Global Pulse

标签： Asia

亚洲

  • Hiroshima marks 81st atomic bomb anniversary as mayor deplores the pursuit of nuclear weapons

    Hiroshima marks 81st atomic bomb anniversary as mayor deplores the pursuit of nuclear weapons

    On Thursday, the western Japanese city of Hiroshima gathered to honor the 81st anniversary of the world’s first wartime atomic bombing, with local leadership issuing a stark rebuke of global reliance on nuclear deterrence amid growing tensions over Japan’s own postwar security policy.

    In a peace declaration delivered at Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park, Mayor Kazumi Matsui drew a direct line between contemporary great power conflicts and the risk of repeating the catastrophic destruction of 1945. He argued that efforts to downplay the humanitarian catastrophe of nuclear weapons, paired with the acceptance of military force to advance national interests, creates a dangerous cycle of retaliation that could lead to another attack on the scale of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    “Too many political leaders still frame nuclear deterrence as a credible strategy and legitimize state violence,” Matsui told the assembled crowd. “This only pushes the goal of a nuclear-free world further out of reach.” He closed his address by calling on individual people around the world to study the history of the bombing and take grassroots action to advance disarmament.

    Nearly 50,000 people attended the annual memorial, including diplomatic representatives from more than 120 countries and regions, including the United States and Iran. At exactly 8:15 a.m. — the exact minute the U.S. B-29 Enola Gay released the bomb over the city 81 years prior — attendees fell silent for a full minute as the Hiroshima Peace Bell rang out across the memorial grounds.

    Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi participated in the ceremony for the first time since taking office, stating that her administration would pursue a “realistic approach” to the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons, working within the framework of the United Nations’ Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Her appearance comes amid widespread speculation that her hawkish administration, which has publicly endorsed the logic of nuclear deterrence, could loosen Japan’s long-held postwar Three Non-Nuclear Principles when the government updates its national security and defense strategy later this year.

    Takaichi has already publicly called for a review of the principles, specifically opening the door to dropping the third principle that prohibits the introduction of nuclear weapons onto Japanese territory. During Thursday’s memorial, she only reaffirmed that Japan has abided by the principles to date, declining to give any binding commitment to maintain the policy going forward.

    Nuclear bomb survivors, known locally as hibakusha, have voiced growing frustration and anxiety over rising global and domestic support for nuclear deterrence. The legacy of the 1945 bombings hangs heavy over modern Japanese security policy: Japan relies on the U.S. nuclear umbrella for its national defense, and has repeatedly pushed Washington for public reassurance of its security commitment and extended deterrence guarantees. As a result, the Japanese government has repeatedly rejected survivors’ calls to sign the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, or even attend the treaty’s meetings as an observer.

    The Aug. 6, 1945 atomic bombing of Hiroshima levelled nearly the entire city and killed an estimated 140,000 people by the end of that year. Three days later, a second U.S. atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, killing an additional 70,000 people. Japan announced its unconditional surrender on Aug. 15, 1945, bringing World War II to a close and ending nearly 50 years of Japanese imperial aggression across Asia.

    Today, the population of surviving hibakusha has shrunk dramatically to just 91,105 people nationwide, roughly a quarter of the peak survivor population. The average age of survivors now exceeds 86, and even the youngest survivors have only faint, unclear memories of the attack, leaving survivors concerned that the memory of the bombing’s horror will fade from public consciousness as their generation passes.

  • From Michigan to Missouri: Democratic primaries deliver mixed bag on Israel and Gaza

    From Michigan to Missouri: Democratic primaries deliver mixed bag on Israel and Gaza

    On Tuesday, voters across five U.S. states headed to the polls for Democratic Party primary elections, and while candidates debated a range of domestic and national security issues, the ongoing conflict in Gaza and U.S. policy toward Iran emerged as the most contentious fault line reshaping campaign outcomes. Although results varied widely from state to state, the contests left a mixed picture of how Democratic voters are responding to candidates’ stances on these explosive foreign policy questions.

    The most closely watched and consequential result of the night unfolded in Michigan, where progressive candidate Abdul El-Sayed, former director of the Wayne County Health Department, edged out incumbent U.S. Representative Haley Stevens by a razor-thin one-percentage-point margin to secure the Democratic nomination for the state’s open U.S. Senate seat. El-Sayed secured 48.5% of the vote to Stevens’ 47.5%, capping a campaign that centered not just on progressive healthcare reform, but also on hardline shifts in immigration and foreign policy. El-Sayed campaigned on a promise to cut off U.S. military aid to Israel, abolish U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and end what he framed as the Trump administration’s unauthorized war against Iran, warning that the conflict puts American lives at unnecessary risk by expanding regional instability without congressional approval.

    In contrast, Stevens ran a campaign highlighting Israel’s right to self-defense and argued in favor of continuing U.S. taxpayer-funded military support for the country. She drew heavy endorsements from mainstream Democratic Party establishment figures and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a powerful pro-Israel lobbying group, and adopted a hawkish position on Iran’s nuclear program and regional influence. El-Sayed’s unapologetic criticism of U.S. policy in the Middle East struck a particular chord with the large Arab American and Muslim voting bloc concentrated in Wayne County, which includes Detroit, Dearborn, and Hamtramck. Though former President Donald Trump made unexpected gains among Wayne County voters in the 2024 presidential election—even earning an endorsement from Hamtramck’s Yemeni American mayor—former Vice President Kamala Harris still carried the county by a comfortable margin in that contest.

