closely with both Starmer and his former chief of staff McSweeney told MEE. “Height, voice, inspiration, achieving anything: he was rubbish on all fronts.”

    That same official noted that McSweeney, the veteran Labour strategist widely credited with engineering Starmer’s rise to power and a close ally of Peter Mandelson, had no clear roadmap for governing once he controlled the levers of power. “He was a campaigner,” a second civil servant explained of McSweeney. “And he just stayed in that mode once he was in government. He didn’t look to get things done.”

    Labour MP Clive Lewis framed the core failure of Starmer’s leadership in three clear terms. “Leadership at this moment needs three things: vision, a clear sense of where we are taking the country and why,” Lewis told MEE. “It needs empathy, a real grasp of how people are living and what they are up against. And it needs a plan equal to the scale of what we face. Keir had none of these.”

    Lewis added: “Even so he would not be the first PM to be guilty of such failings. But these are not normal times. Facing us is the spectre of the far right and such failings become catastrophic as opposed to just electorally problematic. That could not be allowed. Hence his early departure.”

    McSweeney’s pro-Starmer group Labour Together, which raised more than £700,000 in undisclosed donations — a portion of which came from prominent pro-Israel business figures such as Trevor Chinn — successfully seized back control of the Labour Party for the right wing, with Starmer serving as its public face. A source who has known McSweeney since his childhood in County Cork, Ireland, told MEE that McSweeney’s political project was driven first and foremost by a visceral hatred of Corbyn and the Labour left, a conflict that dates back to his early days as a grassroots organiser across London.

    While McSweeney is often publicly described as economically left-of-centre but socially conservative, the source called him an unapologetic neoliberal. “He joined the Labour Party because he knew he had a chance of doing well there… The contempt he and his wife [Imogen Walker, who became a Labour MP in 2024] have for Corbyn, is visceral,” the source said.

    That contempt was front and centre even in Starmer’s final resignation speech. The outgoing prime minister claimed he had inherited a Labour Party “that was politically, financially and morally bankrupt” and that he had rooted out “the poison of antisemitism, restoring trust on the economy, defence, and national security.”

    Jeremy Corbyn’s spokesperson hit back with a scathing rebuke: “Keir Starmer ends as he started: with lies. Corbyn turned Labour into the largest party in Europe, built and funded by half a million people who believed in social justice and peace. Starmer swapped political principles for corporate donors – and leaves behind a legacy of broken pledges, grotesque inequality and complicity in genocide. If that isn’t moral bankruptcy, then what is?”

    On the same day of Starmer’s resignation, Corbyn announced he would formally reintroduce his private member’s bill calling for an independent public inquiry into the British government’s complicity in Israel’s military actions in Gaza.

    Madeleine Rees, a prominent British human rights lawyer who worked closely with Starmer in the 1990s, pointed to his stance on Gaza as his defining moral and political failure. “He capitulated on things he really shouldn’t have. The biggest of these was Gaza,” Rees said. Another former legal colleague from Starmer’s days as a liberal barrister at Doughty Street Chambers noted that very few of his former professional associates would still publicly defend his record as prime minister.

    “I didn’t think his reign would be so short. It shows how important principle and optimism are,” Rees told MEE. “He capitulated on things he really shouldn’t have. The biggest of these was Gaza. Abetting a genocide. He could have taken a legal stand and called it a crime. I feel sorry for him because he is a decent man, despite all this, and this will be super hard for him,” she added.

    Beyond Gaza, foreign policy observers also painted a picture of directionless, unprincipled governance. Asked about Starmer’s approach to key global regions, an Indian foreign policy adviser and analyst who participated in UK-India Free Trade Agreement negotiations told MEE: “Have you an inkling of what UK policy on Afghanistan, Pakistan, southeast Asia, Hong Kong and India is? I have no clue what the UK stands for anymore.”

    The adviser argued that the negotiated UK-India FTA would only “make rich UK wallahs richer. What is the UK but land around the City of London?” He added: “Starmer’s foreign policy was foreign to the UK’s interests. The development aid is gone. The BBC has no support from them. British universities in India are all shops, with no research and development angle.”

    Andy Burnham, the popular Labour mayor of Greater Manchester commonly known as the “King of the North,” is now widely expected to replace Starmer as party leader and prime minister. But one left-wing Labour activist warned that Burnham could simply be “Starmer 2.0.”

