标签: Asia

亚洲

  • Lebanese flee their homes as Israel orders attacks on Beirut

    Lebanese flee their homes as Israel orders attacks on Beirut

    Fresh escalation along the Israel-Lebanon border has sent civilians back into displacement, as Israel’s top security official’s threat to expand attacks into the Lebanese capital dashed the fragile normalcy residents of Beirut’s southern suburb of Dahieh had only just begun to rebuild.

    On Monday, thousands of residents who had trickled back to their homes following an April ceasefire began packing their belongings to evacuate once again, after Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz issued a blunt warning that no part of Beirut would be spared from violence if Hezbollah’s cross-front hostilities did not stop. Katz explicitly equated Dahieh, a dense, heavily residential district in southern Beirut long associated with Hezbollah, to Israeli communities in northern Israel that have faced frequent cross-border attacks. “If there is no calm in the north [of Israel], there will be no calm in Beirut,” he stated.

    Katz’s warning came amid a sharp intensification of Israel’s ground and air offensive across Lebanon over the past week, a campaign that has already pushed far beyond the country’s southern border regions. The latest point of contention centers on the ancient Beaufort Castle, a strategic hilltop fortress in southern Lebanon. While Israeli officials announced Sunday they had seized the site and raised the Israeli flag there, Hezbollah contradicted the claim in a Monday statement, confirming its fighters were continuing a “battle of attrition” against Israeli troops in the area.

    Israel frames its expanded military campaign as a necessary operation to push Hezbollah forces away from its northern border communities. Katz added that the Israeli military aims to establish full security control over the entire Litani River basin, turning the region into a weapons-free zone cleared of what Israel terms “terrorist elements.” The Litani, which runs roughly 30 kilometers north of the Israel-Lebanon border, has long been a focal point of Israeli demands for Hezbollah to withdraw its military assets from southern Lebanon.

    In recent days, Israeli military operations have pushed even further north past the Litani. Last week, the Israel Defense Forces designated all territory south of the Zahrani River — located 40 kilometers from the border and encompassing the major population centers of Tyre and Nabatieh — as an official combat zone, issuing mandatory evacuation orders for all local residents. On Monday, IDF spokesperson Avichay Adraee extended these expulsion orders to additional towns and villages located north of the Litani River.

    For residents of Dahieh, the new threats have resurrected trauma many had only just started to process after months of displacement. Thousands of residents had gradually returned to the district following the April ceasefire, repairing damaged homes, reopening shuttered businesses, and working to rebuild a fragile sense of daily normalcy. That progress has now been completely upended.

    Thirty-one-year-old Batoul Fawaz, who had spent the duration of the conflict in rented temporary accommodation, had just finalized plans to move back to her Dahieh home and returned the keys to her rental when the Israeli threat was released. Now, she is forced to rent another short-term space just to have a place to sleep. “We are no longer afraid for our lives only. We are afraid for our homes,” Fawaz told Middle East Eye. Her entire family, she added, has been scattered by displacement once again: one of her sisters had just given birth and returned to Dahieh, only to flee again with her newborn just days later.

    The new threats against Beirut come after weeks of mounting pressure from Israel’s far-right ruling coalition to escalate operations against Hezbollah, in response to the group’s increasing use of explosive FPV drones targeting Israeli troops in southern Lebanon. A recent report from Israeli public broadcaster Kan found that Hezbollah’s advanced drone capabilities are currently limiting roughly 80 percent of Israeli ground assaults in southern Lebanon.

    Senior far-right ministers have publicly pushed for massive retaliation against Lebanese civilian centers. Last week, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich called for the Lebanese capital to be collectively punished for Hezbollah’s drone attacks, arguing that “for every explosive drone, 10 buildings should fall in Beirut.” National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir has additionally urged Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to resume full-scale war in Lebanon, calling for Israel to cut the country’s national electricity supply and seize all territory up to the Zahrani River. Netanyahu has aligned with the hardline position, vowing last Friday to push Israeli forces deeper into Lebanese territory and confirming that large swathes of southern Lebanon are now classified as combat zones.

    Lebanese President Joseph Aoun condemned the latest Israeli escalation, labeling it “a vicious and reprehensible Israeli aggression.” The expanding offensive has also disrupted regional diplomatic efforts to de-escalate the wider conflict across the Middle East. Iran’s foreign ministry stated Monday that a full ceasefire in Lebanon remains a non-negotiable prerequisite for any indirect talks with the United States to end the broader regional war. Iranian state news agency Tasnim later confirmed that Iran has paused all indirect negotiations with the U.S. in response to Israel’s ongoing attacks.

    For the displaced families of Dahieh, the political and diplomatic standoff translates to a far more immediate crisis: the ceasefire that gave them a chance to return home has already been rendered meaningless, and any hope of resuming normal life has been delayed indefinitely once again.

  • ‘Ridiculous’: Social media reacts as Hasan Piker and Cenk Uygur denied entry to UK

    ‘Ridiculous’: Social media reacts as Hasan Piker and Cenk Uygur denied entry to UK

    On Monday, two high-profile American political commentators, Cenk Uygur, founder of the progressive media outlet The Young Turks, and Hasan Piker, a prominent left-wing critic of U.S. and Israeli foreign policy, confirmed that the United Kingdom government had rejected their Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) applications and blocked their entry to the country. The decision has ignited a firestorm of debate across global social media, with critics accusing the British government of bowing to external pressure to suppress legitimate criticism of the Israeli government and undermining long-standing commitments to free expression.

    Uygur and Piker had been scheduled to make multiple public appearances during their UK trip, including speaking slots at the newly launched SXSW London festival and a planned debate at the Oxford Union, one of the world’s most prestigious and historic collegiate debating societies. Piker, who has previously addressed the Oxford Union, used his 2025 speech to condemn U.S. military and diplomatic backing for Israel, arguing that mainstream Western media systematically manufactures public consent for Israeli policies that violate international law. Piker also confirmed he was set to hold private meetings with Zack Polanski, leader of the UK Green Party, and former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn during the visit, details first reported by the independent outlet Middle East Eye. In a YouTube explanation of the decision, Piker confirmed his ETA application had been formally denied.

    Shortly after Piker’s announcement, Uygur took to social platform X to confirm his own entry ban, publicly stating that his longstanding criticism of the Israeli government was the clear motivation behind the Home Office’s ruling. “I’ve been banned for criticizing Israel,” Uygur wrote. “Are we free anymore?” Piker echoed Uygur’s claim, writing in a social post that the ban was “at the behest of israel,” adding that Western powers were betraying their own stated liberal values to accommodate what he called a “genocidal fascist foreign government.”