    In Missouri, the Democratic establishment delivered a clear win over anti-Israel foreign policy critics. Incumbent U.S. Representative Wesley Bell, a former St. Louis County prosecutor, defeated former congresswoman Cori Bush by a lopsided 22.3-point margin, with 59.2% of voters backing Bell to Bush’s 36.9%. The result blocked Bush’s bid to return to Congress after she lost the same seat in the 2024 election. Bush was one of the most prominent and outspoken congressional voices calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, and she centered her entire campaign on her opposition to what she framed as Israeli genocide in Gaza and U.S. aggression toward Iran. Bell, by contrast, ran on a platform of unwavering, ironclad support for Israel and secured formal backing from AIPAC.

    In Kansas, Democratic primary voters nominated state Senator Cindy Holscher for the open U.S. Senate seat, while Republicans selected state Insurance Commissioner Vicki Schmidt to face her in the general election. The matchup sets up one of the most competitive Senate races of the cycle in a state that has been dominated by Republican control for nearly a century. Unlike the closely fought contest in Michigan, foreign policy played almost no role in Kansas’s Democratic primary, with candidates instead focusing their platforms on rural development, agricultural policy, and abortion rights.

    Virginia’s Democratic primary saw only one candidate on the ballot: former state governor and incumbent Democratic Senator Mark Warner, who leaned into his decades of experience on the Senate Intelligence Committee and framed his campaign around a focus on national security. Warner is a well-known staunch supporter of Israel and has received consistent backing from AIPAC. He has criticized the Trump administration for failing to consult Congress before launching military action against Iran, while also warning that Iran’s nuclear program poses a major ongoing threat to U.S. and global security. On the Republican side, voters picked retired Army Major General Bert Mizusawa, a former campaign advisor to Donald Trump, out of a crowded field of GOP candidates. Virginia has not elected a Republican to the U.S. Senate since 2002, making Warner a narrow favorite in the general election.

    Finally, in Washington state, incumbent Democratic Congresswoman Marie Gluesenkamp Perez successfully fended off a primary challenge from progressive candidate Brent Hennrich. Gluesenkamp Perez was endorsed by AIPAC, while Hennrich built his entire primary campaign around opposition to the lobbying group’s influence over U.S. politics. This report was produced by Middle East Eye, an outlet that provides independent, in-depth coverage of the Middle East, North Africa, and global affairs connected to the region.

  • Climate change squeezes Malaysian durian growers as they chase China’s booming market

    Climate change squeezes Malaysian durian growers as they chase China’s booming market

    Deep after midnight in the rolling hills outside Karak, a small Malaysian town an hour’s drive from Kuala Lumpur, farm workers don glowing headlamps as they trudge through durian orchards, hunting for the fully ripened, spiky fruits that have become a cultural obsession for millions of Chinese consumers. For orchard owner Stephen Chow, this grueling overnight labor is just the start of a growing battle to stay in business — one shaped by rising costs, extreme weather, and cutthroat global competition that has put many small Malaysian growers on the brink of loss.

    Malaysia’s premium durian varieties, including the famously creamy, bold-flavored Musang King and sought-after Black Thorn, are prized by durian connoisseurs around the world, especially in China, where demand for the pungent, creamy fruit has exploded over the past decade. But that growing global warming, driven by the burning of fossil fuels, has pushed production costs sharply higher, while more frequent extreme weather has ravaged yields and eroded fruit quality. Combined with fierce competition from Thailand and Vietnam, which dominate China’s booming durian import market, the pressures are pushing many small Malaysian operators struggling to turn a profit.

    Chow’s own orchard has borne the brunt of climate disruption in recent years. In 2021, catastrophic flooding triggered by unprecedented heavy rainfall destroyed roughly 100 mature durian trees and wrecked critical farm machinery. In the three years that followed, consistent unseasonable rain during the critical flowering season prevented successful pollination, slashing his total annual output. This year brought new challenges: while favorable flowering conditions, afternoon temperatures between 33 and 35 degrees Celsius paired with overnight rain, encouraged producers like Chow to ramp up care — increasing watering, upgrading fertilization, and pruning to prevent stunted or deformed fruit. But soaring fuel and fertilizer costs, exacerbated by geopolitical conflict in Iran, have pushed the price of these adaptations far higher than projected.

    Adding insult to injury, a nationwide oversupply of Malaysian durians, driven by new orchards reaching maturity and unexpected growing conditions, has sent market prices plummeting. In early July, top-grade Musang King from Chow’s orchard sold for just $8.6 per kilogram, half the price recorded in the same period one year earlier, and only one-third of the peak price reached in 2024. “Breaking even would already be very good. Most likely there’ll be a loss this year,” Chow told reporters.

    The current crisis comes amid an unprecedented industry expansion driven by Chinese demand. Official Malaysian data shows the country’s total durian cultivation area reached 92,100 hectares in 2024 — a nearly 40% increase from 2016, and an area larger than the entire landmass of Singapore, the city-state just off Malaysia’s southern coast. Over the same period, total national durian production grew nearly 90% to 568,800 tonnes.

    This boom was triggered by policy shifts: China first allowed imports of whole frozen Malaysian durians in 2019, and expanded access to fresh Malaysian fruit in 2024, part of a broader “durian diplomacy” push that has opened China’s massive market to multiple Southeast Asian producers. UN Food and Agriculture Organization data shows China absorbed roughly 95% of global durian exports between 2020 and 2022. 2025 Chinese customs data puts total fresh durian imports at 1.87 million tonnes, worth $7.5 billion — a six-fold increase in volume over the past decade. For Chinese consumers, durian has become a staple treat: 30-something Shanghai resident Song Xiaohua says she would eat the fruit once a week, instead of once a month, if not for its high calorie count, comparing the experience of eating durian to celebrating Lunar New Year.