    Josh Simons, who replaced McSweeney as head of Labour Together before winning election as the MP for Makerfield in 2024, recently vacated his seat to clear the path for Burnham’s leadership bid and was a prominent fixture in the by-election campaign. Wes Streeting, the favoured candidate of Labour’s right wing who resigned as health secretary last month, has already thrown his support behind Burnham; if Burnham wins and keeps Streeting in a top cabinet role, Labour’s left wing faces an uphill battle to retain any influence in the new administration.

    John McDonnell, who served as shadow chancellor under Corbyn, has called on the party to return to its historic “broad church” model. That model, he said, is one “in which the views of the full range of traditions, left, right and centre, are respected and engaged with.” Asked whether that inclusive model is likely to be re-established after Starmer’s departure, McDonnell told MEE: “We’ll see, but if the broad church is not re-established, any administration will fail.”

  • National Portrait Gallery display withdrawn after Churchill row

    National Portrait Gallery display withdrawn after Churchill row

    A heated debate over former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s connection to the 1943 Bengal famine has led to the removal of a controversial video installation from London’s National Portrait Gallery, sparking new conversations about artistic freedom, historical interpretation, and institutional accountability.

    Created by Turner Prize-winning artist Helen Cammock, the 40-minute work titled *Persistence* was developed in partnership with the gallery beginning in 2023. Part of the temporary exhibition “Artists First: Contemporary Perspectives on Portraiture”, the piece had been on public display for 10 months and was scheduled to run through August. In her self-narrated installation, Cammock drew a parallel between Oliver Cromwell’s 17th-century mass starvation tactics during military campaigns in Ireland and what she described as “the wilful starvation of the Indian population by Winston Churchill” during the devastating 1943 famine.

    The artist’s framing quickly drew fierce pushback from prominent historical figures and politicians. Churchill biographer Lord Roberts of Belgravia organized an open letter to the gallery leadership, which gathered signatures from more than 50 members of the House of Lords — including Churchill’s own grandson, Sir Nicholas Soames. The letter argued that Cammock’s characterization of Churchill was factually incorrect, dismissing the claim as an “ideologically motivated rant”. Lord Roberts contended that the famine was primarily triggered by a devastating typhoon, and that Churchill had directed his war cabinet to deploy all available resources to support affected regions, even requesting emergency grain shipments from global allies. While this perspective is shared by some historians, other academics have long argued that wartime policy decisions made by Churchill’s government exacerbated the crisis. An estimated 3 million people died in the famine that struck eastern India, and Churchill’s exact role remains one of the most hotly contested topics in modern colonial history.

    Beyond the open letter, the gallery also received direct complaints from members of the public. Initially, the institution defended the work as a legitimate expression of the artist’s personal perspective, but the controversy gained sustained national media attention last week, ultimately leading to the work’s removal on Monday.

    In an official statement provided to BBC News, the National Portrait Gallery confirmed that Cammock had made the independent decision to withdraw her piece. “We respect her decision, just as we acknowledge the opinions of those who were offended by what was said in the film,” the gallery said. It emphasized that the exhibition framework was designed to center artists’ personal creative responses to the gallery’s permanent collection, noting “the work was presented as an artistic piece, not a documentary, and the views expressed in the film do not necessarily reflect those of the NPG.” The institution added that it remains committed to balancing respect for the historical legacies of figures in its collection with support for free artistic expression.

    Cammock, however, has pushed back against what she describes as overwhelming external pressure to censor challenging historical narratives. In her own statement released Monday, she said: “There is an incredible pressure on artists and arts institutions to bend to external pressure; to be benign at best and silent at worst. I do not accept this pressure. To question, challenge and explore ideas and histories is vital to a healthy society and art is intrinsic to this.”

    The artist added that her work was rooted in existing academic research on the famine, and that its core goal was to interrogate how society chooses to honor and memorialize historical figures. “It asks us to think about who is honoured and valorised and who is not; whose stories are told and whose are not,” she said. Echoing activist and artist Nina Simone, Cammock noted: “An artist’s duty, as far as I’m concerned, is to reflect the times, and sometimes this means revisiting, enquiry and challenge.”

  • ‘Devotion is everything’: Breaking Bad star Giancarlo Esposito converts to Islam

    ‘Devotion is everything’: Breaking Bad star Giancarlo Esposito converts to Islam

    Hollywood star Giancarlo Esposito, best known for his iconic Emmy-nominated turn as calculating drug kingpin Gus Fring in *Breaking Bad*, has become the center of a viral global conversation after unconfirmed reports emerged that he has converted to Islam, sparked by his recent public remarks and on-site activities during a film tour in Morocco.