    In an official statement provided to press outlets, the UK Home Office only confirmed that the pair’s ETAs had been cancelled “on the grounds that their presence in the UK may not be conducive to the public good.” The department added that entry decisions are “based solely on an assessment of the potential risk an individual may pose to UK society,” but declined to specify which comments or actions by Uygur and Piker formed the basis of the risk assessment.

    The decision drew immediate criticism from across the UK political spectrum and from public figures across the globe. Green Party leader Polanski described the ban as a “grim decision” in a post on X, warning that the move signals a dangerous erosion of civil liberties under the current Keir Starmer administration. “People often talk about [the] dangerous road we’d go down under a Reform government – this is another clear warning we’re down there already,” Polanski wrote.

    Even critics of the two commentators’ political views condemned the entry ban. American-Jewish political commentator Shabbos Kestenbaum, who was scheduled to debate Uygur on Piers Morgan Uncensored on the day the ban was announced, called the ruling “completely unfounded and must be reversed. Free speech must always be protected and allowed. Shame on Prime Minister Keir Starmer.” Conservative commentator Sohrab Ahmari, who has debated Uygur in the past and disagrees with nearly all his political positions, echoed that sentiment, writing on X: “But he’s no extremist or threat to public order — ridiculous to have to even type that — and I hope the UK government reconsiders.”

    Dimi Reider, co-founder of Israeli independent magazine +972 Magazine and a longstanding domestic critic of the Israeli government, argued that the Starmer administration’s decision was setting a dangerous precedent for future authoritarian policy. “The Starmer government is creating the mechanisms, precedent and, worst of all, legitimacy for the authoritarian Reform government they keep warning us about. They’re paving the way,” Reider wrote.

    Many social media users have highlighted what they call a blatant double standard in the UK’s entry policy, pointing out that Israeli President Isaac Herzog was not only permitted entry to the UK last September, but was personally welcomed by Starmer at 10 Downing Street. Herzog has been named in a UN Commission of Inquiry report as making statements that amount to direct and public incitement to commit genocide, stemming from comments he made after the October 7 2023 Hamas attacks, in which he claimed all Palestinians in Gaza were “unequivocally” responsible for the violence, rejecting distinctions between militant groups and civilian civilians.

    Other users compared the ban on Uygur and Piker to previous UK entry restrictions on far-right and extremist figures, including 11 far-right activists barred from a Tommy Robinson-led rally in May, and American rapper Kanye West, who was blocked over repeated antisemitic comments including a song titled “Heil Hitler.” Critics of the ban were quick to distinguish these cases, noting that Uygur and Piker have never been accused of promoting targeted, racist hate speech against ethnic or religious minorities.

    Both commentators have forcefully pushed back against unsubstantiated claims of antisemitism from pro-Israel supporters, rejecting the widespread conflation of anti-Zionism and criticism of the Israeli state with hatred of Jewish people. In a statement to Middle East Eye, Uygur explained: “No one should equate the actions of the Israeli government with Jewish people at large. For example, I don’t blame the British people for this decision, I blame the British government. If that statement were declared to be racist against Brits, that would be patently absurd. Banning me from the UK for criticizing the government of Israel is equally absurd. Israel often says they’re our special ally because they help defend Western civilization, this is the exact opposite – tearing down our freedoms to protect their country and their crimes against humanity.”

    Piker has similarly explicitly condemned antisemitism on multiple occasions, including during his 2025 Oxford Union address, where he stated: “Antisemitism is a canary in the coal mine of fascism.” He criticized the long history of violence against Jewish people enabled by antisemitic propaganda, adding: “Valid criticisms against the state [of Israel] committing these atrocities and tying it back to Judaism is a cynical ploy to stop all manner of conversation.”

    Prominent British media personality Piers Morgan, host of Piers Morgan Uncensored, also rejected the idea that the ban was justified, writing on X: “I only support banning people who advocate violence or who spew hateful bigotry against people based on their ethnicity/religion. Where has Cenk done that? His rage has been against the Israel govt and its policies. Free speech should protect that.”

    Officials from SXSW London released a muted statement acknowledging the decision, noting that entry rulings are the exclusive purview of the Home Office. “SXSW London’s role is to convene a broad range of diverse voices and perspectives. We remain focused on delivering a programme this week fostering open dialogue and exchange of ideas,” the statement read. Oxford Union president Arwa Elrayess directly criticized the government’s decision and reaffirmed the society’s commitment to free expression. “To this day, we defend freedom of speech; the right for our invited speakers to express themselves, and to be challenged, irrespective of political viewpoint,” Elrayess told Middle East Eye, adding that the union is currently exploring virtual format options to allow Uygur and Piker to still participate in their scheduled events. “We will not allow this event to be shut down.”

    As of publication, Middle East Eye has stated that it has reached out to the Home Office and Piker for additional comment, and no further response has been issued.

  • Mandelson called Wes Streeting’s Israel criticism ‘wild’ and ‘hysterical’

    Mandelson called Wes Streeting’s Israel criticism ‘wild’ and ‘hysterical’

    Thousands of pages of confidential documents tied to Peter Mandelson, the disgraced former Labour cabinet minister and UK ambassador to the U.S., have been made public, pulling back the curtain on bitter internal divides within Britain’s ruling Labour Party over the Israeli military campaign in Gaza and the recognition of a Palestinian state.

    Mandelson, who was appointed to the ambassador post by Prime Minister Keir Starmer in 2024, was forced to step down from the role in September 2025 after reports of his long-standing personal ties to deceased convicted sex offender and financier Jeffrey Epstein became public. It was the 1,000-plus page release of files related to Mandelson on Monday that has now revealed the intense behind-closed-doors clash between Mandelson and current UK Health Secretary Wes Streeting over Streeting’s sharp condemnation of Israeli actions in Gaza.

    An independent analysis of the released files by Middle East Eye confirms that in July 2025, just two months before the UK government formally recognized Palestinian statehood, Streeting reached out to Mandelson directly to share his unvarnished views and seek input on the pending recognition decision. Streeting argued that recognizing Palestinian statehood was the correct course of action on both moral and political grounds, writing that Israel was openly committing war crimes in Gaza for the world to see. He added that Israel’s ruling leadership used rhetoric matching ethnic cleansing, and that he had spoken to British medical personnel deployed in Gaza who described systematic, deliberate brutality targeting civilian women and children.