    While Thailand and Vietnam hold the largest share of China’s durian import market, Malaysian producers have staked their reputation on superior quality, choosing to harvest only naturally fully ripened fruit rather than picking early to extend shelf life. But that commitment to quality is becoming harder to maintain as the climate warms.

    Malaysia’s Meteorological Department records show Peninsular Malaysia has seen an average temperature increase of 0.24 degrees Celsius per decade between 1969 and 2025, a rate that aligns with global warming trends. Extreme heat, floods, and irregular rain patterns are now the norm, not the exception, forcing growers to adapt or go out of business.

    Veteran grower Ooi Teik Hock, who owns an orchard in Perak state near the Thai border, recalls that 20 years ago, when temperatures were cooler, quality issues were far rarer. A decade ago, concerned about rising heat, he relocated his entire operation from lowland plains to cooler highlands, where overnight temperatures remain lower and humidity is higher. Even there, however, climate change has brought new threats: once-rare pests have become widespread, forcing Ooi to increase pesticide use, while pesticide prices have jumped 30% in just three years. This year, for the first time in decades, Ooi saw no fruit bats — the primary natural pollinator for durian — on his orchard during flowering season, a shift he attributes to extreme heat and expanded pesticide use.

    Lim Chin Khee, an industry adviser to the Durian Academy, a Malaysian organization that trains durian growers, explains that weather shifts have an outsize impact on fruit quality, especially for the temperature-sensitive Musang King variety. Too much rain during the critical rapid growth stage causes discolored white and gray patches on the fruit’s signature golden flesh, while drought during the same period leads to unappealing black spots, rendering premium grades unsellable.

    In response to growing climate instability, some growers have turned to modern technology to protect yields and quality, while industry experts are helping producers prepare for more extreme weather ahead. With climate forecasts predicting El Nino-driven record high temperatures between March and May each year, Lim advises farmers to expand water storage capacity and install backup tube wells to protect against pond drying during heat waves. He notes that while extreme weather will cut overall national supply, that shortage will push up market prices, creating opportunity for growers who prepare effectively. “So for those farmers who are well prepared, actually when any disaster strikes, that is an opportunity,” Lim said.
    Third-generation grower Kie Kim Hwa, who manages a family orchard on Penang Island off Malaysia’s west coast, has adapted traditional farming methods with modern monitoring. He installed a network of sensors throughout his orchard, placed in tree lines, grassy areas, and deep below the soil, to track real-time data on rainfall, humidity, wind speed, and soil conditions, all synced to a cloud server that he can access from anywhere. He also combines high-tech monitoring with low-tech checks, such as examining water bucket surfaces to track pest populations. The data lets him address growing problems early, helping him maintain consistent quality and adjust output to match market demand. “We live and die by the weather,” Kie said. “But we can still prepare.”
    This reporting on climate and agriculture from the Associated Press received funding from multiple private foundations, with AP retaining full editorial control over all content.

  • Banned from football at home, Afghan women’s team reunite 8,000 miles away

    Banned from football at home, Afghan women’s team reunite 8,000 miles away

    In a bustling changing room in Auckland, New Zealand, 23 displaced Afghan women footballers go through their pre-match rituals. Some stretch tired muscles and lace up worn boots, while old teammates, separated by years of exile and uncertainty, embrace tightly. Midfielder Fatima Haidari turns to her squad, her voice steady and firm: “Be strong as always, because we do not just play for a team—we play for every Afghan woman denied the right to be here.” Applause fills the small room, where a tattered Afghan flag hangs on the wall and a soft patriotic hum drifts from a portable speaker. As the women join in the song, many blink back tears, their hands resting on the fabric of their matching kits. After a final huddle and a round of encouragement from their coach, they step out onto the pitch—ground that for decades, forces in their home country have insisted women do not belong.

    This gathering marks a historic milestone: it is the first time the full squad of Afghan Women United has assembled in person since FIFA’s landmark April ruling that cleared the way for the team to represent Afghanistan in future official international matches. Compiled entirely from Afghan women players who fled the Taliban takeover in 2021 and now resettled across the globe, the team traveled to New Zealand to hold a week-long training camp and compete in two unofficial friendly fixtures against the Cook Islands.

    For years, this moment seemed impossible. After the Taliban seized control of Afghanistan in August 2021, the regime imposed sweeping, harsh restrictions on women and girls, barring them from secondary education, university, most professional careers, and all organized sport. The original Afghan women’s national team, founded in 2007, was immediately disbanded, and its players were forced to evacuate the country, scattering across Australia, the United Kingdom, Portugal, and other nations. Years of relentless advocacy from the players and their supporters eventually led to the formation of a refugee collective, which became Afghan Women United. With FIFA’s historic ruling, the team can now pursue qualification for major international tournaments, including the FIFA Women’s World Cup and the Olympic Games.

    For many of the players, just being able to train and compete together as a full squad is a victory years in the making. As asylum seekers and refugees spread across 10 different countries, securing coordinated travel documents and meeting in person has been an uphill battle over the past five years. For 23-year-old Manozh Noori, who now calls Australia home, the road to this gathering started as a secret on the streets of Kabul. Growing up, Noori played football with neighborhood boys, hiding her passion from her family after she secretly joined a local club at 16. Fearing her older brother, who was the family’s primary breadwinner, would disapprove, she played for six years wearing a face covering to conceal her identity, climbing the ranks to win multiple league titles, national championships, and individual awards.