    The 66-year-old multihyphenate — who counts acting, directing and producing among his credits — traveled to the North African kingdom this June to promote *7 Dogs*, a Saudi-backed Arabic-language action thriller in which he portrays Roman, a shadowy antiquities trafficker with deep ties to the elite ranks of the eponymous criminal syndicate.

    While walking the red carpet for the film’s premiere, Esposito made striking remarks that quickly drew attention: “In your country, Muhammad is everything. For me, it’s the same.” In a subsequent interview with Radio Abraham, filmed while Esposito held what appeared to be Islamic prayer beads, he expanded on his comments, describing Moroccans as “a mirror” for himself. He praised the community’s open devotion, noting their shared understanding “that there is one God, one Allah,” and added that his time in the country allowed him to “see the truth.”

    Days after the premiere, Saudi Arabia’s General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki Alalshikh shared a video on the platform X that pushed the story into viral territory. The footage captures Esposito leading a prayer alongside his *7 Dogs* production colleagues inside Casablanca’s iconic Hassan II Mosque. Alalshikh’s accompanying caption claimed Esposito made the decision to embrace Islam during months of filming *7 Dogs* on location in Saudi Arabia. As of press time, the post has racked up more than 13 million views.

    In a pre-video interview with *Lalla Fatema* magazine at the Casablanca premiere, Esposito himself had already confirmed that his first stop after arriving in Morocco was the Hassan II Mosque, where he said he stopped to pray. To date, the acclaimed actor has not issued an official, personal confirmation of the conversion reports. Multiple requests for comment from Middle East Eye went unanswered ahead of publication.

    Even without an official statement, the news has exploded across social media, with overwhelmingly positive reactions pouring in, particularly from Arabic-speaking users around the world. Dozens of posts across X and Instagram have welcomed Esposito to the Islamic faith, with many users calling the announcement one of the most pleasant and surprising pieces of entertainment news in recent memory. One user wrote on X: “By God, this is the best news of the day. Esposito converted to Islam and pronounced the testimony of faith, may God make him steadfast.” Another commented: “One of the most shocking and heartwarming news stories at the same time. Uncle Gustavo Fring from *Breaking Bad* and *Better Call Saul* embraces Islam. Praise be to God, that God guides whom He wills.”

    Alongside sincere messages of welcome, many social media users have leaned into humor, creating lighthearted memes that tie Esposito’s reported conversion to his most famous on-screen roles. One viral X post edited a classic promotional photo of Esposito standing next to the sign for Gus Fring’s fictional fried chicken restaurant Los Pollos Hermanos, replacing the original logo with that of beloved Saudi fried chicken chain Albaik. On Reddit, users joked: “Los Pollos will now be serving halal chicken.” The playful content has only amplified the story’s reach, turning a celebrity religion story into a global viral conversation.

  • Dongfang Electric hosts Open Day events in Uzbekistan

    Dongfang Electric hosts Open Day events in Uzbekistan

    Between June 16 and 17, 2026, China’s Dongfang Electric Corporation (DEC) organized a comprehensive series of Open Day initiatives across multiple locations in Uzbekistan, combining cultural exchange, clean energy outreach, and bilateral partnership building to strengthen long-standing ties between the two nations.

    The flagship event in Tashkent drew over 350 attendees, spanning delegates from Chinese state-owned enterprises operating in Uzbekistan, academic staff and students from Tashkent State Technical University, and correspondents from the country’s leading local media outlets. The gathering featured two core components: an exhibition showcasing DEC’s decades of progress in advancing high-quality collaboration under the Belt and Road Initiative, and a dedicated interactive zone for visitors to experience traditional Chinese culture firsthand.

    Attendees participated in hands-on activities ranging from trying Chinese calligraphy to co-creating a large thematic painting titled “China-Uzbekistan Friendship across Mountains and Seas,” and sampled specialty Liangshan buckwheat tea, gaining direct exposure to the unique charm of China’s cultural heritage.