    Calling Israeli actions “rogue state behavior”, Streeting pushed for the UK to impose full state-level sanctions on Israel, writing that Israel should face consequences as an international pariah rather than only targeting a small number of extreme cabinet officials. These messages were originally released by Streeting himself earlier this year, and multiple anonymous Labour Party sources confirmed to Middle East Eye that the leak was intentionally orchestrated by Streeting to consolidate grassroots support ahead of a potential future leadership bid and increase political pressure on Starmer.

    Within days of receiving Streeting’s message, Mandelson launched a scathing personal attack on the Health Secretary in private text exchanges with Pat McFadden, the UK’s current Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Mandelson described Streeting’s message as “a wild long hysterical message” and told McFadden he had pushed back against Streeting’s claims, adding that the comments reflected poorly on Streeting’s political maturity. McFadden responded by confirming Streeting was aggressively pushing his views on the issue across WhatsApp groups for sitting Labour MPs.

    Four days after that exchange, Mandelson shared a post from the U.S. State Department on X with McFadden, noting that the U.S. had rejected the upcoming UN two-state solution conference that the UK planned to attend. McFadden replied that Streeting had already circulated a set of videos and a redacted memo to the entire cabinet ahead of the conference, prompting Mandelson to dismiss the action as “pathetic” and joke that Streeting was “experiencing an early midlife crisis.”

    While large portions of the released files remain redacted, the texts offer rare insight into the internal deliberations of senior British cabinet ministers in the months leading up to the UK’s formal recognition of Palestinian statehood. In a July 19 exchange, McFadden described the humanitarian situation in Gaza as heavily redacted, and added that Starmer was not inclined to support symbolic political gestures but may have no other option, suggesting that the scale of humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza left the government with little choice but to move forward with recognition.

    The files also confirm that former UK Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair remained actively engaged with current cabinet ministers throughout the decision-making process. Blair had been a key figure in former U.S. President Donald Trump’s controversial Gaza Board of Peace initiative the previous year. When Mandelson asked McFadden if he had consulted Blair on Gaza, McFadden confirmed they had spoken, noting that Blair was focused on long-term solutions, including cooperation with Arab states and reform of the Palestinian Authority. Mandelson, who has long backed a two-state solution dating back to the 1970s, responded that if the party did not move carefully, the decades-long push for a two-state solution would stall entirely, recounting how previous attempts at a final agreement had collapsed due to spoilers on both sides over the past 50 years.

    Earlier this year, former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn publicly released a letter he sent to Streeting, accusing Streeting of a “shameful failure” to resign from the Starmer cabinet despite his private condemnation of Israeli war crimes. In the letter, Corbyn argued that if the UK government acknowledges Israel is committing war crimes, any continued military or political support for the country amounts to the UK knowingly aiding and abetting those violations of international law.

    To date, the Starmer government has only imposed sanctions on far-right Israeli cabinet ministers Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, rejecting widespread calls to sanction the state of Israel itself. While diplomatic relations between the UK and Israel have grown strained under Labour, with the UK imposing a partial arms embargo on Israel, the Starmer government has maintained military cooperation with Israel throughout its ongoing military campaign in Gaza that has been widely described as genocide. As recently as March 2025, just months before Streeting sent his private messages, Starmer walked back comments from then-Foreign Secretary David Lammy that confirmed Israel had committed a breach of international law in Gaza.

  • Egyptian activist in ‘real danger’ in Oman as she faces extradition over social media posts

    Egyptian activist in ‘real danger’ in Oman as she faces extradition over social media posts

    A politically charged case spanning the Gulf and North Africa has sparked urgent alarm from human rights advocates, as an Egyptian dissident and her days-old newborn face forced extradition from Oman to Cairo, in what legal representatives say is a brazen misuse of international law enforcement frameworks built for transnational crime, not political repression.

  • Shias in Lucknow mourn Khamenei even as India strengthens ties with Israel

    Shias in Lucknow mourn Khamenei even as India strengthens ties with Israel

    Beneath the scorching dry-season winds that cut through the narrow lanes of Lucknow’s historic old city, an unmistakable display of solidarity with Iran fills every public space. At Hussainabad Chowk, the city’s bustling central open plaza, towering posters of the recently assassinated Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei billow, one bearing a Hindi inscription that reads: “Heartfelt and tearful homage to the great leader and guide of world peace and humanity, Martyr Ayatollah Sajjad Ali Husaini Khamenei Sahib.” Another poster positions Mojtaba Khamenei, Iran’s new supreme leader, standing protectively behind his slain father, hands resting gently on his shoulders.

    Further into the warren of old city alleyways, reverence for Iran’s ayatollahs appears everywhere: hand-painted graffiti, framed portraits, and street-side murals line every wall. In a stark act of protest, Israeli and American flags are painted directly onto the dusty paving stones, alongside portraits of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, U.S. President Donald Trump, and Saudi Arabia’s de facto leader Mohammed bin Salman, placed deliberately to be stepped on by passing pedestrians. Netanyahu’s image is the most heavily worn, reduced to faint fragments against the tattered blue-and-white backdrop of the Israeli flag, while Trump’s portrait remains partially intact—a vivid visual marker of the relative intensity of public anger toward each figure, shaped by their role in the strikes that killed Khamenei.

    This grassroots activism is not a new outburst: soon after the October 7, 2023 attacks on Israel, local shopkeepers in old Lucknow launched a grassroots boycott of American and Israeli-linked goods, pouring thousands of bottles of Coca-Cola down open drains. Today, the only cola stocked on store shelves is Campa Cola, a popular Indian-made alternative. What makes this display of anti-Israel protest particularly striking is its location: it unfolds in the country of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, one of Israel’s closest global allies.

    Lucknow, the capital of India’s most populous state Uttar Pradesh, carries centuries of deep cultural and religious ties to Iran. Once ruled by the Nawabs of Lucknow, a Persian-origin dynasty that governed the Awadh region through the 18th and 19th centuries, the city grew into one of South Asia’s preeminent centers of Indo-Islamic culture, with its art, cuisine, music, and architecture all bearing enduring West Asian influences. Today, it is home to India’s largest Shia Muslim community, concentrated heavily in the old city’s winding neighborhoods.

    When news broke on February 28 of the joint U.S.-Israeli strike that killed Khamenei, spontaneous protests erupted across old Lucknow within hours. Chants of “America Murdabad” and “Israel Murdabad”—translated as “Death to America” and “Death to Israel”—echoed off the Chowk’s historic sandstone walls. By sunset, thousands of mourners gathered at Bada Imambara, Lucknow’s iconic 18th-century Shia religious site and top tourist attraction, to light candles in honor of Khamenei, whom many now honor as a martyr.