    In 2018, her teammates convinced her to remove the covering for a national television interview. When the segment aired, her secret was out. “I was so scared,” Noori recalled, her voice thick with emotion as she spoke from her Auckland hotel ahead of the matches. “I turned off the electricity to try to stop my family from watching the news, but word still got to my brother. He was furious. He threatened to cut off all support for the family if I didn’t quit immediately. My mother was crying—she didn’t know how we would survive without his help.”

    Noori stepped away from the game for a short time, but eventually returned, supported by another brother living in Germany who funded her training. When the Taliban took over in 2021, she fled Afghanistan, but not before burying all her medals and trophies in her family’s garden. They remain there today. “One day I will go back and dig them out,” she says, a small smile crossing her face. Football has already given her more than trophies: two years after resettling in Australia, she was able to bring her mother and sister out of Afghanistan, allowing her sister to resume her education. “I hope my brother now realizes I am not a bad person,” she says.

    For many players on the squad, football was not just a passion—it was their lifeline through the chaos of the Taliban takeover. “If I wasn’t a footballer, I would still be in Afghanistan, one of millions of girls who are not allowed to study, speak up or choose their own future,” says 24-year-old Mursal Sadat, who also lives in Australia. Evacuated from Kabul at 19, Sadat now works as a youth football coach, a facilitator, and an advocate for refugee and women’s rights. In Afghanistan, she faced constant harassment and judgment for playing football, with people telling her no one would ever marry a female athlete. Today, she is engaged to a man still living in Afghanistan, whose entire family supports her work with the team. “They tell me, ‘You are the pride of our family. We are so lucky to have you,’” she says.

    When the team stepped onto the pitch in Auckland, steady rain poured down, but the players refused to be deterred. They have faced far harsher conditions back home. Defender Najma Arefi, 22, who now lives in Doncaster, England, remembers training in her home city of Herat when girls were only allocated the worst, hottest time slots, forcing her to practice in temperatures that exceeded 45 degrees Celsius. She persisted, and eventually helped her Herat-based team win a national championship— a victory that shifted local attitudes toward women’s football. “There were billboards of us across Herat,” she recalls. “People were proud. More families started letting their daughters play football.”

    Today, Arefi studies criminal justice at college in the UK, makes her own choices about her life, and plays football regularly. “Having that freedom is incredible,” she says. But she carries a heavy weight: guilt and grief for the millions of women and girls still trapped in Afghanistan, denied the same opportunities. “Sometimes I put too much pressure on myself, because I have to make the most of every chance I get,” she says, tears rolling down her cheeks. She credits former team founder Khalida Popal with pushing FIFA to recognize the exiled squad, calling the ruling a historic achievement that she will always be proud of.

    When approached for comment by the BBC, Taliban sports director Ahmadullah Wasiq declined to address FIFA’s recognition of the women’s team. He did extend an invitation for FIFA to visit Afghanistan and resume general football support in the country—support the global governing body largely withdrew after the Taliban takeover, and has stated will not resume until women are allowed to play.

    On the pitch, the results of the two friendlies did not go the way of the Afghan side: the Cook Islands won the first match 1-0, and claimed a second 3-0 victory three days later. But for the women of Afghan Women United, the scoreboard does not define what these matches mean. After years of exile, displacement, and being told they could not play, this gathering was their answer: they have not disappeared, and they will not be silenced. Their dream of competing on the world stage for Afghan women is just beginning.

  • After Michigan upset, Aipac looks to back Republican candidate against Abdul El-Sayed

    After Michigan upset, Aipac looks to back Republican candidate against Abdul El-Sayed

    A political earthquake shook Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary on Wednesday, as progressive challenger Abdul El-Sayed pulled off a stunning one-point victory over pro-Israel incumbent Congresswoman Haley Stevens — in a race that became the most expensive Democratic primary contest in U.S. history, fueled by more than $60 million in total outside spending, $30 million of which came from leading pro-Israel lobbying group the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

    The upset marks a major defeat for AIPAC, which has built a reputation for ousting candidates it views as critical of Israel across both major U.S. parties. In 2022, the group spent heavily to unseat veteran Democratic lawmaker Andy Levin in Michigan over his support for sanctions on violent Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank; on Wednesday, Levin celebrated El-Sayed’s win, writing on Instagram, “Out with all the big money, dark money and corporate and special interest control of our politics. We the people hunger for authenticity.” Earlier this year, AIPac poured more than $4 million into defeating Republican Thomas Massie in Kentucky’s primary, after Massie voted against U.S. foreign aid to Israel, as part of a $9 million coalition effort against the incumbent.

    Now, following its $30 million investment in Stevens that ended in defeat, AIPAC has confirmed it will shift its support to the Republican candidate in the November general election. The group’s statement underscored its longstanding approach to U.S. politics: prioritizing its pro-Israel policy agenda over partisan ideological loyalty. “Our members remain determined to ensure that voters reject Dr El-Sayed and his radical anti-Israel agenda,” the statement read. “Our community is proud to support pro-Israel Democrats and Republicans who stand for our values.”

    El-Sayed, an Egyptian-American Muslim and former Detroit public health official who has never held elected office, ran a grassroots campaign defined by small-dollar donations and opposition to corporate and special interest influence in politics. According to campaign finance data from OpenSecrets, El-Sayed out-raised Stevens in small-dollar contributions in the final quarter before the primary. His campaign calculated that outside groups spent an average of $95 per vote against El-Sayed, more than 10 times the $9 per vote average of his own campaign spending.

    Critics of unlimited outside spending note that this lopsided spending is the result of U.S. campaign finance law, which allows unlimited independent expenditures by groups that do not coordinate directly with candidate campaigns. “In 95 percent of U.S. electoral races, whoever spends the most, wins,” explained Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist for non-profit consumer advocacy group Public Citizen. “Yes, money buys elections. It’s very effective, and that’s why these candidates work overtime continually raising money.”