    Parallel to the central Tashkent event, DEC hosted tailored Open Day programming at its active project sites across four Uzbek regions: Qashqadaryo, Samarkand, Surxondaryo and Jizzakh. Standout activities at these regional sites included the official unveiling of the Central Asian Tortoise Nature Reserve, the donation of clean energy equipment models to local educational institutions, live demonstrations of DEC’s AI-powered operational robots, and cultural sharing sessions explaining the traditions and history of China’s Dragon Boat Festival. These on-site events were explicitly designed to boost local public understanding of zero-emission energy technologies and highlight the far-reaching benefits of global sustainable development cooperation.

    In recent years, China-Uzbekistan bilateral cooperation has expanded steadily across key sectors including energy infrastructure construction, clean energy development, technological innovation, and cross-border talent cultivation. Upholding the shared “China–Central Asia Spirit” that guides partnership between Beijing and Central Asian nations, DEC has emerged as a key contributor to Uzbekistan’s goal of maintaining a stable, reliable energy supply while driving inclusive economic and social growth. As of the event, DEC has delivered power generation equipment with a combined total installed capacity of 1.1 gigawatts to Uzbekistan, supporting the country’s fast-growing portfolio of solar power, hydropower, and grid-scale energy storage projects that underpin its transition to a low-carbon economy.

  • Ben Gvir says Lebanon should be ‘Israel’s playground’, urges Netanyahu to defy Trump

    Ben Gvir says Lebanon should be ‘Israel’s playground’, urges Netanyahu to defy Trump

    In a provocative address that upends ongoing regional ceasefire efforts, far-right Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir publicly ruled out any potential truce with Lebanon on Monday, doubling down on extreme rhetoric that frames the entire country as a legitimate military target for Israeli forces.

    Speaking at the weekly faction meeting of his ultranationalist Otzma Yehudit party held in Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, Ben Gvir issued a direct demand to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: formally reject any negotiated peace agreement with Lebanon in upcoming talks with U.S. President Donald Trump. He argued that Washington would understand the hardline position, drawing a inflammatory comparison to how the United States would never accept hostile armed groups operating along its borders.

    “You wouldn’t tolerate having Nazis on your border. You wouldn’t tolerate your soldiers being attacked and being limited in terms of the response. Our response must be 100 percent,” Ben Gvir stated. “I want to say thank you to the Americans, but our red line is harming soldiers and harming civilians.”

    Going further, the minister issued an explicit threat to the Lebanese capital Beirut, warning it could suffer the same near-total destruction that the Gaza town of Beit Hanoun has endured amid Israel’s ongoing military campaign in the besieged Palestinian enclave. “The equation must be very simple and clear: the State of Israel must be safe. If Israel is not safe, Beirut will look like Beit Hanoun,” he said.

    In subsequent comments carried on Israel’s Channel 14 and shared widely on social media by the Quds News Network, Ben Gvir doubled down on his radical stance, rejecting the distinction between targeting Hezbollah and launching attacks across the entirety of Lebanon. “Lebanon, all of Lebanon, should become our playground. All of Lebanon should be our target,” he declared, justifying the blanket targeting by noting that Hezbollah operatives hold positions within Lebanon’s national government.

    The minister also reiterated dehumanizing comments he made over the weekend, arguing that no hardship for Lebanese civilians should stand in the way of Israeli military goals. “Not a single tear from an Israeli mother can be tolerated. Even if there are tears from a thousand Lebanese mothers, we need to keep going,” he said.

    Ben Gvir’s hardline rejection of a ceasefire comes as escalating Israeli military activity across Lebanon creates major friction in international diplomacy. Spiking Israeli air strikes and expanding ground deployments in southern and eastern Lebanon have already derailed ongoing ceasefire talks between the United States and Iran, negotiations that were being brokered by third-party mediators including Pakistan and Qatar. The situation on the Lebanon frontier has emerged as a major point of disagreement between the Trump administration and the Israeli government, with Washington and other G7 nations repeatedly calling for Israel to withdraw its forces from southern Lebanon—calls that have been consistently rejected by Israeli leadership.

    For its part, Hezbollah has demanded the Lebanese government refuse any direct negotiations with Israel as long as Israeli attacks on Lebanese territory continue. Despite this, Lebanon’s national government has publicly expressed hope that a U.S.-Iran deal could bring an end to the ongoing hostilities that have devastated large swathes of the country.

    According to Lebanon’s Ministry of Health, Israeli military strikes across Lebanon launched since March 2 have killed at least 3,798 people and wounded an additional 11,781, leaving a growing humanitarian crisis in the conflict zone.