    A historic slogan tied to the core of Shia identity was quickly reworked to reflect the moment: the centuries-old cry “Hussaini maaroge, har ghar Hussaini Niklega” (“If you kill one Hussaini, a hundred more will rise from every home”), rooted in the 680 CE martyrdom of Imam Hussain at the Battle of Karbala, became “Tum kitne Khamenei maaroge, har ghar se Khamenei niklega” (“If you kill one Khamenei, thousands more will emerge from every household”). The adaptation sent a clear message: the Shia community of Lucknow views itself as an integral part of the global Shia resistance movement.

    “Lucknow’s historical relationship with Iran is such that it was once called the Shiraz of the East,” explains Akbar Mehdi, a young Shia cleric originally from a small town east of Lucknow who now resides in the Iranian holy city of Qom. Mehdi returned to India for the holy month of Ramadan shortly before the strike and has been unable to return to Iran amid the ongoing conflict. “In dining customs, in everyday conversation, an Iranian imprint is clearly visible across our culture here,” he said.

    While connections between Lucknow and Iran predate the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the depth of ideological alignment grew dramatically in the decades that followed, according to Ziyaullah Siddiqui, co-editor of the Urdu-language news portal Qasidnama. His co-editor Shibli Beg explains that Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s introduction of the concept of Wilayat-e-Faqih—rule by Islamic jurists as a temporary guardianship before the messianic return of the Mehdi—shifted the entire orientation of Lucknow’s Shia community. After 1979, the community’s center of gravity moved from local religious affairs to an increasingly Iran-centric global outlook, with hundreds of young Lucknow Shias traveling to Iran for religious education, and nearly all of the city’s most prominent senior clerics completing their studies in Iranian seminaries.

    The ancestral ties binding the two regions run even deeper than the revolution: just a short drive from Lucknow, the small village of Kintoor sits amid the lush, fertile paddy fields of the Gangetic Plains, and it is the ancestral birthplace of Khomeini himself. Khomeini’s grandfather, Syed Ahmad Musavi Hindi, was born in Kintoor in 1790 before migrating to the Iranian village of Khomein at age 40.

    In the neighboring village of Rasulpur, Middle East Eye met Rehan Kazmi, a local doctor, descendant of Khomeini, and distant cousin of Iran’s first revolutionary supreme leader, who also founded the Imam Khomeini Foundation to preserve the family’s ancestral connection to the region. “The Kazmi family of Rasulpur and the Kazmi-Musavi family of Kintoor share the same bloodline,” Kazmi explained during an interview in his clinic, where four framed images hang on the wall: a local Sufi saint Haji Waris Ali Shah, a piece of embroidered Islamic calligraphy, Ali Khamenei, and Ruhollah Khomeini. “Around 900 years ago, our ancestors moved to this land from Nishapur in Iran and settled here. We have been Indians ever since,” he said, recalling that even during his childhood in the village, Farsi was so commonly spoken that “even the chickens understood Farsi commands.”

    Kazmi recalled that within hours of news of Khamenei’s assassination breaking on February 28, villagers across the region took to the streets to condemn the strike and express solidarity with Iran. They marched carrying portraits of Khomeini and Khamenei, all local shops closed their doors, and the village observed three days of official mourning.

    While Lucknow is home to India’s largest Shia community, the city’s overall population is majority Hindu, and Uttar Pradesh is governed by Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, a controversial Hindu nationalist priest-politician infamous for his anti-Muslim rhetoric and repeated actions that stoke inter-religious communal tension. He once claimed “Muslims did no favour to India by staying here.” Yet despite this tense political context, local journalist Siddiqui noted that aside from a tiny number of isolated provocations early on, the widespread pro-Iran protests have seen remarkably little communal pushback. “Lucknow is a city where Hindu-Muslim riots have never taken root. During the 1947 Partition of India and Pakistan, the city was largely spared the bloodshed that tore apart other parts of the subcontinent. People here are sensible. This is a city of tehzeeb—of civilisation,” he said.

    By mid-March, the nature of the solidarity movement shifted: large, public street protests gave way to coordinated humanitarian fundraising for Iranian civilians affected by the ongoing war. Even the poorest members of the community contributed what they could, Kazmi said. “Even very poor daily wage labourers gave whatever small change they had. It shows how deeply people here care about this cause.” One young donor, who himself relied on casual work to support his family and clearly had little to spare, told organizers: “Such is my love for Iran, I could not give less.”

    The gap between this widespread grassroots solidarity and India’s official foreign policy could not be wider. Modi’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government in New Delhi maintains extremely close ties to Israel: India is the world’s largest buyer of Israeli military equipment, and just three days before the joint U.S.-Israeli strike on Iran began, Modi completed a high-profile state visit to Israel. Standing alongside Netanyahu on February 25, Modi declared: “Israel is the Fatherland, India is the Motherland,” and even noted that his birthday falls on the same date that India first formally recognized Israel, framing the alliance as a personally fated bond. Just two days after that visit, the war on Iran began.

    The conflict has already delivered tangible economic harm to India, which relies almost entirely on energy shipments passing through the Strait of Hormuz. Nine out of 10 Indian households rely on liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) cylinders for cooking, and roughly 60% of India’s total LPG imports pass through the strategic waterway. From the first day of the war, Indian households faced sharp price hikes and long waiting lines for refills, and widespread public panic has gripped the country ever since. When negotiations between the U.S. and Iran collapsed in mid-May, Modi publicly called on Indian citizens to cut energy use by using public transport and working from home wherever possible.

    “Both the ordinary people of India and Iran are unhappy with India aligning so closely with Israel,” cleric Akbar Mehdi said. “People here can tell truth from falsehood. Iran, Lebanon, Yemen, Palestine—this is the path of truth, the path of Karbala, the path of Islam.”

    Today, India presents a picture of two competing national narratives existing side by side. On one side is the BJP government, which has refused to condemn Israel’s military campaign, even as its own supporters grow increasingly anxious about the economic fallout of the conflict. On the other side is the grassroots pro-Iran solidarity movement, whose leaders are hesitant to openly challenge the central government: after 12 years of BJP rule, India’s Muslim community as a whole, and Shia Muslims in particular, are a marginalized minority with very little representation in national politics, and face widespread systemic pressure. “We cannot speak openly against the government, because of the fear and the constant pressure we live under,” Mehdi explained.