    El-Sayed’s campaign gained momentum not just from his stance on Israel, but from his focus on kitchen-table issues impacting Michigan voters. He has publicly described Israel’s nearly three-year military campaign in Gaza as genocide, a framing that aligns with statements from leading human rights organizations, genocide scholars, and the United Nations, but rejected by Israel and most sitting U.S. lawmakers. This position resonated deeply with Michigan’s large Arab-American community, which played a pivotal role in driving protest votes against former President Joe Biden in the 2024 presidential election over his unwavering support for Israel amid mounting Palestinian civilian casualties that have killed tens of thousands of people. In that election, even as Wayne County backed Kamala Harris by 62 percent, heavily Arab-American suburbs of Detroit swung overwhelmingly to Donald Trump, helping Trump carry Michigan by just over one percentage point.

    Sally Howell, an Arab American Studies expert at the University of Michigan-Dearborn, noted that El-Sayed’s support rose when he shifted his messaging from critiquing AIPAC’s spending to a broader platform of getting big money out of politics and addressing local concerns. “He started talking about not getting money from DTE, the energy company here in Michigan… and this issue of the AI data centres, and how they would drive up our water bills,” Howell said. “These are issues that really matter to Michiganders across the political spectrum.”

    State Representative Alabas Farhat, who endorsed El-Sayed, said the candidate’s appeal stemmed from voter frustration with the status quo. “People in Michigan, they’re looking for leaders that are going to call out bold solutions and that are going to try and speak out against the status quo because the status quo hasn’t been working,” Farhat said. “The status quo has led to our state being 49th in unemployment. It’s led to us being 47th in third grade literacy. It’s led to our middle class having less wealth than they did in previous years. Trump came along, and he sold a false bag of goods, but he was at least willing to say things were wrong. Now comes Abdul El-Sayed, somebody who has made truth and justice two central pillars to his campaign.”

    Support for El-Sayed also came from groups advocating for Palestinian rights: the IMEU Policy Project, a three-year-old advocacy organization, contributed $400,000 to his campaign. Turnout for the primary hit historic highs, with half a million more Democratic voters turning out than in previous low-turnout primaries, according to Michigan Democratic Party Chair Curtis Hertel.

    In his victory speech, El-Sayed announced he had spoken with Stevens and secured her commitment to endorse him in the general election, where he will face former Republican Congressman Mike Rogers. Hertel emphasized that the party is now united to defeat Trump-backed candidates in November, a race that will decide control of the U.S. Senate. If El-Sayed wins in November, he will become the first Muslim ever elected to the U.S. Senate, and could tip the chamber’s majority to Democrats for the final two years of Trump’s second term.

    Former President Trump reacted to El-Sayed’s primary win on his social platform Truth Social, calling the challenger “a Communist loser who hates Jews and Israel,” while also framing the result as “great news for the Republican party,” claiming El-Sayed will be an easy general election opponent. Howell predicts the general election will bring a sharp, divisive campaign focused on identity rather than policy. “I think that it’s going to go a lot darker than the negative campaigning we’ve seen, and it’s going to be very anti-Arab and a lot more Islamophobic,” she said.

    For his part, El-Sayed pushed back against expected identity-based attacks in a post-win address to supporters. “It’s like, wow, he’s different,” he said, describing the likely Republican line of attack. “That’s the best you got? You can’t actually talk about what you want to do? My name is not raising your gas prices. My name is not taking us to war. My name is not the reason you can’t afford your groceries.”

    El-Sayed’s win follows a growing pattern of upsets for establishment-backed candidates by progressive Democrats across the country, from New York to New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Colorado, signaling a growing grassroots movement challenging special interest influence in U.S. elections.

  • Israel’s army to set up polling stations in occupied Gaza, Lebanon and Syria

    Israel’s army to set up polling stations in occupied Gaza, Lebanon and Syria

    As Israel gears up for its upcoming general election on October 27, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has launched preparations for a historically unusual voting arrangement: placing dedicated polling stations directly in active, occupied territories across the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, and Syria, military broadcaster Army Radio confirmed in a report published Wednesday. The plan, which military chief Eyal Zamir has formally ordered military leadership to implement, is designed to guarantee that frontline combat troops deployed beyond Israel’s internationally recognized borders can exercise their right to vote from their active posts.

    Army Radio framed the initiative as a step unseen in Israeli electoral politics for decades, a framing that omits the longstanding practice of Israeli soldiers casting ballots at permanent military bases located in the occupied West Bank. The groundwork for this plan was laid just last week, when Israel’s Central Elections Committee signed off on a new slate of electoral regulations that explicitly permit active-duty troops to vote from their deployed positions in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria.

    Israeli online news outlet Ynet has outlined the practical adjustments for in-theater voting: since service rules prohibit soldiers from carrying personal identification documents into these three regions, voters will be verified through their military service number and a confirmation check by a fellow service member.

    The expansion of special out-of-district polling stations reflects a growing trend in Israeli elections. Over the past several years, the share of eligible voters casting ballots outside their assigned local precincts has climbed steadily, with active-duty soldiers and other security personnel making up the vast majority of voters using these special stations. Data from the Israel Democracy Institute (IDI), an independent Jerusalem-based research center, shows that roughly 425,000 Israelis voted at special polling locations during the 2021 March general election. That total includes not only security service members, but also diplomats, hospitalized patients, and incarcerated citizens.

    While definitive voting pattern data for special precincts remains hard to compile, the IDI notes that the overwhelming majority of special station voters are young Israelis serving in active military roles. Political analysts widely assess that right-wing Israeli political parties draw the most support from this demographic, meaning the expanded in-theater voting option could deliver a tangible advantage to conservative blocs in the upcoming vote.

    Per official figures from the Central Elections Committee, approximately 7.3 million Israelis are eligible to participate in the October 27 contest. That pool includes nearly 550,000 first-time voters who have reached voting age since the previous national election held in late 2022. While the committee has publicly released details for special polling stations in hospitals, prisons, and Israeli diplomatic missions around the world, it has declined to disclose how many polling stations will ultimately be set up in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria.

    Beyond the logistics of in-theater voting, Army Radio also shared details of a new directive from Zamir aimed at preserving the IDF’s longstanding mandate of political neutrality. Zamir has ordered all commanding officers to block active-duty soldiers and officers from engaging in partisan political campaigning on behalf of any party during the election cycle. He has additionally mandated that commanders review all correspondence distributed to troops to screen out any unauthorized partisan political messaging.

    “There is a need to uphold current regulations, orders and instructions on the issue,” Zamir stated during a meeting with senior military leadership. He added that all IDF personnel must “avoid innovations that could bring about the undermining of public trust in the IDF.”

    Zamir’s directive comes in direct response to public controversy that emerged earlier this week, when the IDF drew widespread criticism after dismissing a reserve soldier who had repeatedly posted public videos expressing personal support for the current Israeli government. The dismissal was ultimately reversed after Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz personally intervened to reinstate the service member.

  • The Iran off-ramp Trump keeps driving past

    The Iran off-ramp Trump keeps driving past

    Five months after the outbreak of the 2026 Iran conflict, the United States finds itself trapped in a familiar strategic quagmire that has plagued its past major military engagements in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Washington is too deeply entrenched to withdraw without significant political fallout, yet it lacks the leverage and military progress necessary to declare a definitive victory.

    This impasse has been amplified by the chaotic, inconsistent approach of US President Donald Trump to the conflict. Trump has flip-flopped repeatedly between issuing fiery threats of what he describes as “the biggest attack since World War II” and suddenly announcing that peace talks are “imminent” — only for Tehran to immediately deny any negotiations are underway at all. This back-and-forth is not a calculated negotiating strategy; it is public evidence of a superpower learning the hard way that overwhelming air power can reduce a nation’s infrastructure to ruin, but it cannot guarantee the political settlement that military intervention was supposed to secure.

    Long before the full-scale buildup to this conflict, foreign policy realists warned of this exact outcome: the persistent gap between what military force can destroy and what political outcomes it can deliver. Working alongside Israel, the US has successfully degraded Iran’s core military infrastructure, damaged facilities linked to Iran’s nuclear program, and eliminated multiple top Iranian military commanders. But these tactical gains have not translated into the strategic outcome Washington seeks: an Iranian government willing to surrender on terms the US can brand as victory, nor a stable regional order that does not require the US Navy to maintain a permanent, force-backed presence to keep the Strait of Hormuz open for global shipping. Already, commercial oil tankers have begun rerouting their journeys around the Cape of Good Hope in southern Africa to avoid the conflict zone — a shift that alone makes clear how far the conflict is from being contained, despite official Washington rhetoric.

    Trump’s instinct to seek an exit ramp from the conflict is not misdirected. Unlike many of his predecessors and foreign policy advisers, he has repeatedly pulled back from carrying out the all-out maximalist strike he often threatens, in large part due to appeals from Gulf Arab states. These nations understand far better than most Washington policymakers that a wider regional war only benefits Iran’s hardline factions and the defense contractors profiting from increased arms shipments.

    The critical flaw in Trump’s approach is his persistent reliance on empty threat-based leverage. When threats are never followed through, they quickly lose their credibility. The current public disconnect — the White House insisting talks will begin Monday, while Iran’s foreign ministry flatly denies any negotiations are scheduled — is a clear sign that Trump’s repeated threats have been so overused that Tehran no longer feels pressured to back down.

    To achieve a genuine exit from this stalemate, Washington must abandon three long-held flawed assumptions that have shaped not just this war, but nearly every US military venture in the Middle East over the past three decades.

    First, the assumption that eliminating a regime’s military capabilities will create strategic clarity, rather than strategic drift. History from Iraq to Libya shows this logic is almost always wrong. Destroying infrastructure and military assets is the easy part of military intervention; the longer bombing campaigns continue, the harder it becomes to reach a negotiated settlement. This is because hardline factions on both sides gain political and tactical power from prolonging the conflict, eroding the influence of moderates who favor a diplomatic resolution.

    Second, the assumption that regional US allies are willing to bear the costs of an American-guaranteed regional security order. Saudi Arabia’s public call by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman for Trump to prioritize dialogue is a clear warning sign. The Gulf states that once quietly supported pressure on Tehran are now the ones pushing to de-escalate, because they border the Strait of Hormuz and cannot retreat across an Atlantic Ocean when the waterway closes to commercial traffic.

    Third, and the assumption Washington is most resistant to abandon, is that “no deal” is a neutral default position while the war grinds on. In reality, every week that passes without a diplomatic settlement embeds the 2026 Iran war as the permanent baseline condition of the Middle East, rather than an emergency that demands resolution. Conflicts without clearly defined endpoints almost always expand and extend themselves, becoming self-sustaining policy commitments that are harder to exit over time.

    A viable path to exit was already visible back in May and June, when Gulf states first talked Trump down from launching massive new strikes and a tentative negotiating framework nearly held. That path remains open today through the tentative Oman-brokered talks focused on securing freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz.