    Once a leading global voice for Palestinian statehood and the first large country to cut diplomatic ties with apartheid South Africa, India now maintains a deliberate silence on the violation of Iran’s sovereignty, though it has also walked back its early overtly pro-Israel rhetoric in the face of growing domestic and regional discontent. Many critics in Lucknow argue that the BJP’s current foreign policy is unmoored and weak, leaving India increasingly isolated across West Asia as anti-Western and pro-resistance sentiment spreads across Asia.

    For Rehan Kazmi, the shift in India’s longstanding principles is the core of the problem. “The leaders who built independent India experienced oppression themselves, they stood with the victims of colonialism. They understood what was happening in Palestine, because they had fought the same fight. Our ancestors sacrificed everything to free this country. Today, the soul of India is under attack. If the soul is gone, the body has no meaning.”

  • In Tehran, exhausted Iranians are caught between war and the shadow of war

    In Tehran, exhausted Iranians are caught between war and the shadow of war

    More than three months have passed since the United States and Israel opened military hostilities against Iran, and for ordinary Iranian citizens across Tehran, every day has been defined by a single, draining reality: a liminal state of neither open war nor lasting peace that has left nearly all facets of daily life frozen. For 38-year-old Tehran resident Afshin, his weariness echoes the sentiment of a large swathe of the population. “We’re exhausted,” he shared in an interview. “It’s either been war since last summer, or the constant shadow of war. I hope they reach a deal so we can finally escape this suspended state… I just want life to go back to normal.”

    Against this backdrop of persistent instability, many Iranians hold a fragile, tentative hope that indirect negotiations between Tehran and Washington, brokered by regional intermediaries including Pakistan and Qatar, will pull the country out of its current crisis. These talks have continued despite major escalations: recent U.S. airstrikes on southern Iran and Israel’s ongoing ground invasion of southern Lebanon have failed to derail the diplomatic process entirely. Over the past week, circulating reports suggest a potential preliminary deal that would institute a 60-day mutual ceasefire, creating space for negotiators to hammer out a more comprehensive agreement addressing longstanding sticking points, including Iran’s uranium enrichment program and the relief of crippling U.S. economic sanctions.

    Yet for all the quiet hope, no guarantee of a breakthrough exists, and the endless uncertainty has become a heavy emotional burden that most Iranians struggle to carry week after week. While 27-year-old Tehran resident Hediyeh suspects a preliminary agreement has already been finalized behind closed doors—telling Middle East Eye that “it appears they’re only still negotiating on how and when to announce it”—she remains deeply skeptical of how long any deal will hold. She notes that public speculation already frames the 60-day ceasefire as merely a delay for tougher negotiations on core issues to come later. “But what if there isn’t a final agreement? Honestly, we’re tired. We are tired of hearing about uranium and the nuclear programme and negotiations and ‘informed sources who asked not to be named,’” she said.

    For many Iranians, recent history only fuels deep distrust of the ongoing diplomatic process. Both the 12-day conflict last year and the new war that began in late February broke out while Iranian and U.S. diplomats were already engaged in indirect talks through intermediaries. That pattern has left many convinced another outbreak of hostilities could come at any time, even amid current negotiations. “I don’t trust Trump anymore,” 46-year-old Mohammad, another Tehran resident, told Middle East Eye. “Two times he attacked us while we were negotiating. Why shouldn’t it happen a third time? All this uncertainty drags my mind more towards the possibility of another war.”

    Trump’s own erratic public messaging has only amplified this uncertainty: the U.S. president has shifted wildly day to day, sometimes posting respectful messages to Iranian officials on social media and claiming a deal is close, only to turn around days later and tell reporters he is unhappy with proposed terms and issue new threats of military action. This inconsistency has filtered through his own administration, creating whiplash for observers both inside and outside Iran. On May 28, the Associated Press cited multiple senior U.S. officials reporting that the full text of a preliminary agreement had been finalized and was waiting for Trump’s approval. Just hours later, Iran’s Tasnim News Agency, an outlet aligned with the country’s Revolutionary Guards, rejected the report entirely. Citing a senior Iranian negotiator, Tasnim confirmed no final text had been agreed, and no such update had been shared with Pakistani mediators. The conflicting reports have only deepened public suspicion across Iran.

    For business owners like 58-year-old clothing retailer Hamidreza, this months-long uncertainty has paralyzed economic activity across the country, from large enterprises to ordinary households. “Everything in our lives is hanging in the air. We don’t know what to do. The market is terrible. We can’t plan ahead. We can’t even visualise the future adequately. Customers are in exactly the same situation,” he explained. Asked if he believes a deal will ever be reached, he laughed bitterly. “Trump himself likely doesn’t know, much less me. Anyone who tells you with certainty what’s going to happen is a charlatan. The world is now dealing with a man who goes into one night’s sleep and wakes up the next morning saying something totally different. How can anyone properly and confidently predict anything, when so much of global politics rests on someone this unpredictable?”

    This uncertainty has not only strained public mood and business activity—it has upended concrete, long-held personal plans for many Iranians. Thirty-one-year-old lab technician Sima, who had been planning to pursue a master’s degree in Europe, has seen her dream put on indefinite hold. Visa processing for most Iranians has effectively frozen amid the current crisis, she explained. “Many European embassies in Tehran are essentially semi-shut down. You cannot get an appointment in Iran, they won’t permit you to apply through embassies in neighbouring countries either,” she said. After spending months securing admission to a reputable Italian university, the Iranian rial collapsed in value, completely wiping out her carefully calculated budget for study abroad. Even with an acceptance letter in hand, she cannot book a visa appointment—and the new academic year is just months away.

    Not all Iranians are pushing for a rapid deal with Washington, either. Some argue that a hasty agreement could become another strategic trap that leaves Iran surrendering key leverage without gaining any meaningful, lasting concessions. Forty-one-year-old civil engineer Mehdi is deeply pessimistic about the current negotiation framework, questioning what Iran will actually gain in exchange for the concessions it is being asked to make. “If they stopped the war and went back to bargaining, it’s from pressure associated with the Strait of Hormuz and increasing oil costs,” he noted. “So now we reopen the strait and in return they return a tiny fraction of our own frozen cash? That sounds absurd to me.”

    Mehdi fears that any temporary ceasefire deal will ultimately weaken Iran’s position without preventing a future full-scale conflict. “I’m not saying I like war,” he clarified. “But do you know what’s worse than war? When they can go wherever they want, blow up parts of your country, and nothing really happens in return. That’s how things played out for years in Syria.” He warns that if Iran eases economic pressure on the U.S. and global markets, Washington and Israel will simply return to all-out military action once Iran has given up its leverage.