    What is missing is not opportunity, but political discipline: the willingness to accept a narrow, verifiable agreement focused on the Strait of Hormuz as a sufficient achievable objective, rather than treating it as just a stepping stone to the larger goal of total Iranian capitulation. Facing intense internal political pressure, Iran’s government will never accept total surrender at the point of a bombing threat.

    Trump built much of his political brand around criticizing the endless wars his predecessors failed to end. Escaping this conflict with a better outcome than permanent stalemate will require him to embrace the harder political work of accepting a modest, workable deal now, instead of holding out for the politically satisfying but unattainable fantasy of total Iranian surrender later. Throughout history, empires that keep waiting for that one decisive blow that will force their enemy to fold almost always find themselves still waiting, years later, mired in the stalemate they could not bring themselves to exit.

  • AI or real? BBC analyses viral China disaster videos

    AI or real? BBC analyses viral China disaster videos

    Against a backdrop of increasingly frequent and severe extreme weather events globally, a new digital threat has emerged: artificially generated fake disaster footage that is spreading at alarming speed across online platforms in China, triggering tangible real-world disruptions, a new BBC analysis has found.

    As climate change drives more intense and frequent natural disasters across East Asia, bad actors have seized on generative artificial intelligence tools to fabricate seemingly authentic footage of catastrophic events including floods, wildfires and landslides. These manipulated or fully AI-generated clips quickly go viral on Chinese social media platforms, where users hungry for real-time updates on developing disaster situations share them widely before fact-checking can take place.

    The BBC’s analysis of multiple viral clips that circulated during recent extreme weather events in China highlights how easy it has become for bad actors to create convincing fake disaster content using off-the-shelf generative AI tools. Unlike traditional edited video fakes, modern AI-generated footage can mimic camera shake, on-the-ground reporter audio, and the chaotic visual texture of real breaking disaster coverage, making it extremely difficult for ordinary users to distinguish from authentic footage.

    The rapid spread of these fake videos carries significant real-world consequences. In some cases, false footage has sparked unnecessary public panic, leading to runs on grocery stores in unaffected regions and overwhelming emergency response phone lines with false reports of danger. Local disaster management officials have been forced to divert time and resources away from actual response efforts to debunk viral fake content, creating additional strains during already challenging emergency situations.

    This trend also reflects a broader global challenge: as extreme weather events become more common, the spread of AI-fabricated disaster misinformation has become a growing risk to public safety and emergency management worldwide. Experts quoted in the BBC analysis note that platform providers and regulators across the globe are still playing catch-up to develop effective systems to detect and remove AI-generated fake disaster content before it can spread widely and cause harm.

  • Palestinian-Israeli movement calls for multinational force in occupied West Bank

    Palestinian-Israeli movement calls for multinational force in occupied West Bank

    On Tuesday, a cross-community Palestinian-Israeli grassroots political movement unveiled a urgent new campaign pushing for the deployment of a multinational civilian protection force in the occupied West Bank, as violent attacks by Israeli settlers against Palestinian communities continue to escalate unchecked.

    The group behind the push, A Land for All – Two States, One Homeland, argues that rising settler aggression, paired with the Israeli government’s consistent failure to safeguard Palestinian civilians living under occupation, has made direct international intervention an unavoidable and time-sensitive priority. The formal appeal was launched during a public press conference hosted in Kafr Malik, a Palestinian village located east of Ramallah, where local residents have documented months of persistent settler attacks, limited access to their agricultural lands, and growing anxiety over forced displacement.

    Movement leaders emphasize that a deployed international protection force would not act as a replacement for a long-term political resolution or the future establishment of an independent Palestinian state. Instead, it would serve as an immediate emergency mechanism to shield vulnerable civilian populations and preserve the fragile possibility of a negotiated political settlement down the line. Branded under the slogan “Multinational Force in the West Bank — Now”, the campaign holds that verbal international condemnation of settler violence is no longer sufficient to address the crisis, and calls for a formally mandated force with authority to protect civilians and catalog human rights violations on the ground.

    Rula Hardal, Palestinian co-director of A Land for All, confirmed that the movement circulated an official statement last week to global diplomatic bodies and foreign missions operating in both Israel and Palestine, urging formal backing for the protection force deployment following the recent sharp escalation in settler attacks. Kafr Malik was selected as the press conference venue, Hardal explained, because of its central location in the West Bank, its direct experience of ongoing settler violence, and its relative accessibility and safety for both Palestinian and Israeli Jewish members of the movement compared to other at-risk Palestinian communities.

    “We are a joint Palestinian-Israeli political movement that advocates for a confederative two-state solution along the 1967 internationally agreed borders,” Hardal told reporters during the event. “But we cannot continue clinging to the outdated traditional model of a two-state solution, because the on-the-ground reality has shifted dramatically over the past three decades.” The movement’s work centers on updating and refining the two-state framework to address long-standing core issues including existing Israeli settlements, the right of return for Palestinian refugees, the status of Jerusalem, and cross-community security arrangements, all of which are detailed in the movement’s formal political platform.

    Meron Rapoport, an Israeli co-founding president of the movement, warned that security conditions in the occupied West Bank have deteriorated drastically over the past 12 months. He went as far as accusing the current Israeli government and military of advancing “a clear plan of ethnic cleansing” in the occupied territory. “We hear open plans to target Palestinian refugee camps. The writing is on the wall. The era of waiting, asking, and begging Israel to protect Palestinian lives is over,” Rapoport stated during the press conference.