    For now, the majority of ordinary Iranians are trapped between two equally frightening outcomes: the immediate fear of a resumption of full-scale war, and the long-term fear that a flawed, fragile peace will only delay the inevitable conflict, leaving them exhausted and adrift in limbo for months or years to come.

  • For Nigeria’s Shia, the US-Israeli war on Iran is personal

    For Nigeria’s Shia, the US-Israeli war on Iran is personal

    On a sweltering March afternoon, hundreds of men clad in all black marched in a winding procession through the main thoroughfares of Kano, one of Nigeria’s largest northern cities. They carried framed portraits of Iran’s top leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, waved Iranian national flags, and filled the air with chants denouncing joint US-Israeli military strikes on Iran, declaring unwavering solidarity with what they called “a nation under oppression.”

    To casual onlookers lingering at roadside storefronts or peering out from passing public buses, the demonstration looked like a scene borrowed from a conflict drama unfolding thousands of kilometers away in the Middle East. But for Nigeria’s minority Shia Muslim community, the public rally was far more than performance: the US-Israeli campaign against Iran hits close to home, bound by decades of ideological, religious, and cultural ties.

    In the weeks following the outbreak of the latest Middle Eastern conflict, nearly identical pro-Iran demonstrations have cropped up across major Nigerian cities, from Kano and Sokoto to Gombe and the federal capital Abuja. Organized primarily by members and supporters of the proscribed Islamic Movement in Nigeria (IMN) — one of the most influential Shia movements across the African continent — these rallies lay bare a stark reality: global geopolitical tensions can reverberate powerfully among local religious communities thousands of miles from active battlefields.

    The gatherings also underscore the persistent ideological pull Iran has maintained among segments of Nigeria’s Shia population, nearly 50 years after the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Tehran inspired grassroots movements across the Middle East and large swathes of Africa. “We believe Iran is standing against oppression and foreign domination,” explained Ibrahim Musa, a 32-year-old local trader who joined the Kano march. “As Shia Muslims, we feel connected to their struggle.”

    Nearly 100 days have passed since the February 28 US-Israeli attacks on Iran ignited a broader regional conflict, and its economic and political aftershocks continue to ripple far beyond the Middle East. In Nigeria, where the vast majority of the country’s large Muslim population identifies as Sunni, the Shia minority has cultivated deep spiritual and ideological bonds with Iran for generations, viewing the country as a global symbol of anti-imperial resistance. These ties solidified in the late 1970s and 1980s, when the IMN emerged under the leadership of Sheikh Ibrahim el-Zakzaky.

    Drawing direct inspiration from Iran’s Islamic Revolution, Zakzaky built a movement centered on grassroots political activism, community social welfare programs, and uncompromising opposition to Western political influence in West Africa. Over decades, the IMN built formal educational and religious partnerships with Tehran, with hundreds of members traveling to Iran to pursue advanced Islamic theological studies. Today, Iran remains a potent symbolic touchstone for much of Nigeria’s Shia community.

    “Supporting Iran is not only about politics. Many people see it as defending Muslim dignity against powerful Western countries,” noted Abdullahi Sani, a Shia cleric based in Sokoto, in an interview with Middle East Eye.

    Moses Abolade, a leading African geopolitics scholar and peacebuilding consultant with the Peace Education and Practice Network, explained that Iran has spent decades carefully building ties across African nations through religious training scholarships, investment in local religious institutions, humanitarian development projects, and targeted diplomatic outreach. While Tehran’s overall influence on the continent pales in comparison to global powers like China, the United States, and Russia, it has successfully nurtured deep loyalty among Shia minority communities in countries including Nigeria, Senegal, and Tanzania.

    “The recent protests by some Nigerian Shia Muslims over the US-Israel-Iran tensions reflect how global conflicts increasingly shape local identities, emotions, and public discourse far beyond the Middle East,” Abolade told Middle East Eye. “For many participants, Iran represents not just a sovereign nation, but a symbol of transnational religious and political solidarity. While these demonstrations may not shift the balance of global geopolitics directly, they deliver symbolic morale boost and reinforce narratives of international solidarity that strengthen Iran’s ideological standing against Western powers.”

    Even so, Abolade emphasized that the rallies do not represent the views of all Nigerians or all Nigerian Muslims, and warned that framing the conflict through a sectarian lens risks deepening existing domestic social divides. “The deeper concern is how transnational narratives, social media amplification, and global political tensions can worsen polarization, spread misinformation, and stoke sectarian mistrust within already fragile Nigerian society,” he said. “Nigeria’s extraordinary religious and ethnic diversity demands that these issues be approached with extreme caution and responsibility to avoid importing foreign conflicts into local community dynamics.”

    For Nigeria’s Shia community, which has long faced official suspicion and repeated government crackdowns, the protests also serve a quiet domestic political purpose. The IMN has endured years of tense, often hostile relations with the Nigerian federal government, particularly after a 2015 clash in Zaria where Nigerian army forces killed hundreds of IMN members. The government formally banned the movement in 2019, and in the years since, IMN members have organized regular public demonstrations to demand accountability for the Zaria killings and greater official recognition of the movement. For many members, global developments connected to Iran act as a natural rallying point, creating space to reaffirm their shared religious and political identity and reinforce collective unity.

    Not all observers view the demonstrations as benign, however. Retired Colonel AY Gwandu, a senior security official at Usmanu Danfodiyo University, noted that “there is inherent concern whenever foreign conflicts begin to shape the activities of local religious groups.” He added that many ordinary Nigerians fear the rallies could deepen domestic sectarian divides or create new domestic security risks.

    Nigeria has struggled for decades with violent insurgency linked to Sunni extremist groups including Boko Haram and the Islamic State West Africa Province. While the IMN holds distinct ideological positions that separate it from these extremist organizations, Nigerian security agencies have continued to closely monitor the movement’s activities. Although authorities have occasionally dispersed IMN gatherings over public safety concerns, the recent pro-Iran demonstrations have remained overwhelmingly peaceful.

    Even so, many residents of northern Nigeria still worry that these displays could heighten sectarian tensions in a country already grappling with chronic insecurity, rising religious extremism, and deep political instability. Political analysts add that the demonstrations also put Nigeria in a diplomatically delicate position, as the country maintains formal ties with Western nations, Israel, Gulf Arab states, and Iran simultaneously. While open public displays of support for Tehran by local groups are unlikely to shift Nigeria’s official foreign policy directly, they highlight how increasingly global power rivalries are reshaping domestic political discourse in African states.

    Political scientist Abdulqodir Yunus explained that the Nigerian government is currently navigating pressure to “balance respect for freedom of expression with legitimate domestic security concerns.” He added that “these protests make clear that international conflicts now have unavoidable local dimensions” across the globe.

    For the protesters themselves, however, the movement is as much about collective belonging as it is about geopolitics. In Kano, demonstrators of all ages — including women and children — marched through crowded commercial streets under heavy police observation. Some carried large banners accusing the United States and Israel of unprovoked aggression, while others called on the international community to stand with Iran. Similar scenes were documented across Sokoto and Gombe States, where participants chanted for unity and condemned Western military intervention in the Middle East. While solidarity with Iran was the rally’s official central theme, the gatherings also doubled as public assertions of religious identity and resistance to what participants frame as global injustice.

    “If another Muslim nation is suffering, we cannot ignore it,” said Musa, the Kano trader. At a rally in Gombe, religious chants filled the afternoon air, punctuated by large posters featuring images of Iranian leaders alongside portraits of IMN founder Zakzaky.

    To outside observers, this display of transnational solidarity may seem striking in a West African nation grappling with its own severe economic struggles and security crises, but protesters insist their shared struggle transcends geographic borders. For Tehran, these public displays across African cities confirm that the Islamic Republic’s ideological message still resonates globally, even amid decades of diplomatic isolation and crippling economic sanctions. For Nigerian Shia, the rallies reaffirm their connection to a broader transnational movement.

    “These protests give us a voice,” said Fatima Aliyu, a university student who joined the demonstration at Abuja’s National Mosque. “Even though we are far away, we want Iran to know they are not alone.”

  • Trump tells Erdogan he plans to visit Turkey for Nato summit

    Trump tells Erdogan he plans to visit Turkey for Nato summit

    Multiple anonymous sources with direct knowledge of recent diplomatic conversations between Washington and Ankara have confirmed to Middle East Eye that former President Donald Trump, the sitting U.S. President, has informed Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan that he intends to participate in the upcoming NATO summit scheduled to take place in Ankara this coming July. The development marks a sharp reversal from Trump’s public stance just one month prior, when he stated in April that he was actively evaluating a full U.S. withdrawal from the 75-year-old transatlantic security alliance and made clear he was deeply dissatisfied with NATO’s member commitments and operations.

    The shift in tone occurred during a formal phone call between the two heads of state on May 20, where Trump confirmed his planned visit to the Turkish capital for the alliance’s flagship annual gathering. Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan publicly reinforced this framing over the recent weekend, noting that Erdogan has held multiple conversations with Trump over the past 30 days, and at no point in those discussions did Trump indicate he would skip the summit.

    Beyond the NATO summit, additional reporting has raised speculation about a potential earlier informal meeting between the two leaders. Turkey is set to face the United States in a group-stage World Cup match in Los Angeles on June 25, and sources familiar with Erdogan’s patterns note the Turkish leader frequently attends major international tournaments to support his national team. If Erdogan proceeds with a trip to California for the match, sources say he is likely to request a bilateral meeting with Trump and even invite the U.S. president to attend the match as his guest. No final decision has been reached on this potential side meeting, however.

    Diplomatic observers note Trump’s reported commitment to the Ankara visit aligns with longstanding reciprocal travel agreements: Erdogan traveled to Washington during both of Trump’s first and second presidential terms, and Trump has repeatedly promised to make a return visit to Turkey. Still, senior U.S. and European officials caution that nothing regarding Trump’s attendance has been formally finalized, pointing to Trump’s well-documented history of impulsive decision-making and last-minute changes to planned itineraries. The White House has not yet issued a formal response to requests for comment from Middle East Eye.

    Trump’s shifting comments on NATO are not an isolated incident, either. Earlier this year, the U.S. leader sent conflicting signals on European force deployments: he announced a plan to withdraw 5,000 U.S. troops from the continent, only to reverse course weeks later and say he would deploy the same number of troops to Poland instead.

    The uncertainty around Trump’s attendance has pushed European officials to rank the Ankara summit as one of the most critical alliance gatherings in recent decades. Many European capitals now view the meeting as a make-or-break moment for NATO’s future, amid persistent signals from Trump that the U.S. may no longer be willing to uphold its longstanding security commitments to defend Europe against external aggression.

    One senior European official summed up the split sentiment to Middle East Eye: “If he comes, there may be mayhem and shouting matches. However, if he doesn’t come, it would be detrimental to the future of the alliance.”

    NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte and other senior European alliance leaders are already preparing to use the summit to make a direct case to Trump, laying out detailed arguments for why the alliance remains a cornerstone of transatlantic security and critical to U.S. strategic interests. Some more pessimistic European diplomats, however, argue that the shifts in U.S. policy set in motion during Trump’s previous term are already on an irreversible path toward a full drawdown of U.S. security commitments in Europe. For these officials, the priority for host nation Turkey and other NATO allies is not to convince Trump to stay, but to secure a clear roadmap from Washington for a gradual, orderly U.S. withdrawal rather than a sudden, destabilizing exit.

    One senior European diplomat explained, “We need a new framework that could both accommodate Trump’s wishes and address Europe’s security needs. But it would take years.”

  • Hasan Piker was set to meet Zack Polanski and Jeremy Corbyn in UK before being banned

    Hasan Piker was set to meet Zack Polanski and Jeremy Corbyn in UK before being banned

    A brewing controversy over free speech and political censorship has erupted in the United Kingdom after the Home Office blocked entry for two high-profile American progressive political commentators over their public criticism of Israel, multiple sources confirm to Middle East Eye. Hasan Piker and Cenk Uygur, founder and host of the popular online political show *The Young Turks*, were scheduled for a slate of public events across the UK this week, including podcast interviews, a planned discussion with veteran British politician Jeremy Corbyn, speaking engagements at the Oxford Union and SXSW London festival. But their travel authorisations were revoked at the eleventh hour, shutting down all planned in-person appearances.

    The cancellation of the pair’s visit drew immediate condemnation from across the UK political spectrum, with critics arguing the move exposes a growing bias against dissent on Israeli policy, while supporters frame the ban as a necessary step to curb hate speech and community division. Green Party deputy leader Zack Polanski, who was set to host Piker on his *Bold Politics* podcast, was among the first to speak out against the decision Monday morning.

    “People often talk about the dangerous road we would go down under a Reform government – this is another clear warning we are already down that road,” Polanski said in a statement, demanding answers from UK Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood and Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham. “A Labour government is doing everything possible to silence criticism of the Israeli Government,” he added.