    Other Israeli members of the movement echoed Rapoport’s assessment, agreeing that they no longer have confidence that Israeli authorities are either willing or able to protect Palestinian civilians living under occupation. Professor Yael Berda, co-chair of the movement’s joint board, noted that Kafr Malik specifically faces consistent, systematic threats of violence from organized settler militias. She added that the press conference was organized to demonstrate cross-community solidarity, amplify the call for international intervention, and remind the global community of its legal and moral responsibility to protect civilians at risk of mass atrocities.

    “These mass atrocities include ethnic cleansing, and we are currently seeing imminent ethnic cleansing unfolding. Abstract international pressure is no longer enough,” Berda said. “We see an Israeli government that gives full backing to settler militias, and we see a military that either lacks the capacity or the political will to rein in settler violence.”

    For residents of Kafr Malik, the event was less a forum for abstract political debate and more an opportunity to highlight the daily crisis they navigate. Local villagers shared accounts of repeated settler invasions of their lands, blocked access roads, and steadily tightening restrictions on their ability to reach and work their agricultural plots. Abdel Fattah Hamayel, a long-time resident of Kafr Malik, welcomed the solidarity visit from the joint movement.

    “We appreciate this step, and we hope it will be the foundation for broader action to help the Palestinian people confront this settler-colonial aggression,” Hamayel said. He noted that a single gathering cannot capture the full scope of suffering experienced by Kafr Malik residents, or by Palestinian rural communities across the West Bank more broadly. “This issue is no longer hidden from anyone. The current Israeli government, through its leading fascist figures, states its goals openly and clearly. Our situation is not easy, because we face two core challenges,” he explained.

    The first challenge, Hamayel said, is the lack of a coordinated official Palestinian strategy or functional institutions with the capacity to counter the violence and support Palestinian farmers whose livelihoods are under threat. The second is that all attacks are carried out with the explicit backing of Israel’s far-right government, which has emboldened settlers to abandon all restraints and moral standards, according to Hamayel.

  • Exclusive: Cambridge University backtracks on divesting from arms companies

    Exclusive: Cambridge University backtracks on divesting from arms companies

    Exclusive reporting from Middle East Eye has uncovered that the University of Cambridge has reversed a planned policy that would have paved the way for full divestment from weapons manufacturers, a step that came in direct response to widespread student and faculty campaigning over the institution’s investments linked to Israeli human rights violations.

    Internal documents reviewed by MEE show that on April 16, Cambridge’s top governing body, the University Council, signed off on a new monitoring framework for endowment investments in conventional weapons producers. The framework was developed by the Cambridge University Endowment Trustee Body (CUETB), the body tasked with overseeing the university’s £4.2 billion ($5.74 billion) endowment fund, which is managed day-to-day by University of Cambridge Investment Management Limited (UCIM).

    Under the original policy, the framework was designed to track the endowment’s total exposure to firms that primarily manufacture conventional weapons. If that exposure crossed a pre-set threshold as a share of total fund assets, mandatory discussions would be launched with UCIM to outline a timeline for reducing those holdings. In July 2026, CUETB went a step further, setting the threshold for arms investments at zero percent — a historic decision that would have required divestment talks for any level of investment in weapons companies, effectively committing the institution to full divestment.

    This policy was developed by a 2024 university working group convened after student activists with Cambridge for Palestine set up on-campus encampments to demand the university cut financial ties with firms enabling Israeli occupation and human rights abuses in Gaza and the West Bank. The policy reaffirmed commitments the university made to academic staff just one month ago, when the Council publicly stated it would move to reduce arms investments that crossed the established threshold.

    However, multiple anonymous sources with direct knowledge of the internal decision-making process told MEE that CUETB has quietly scrapped the original plan, replacing it with a new policy that removes any requirement to reduce holdings even if the zero percent threshold is breached. While the zero percent threshold remains on paper, the revised policy no longer mandates action to cut exposure to weapons manufacturers.

    Critically, the non-public policy change was made by CUETB without bringing the decision to a vote before the full University Council, and multiple sitting Council members confirmed to MEE they were never notified of the revision. It remains unclear when the reversal was approved, and the University of Cambridge has not responded to multiple repeated requests for comment from MEE on the policy shift.

    This is not the first time Cambridge has faced scrutiny over its endowment investments. In February 2025, MEE revealed that UCIM had allocated more than £140 million ($189 million) to an S&P 500 fund that holds stakes in multiple companies linked to Israeli human rights violations, including Palantir Technologies, Caterpillar, and GE Aerospace. The university has repeatedly refused to disclose the full list of firms in its endowment portfolio, citing legal confidentiality requirements. Earlier this year, dozens of senior Cambridge academics accused the institution of “maximal obfuscation” over its investments, arguing that the lack of transparency prevents faculty from conducting proper oversight of the endowment’s ties to arms manufacturers.

    A spokesperson for Cambridge for Palestine told MEE that the activist group was “shocked, but not surprised” by the university’s reversal of its public commitments. “The notice in April issued by the University Council made clear that if arms investments were to exceed a yet-to-be-decided threshold of overall investments, then exposure to such investments would be reduced as part of a new monitoring scheme,” the spokesperson said. “Now that this threshold has been set at zero percent, we are hearing that the university has chosen to ignore and sideline its own statements and commitments by removing any process of investment exposure reduction.”

    The spokesperson added that the decision is particularly problematic because it was made unilaterally by the trustee body, rather than going through the university’s formal governance processes. The original divestment motion that launched the working group process has still not been put to a vote before Regent House, Cambridge’s democratic governing body made up of faculty and staff. “The University can backtrack all it likes, and obfuscate language to avoid scrutiny and accountability,” the spokesperson said. “But Cambridge for Palestine re-emphasises that students, staff and local activists will never stop campaigning until the University’s money is used for education as it should be, not for funding war and occupation.”