    Corbyn, the former Labour Party leader and a longstanding critic of Israeli policy who was set to join Piker for a separate interview with UK outlet PoliticsJOE, called the ban “an absurd and cowardly decision from an increasingly authoritarian government.” He went further, framing the move as an overt attack on fundamental democratic rights: “Let us call this what it is: an attack on the freedom to criticise Israel, as well as the UK government’s own complicity in genocide,” he said. As of publication, PoliticsJOE has not released an official comment on the planned interview, and MEE has reached out to the outlet for additional context.

    Both Piker and Uygur have confirmed the ban stems directly from their public condemnation of Israel’s ongoing military campaign in Gaza, which both have described as genocide. The Times of London reported that Mahmood revoked Uygur’s Electronic Travel Authorisation after concluding his presence in the UK would not be “conducive to the public good,” citing official Home Office concerns that his rhetoric on Israel could fuel antisemitism and stoke tensions between local communities.

    Uygur pushed back against that characterization in a post on X, the social platform formerly known as Twitter, mocking the Home Office’s reasoning. “The British government said that my charge that Israel controls the American government through donations to 94% of Congress, while factual, is antisemitic nonetheless,” he wrote. “Don’t know if facts will soon be banned in Britain. I didn’t get banned for criticizing the UK, but for criticizing Israel. They broke the irony record by saying it was because I said Israel might control other governments. I wonder if they’re going to ban themselves.”

    Organizers of the planned events have also voiced alarm over the last-minute cancellation. Arwa Elrayess, president of the Oxford Union, told MEE the speaking engagements had been publicly announced months in advance, making the sudden Home Office ruling all the more disruptive and worrying. “To this day, we defend freedom of speech; the right for our invited speakers to express themselves, and to be challenged, irrespective of political viewpoint,” Elrayess said, adding that the union is exploring all available alternatives to hold the discussion, including moving the event to an online format.

    A spokesperson for SXSW London, meanwhile, noted that entry decisions fall exclusively under the purview of the Home Office and the individuals affected. “SXSW London’s role is to convene a broad range of diverse voices and perspectives,” the organization said in a statement.

    Not all politicians have criticized the ban, however. Last week, Labour MP David Taylor publicly called on the Home Office to bar Piker from entering the UK, and he applauded the decision after it was announced Monday. “Thank you Home Secretary for revoking Hasan Piker’s visa,” Taylor said. “There’s no reason to open our doors to those who seek to spread hate and division, especially to those who’ve supported a proscribed terror group.”

    The ban is part of a broader recent trend of the UK Home Office denying entry to high-profile foreign speakers over a range of political concerns. Last month, officials barred 11 people scheduled to speak at a far-right rally organized by anti-Islam activist Tommy Robinson, whose legal name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon.

    British left-wing commentator Aaron Bastani drew a contrast between the UK’s current approach to dissenting speech and its historical position as a haven for exiled political thinkers. “Britain at the height of its power and prestige was home to Karl Marx and Giuseppe Mazzini. It was a refuge for Alexander Herzen and Victor Hugo,” Bastani said. “Now, in 2026, it won’t allow American YouTubers & streamers to enter because they criticised Israel.”

  • Israelis sing national anthem inside Al-Aqsa Mosque during raid

    Israelis sing national anthem inside Al-Aqsa Mosque during raid

    On a Sunday in May 2026, a contingent of at least 199 Israeli ultranationalists carried out a deeply provocative incursion into the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound in occupied East Jerusalem, under the direct protection of Israeli police. During the raid, the group raised the Israeli national flag, sang the country’s national anthem, and multiple participants openly conducted Talmudic prayers — actions that directly violate long-standing agreements governing the holy site.

    Al-Aqsa Mosque ranks as one of the most sacred sites in Islam, and its governance has been guided for decades by a globally recognized status quo arrangement. This binding international framework, widely accepted by major world powers, explicitly designates the entire mosque complex as an exclusively Islamic place of worship, where only Muslim followers may conduct religious rituals. While non-Muslim visitors are permitted limited access under specific conditions, all administrative, maintenance, and worship oversight falls to the Jerusalem Islamic Waqf, which operates under the custodianship of Jordan’s king, with Jordan holding formal protection responsibility for the site.

    For years, however, Israel has faced growing international condemnation for systematically eroding this status quo. Successive Israeli governments, and particularly the hard-line administration led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that took office in 2022, have increasingly facilitated near-daily incursions by ultranationalist Jewish groups into the compound, allowing activities that were banned for decades to prevent regional unrest. For generations, Israeli leaders enforced restrictions on displays of the Israeli flag and formal Jewish prayer at Al-Aqsa, out of explicit concern that such actions would ignite widespread violence across Jerusalem and the occupied Palestinian territories. But ultranationalist factions, which openly advocate for the destruction of Al-Aqsa Mosque to build a Jewish temple in its place, have pushed relentlessly to lift these restrictions, and Netanyahu’s government has largely capitulated to their demands.

    Speaking to Anadolu Agency following Sunday’s incursion, Omar Rajoub, media department director for the Jerusalem Governorate, framed the action as part of a deliberate, state-backed campaign to reshape the identity of East Jerusalem. “Raising the Israeli flag inside the courtyards of Al-Aqsa Mosque, along with performing provocative rituals, is part of a systematic and deliberate official Israeli policy led by the extremist occupation government,” Rajoub stated. He added that these targeted practices are intended to forcibly impose new realities on occupied East Jerusalem, and fundamentally undermine the site’s centuries-old historical and legal status quo.

    Rajoub warned that the repeated incursions by settlers and ultranationalists are a core component of an ongoing colonial project to Judaize Jerusalem and erase the city’s existing Palestinian, Arab, and Islamic religious and historical identity. He emphasized that these incursions, which are enabled and protected by Israeli security forces, amount to a clear violation of international law, and held the Netanyahu government fully accountable for any subsequent escalation of tensions in the region.

    On the day of the incursion, Israeli police imposed additional strict restrictions on Palestinian worshippers seeking entry to the mosque, multiple witnesses confirmed. Several worshippers reported that their identity documents were seized by officers at the outer gates of the compound, barring them from accessing the site for worship. The Jerusalem Islamic Waqf added that the Israeli settlers deliberately provoked on-site guards and worshippers by taking photos throughout the mosque courtyards, including in front of the iconic Dome of the Rock, one of the most recognizable and sacred landmarks in the city.