标签： Asia

For nearly 200 years, the Oxford Union has stood as one of the world’s most iconic platforms for provocative and unfiltered debate, with former British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan once hailing it as “the last bastion of free speech in the western world.” Today, that famous line is emblazoned outside the society’s campus bar, a constant reminder of the core principle the institution was built to defend – and this term, its president Arwa Elrayess is putting that principle to the test in a high-profile standoff with the British government.

Elrayess, a Palestinian student, has issued a firm vow to push forward with a planned speaking event featuring American political commentators Cenk Uygur and Hasan Piker, after UK authorities barred the two men from entering the country. Originally scheduled to appear in person at the union and at London’s SXSW festival, the pair will now address Oxford students via livestream on Saturday 6 June, with the society refusing to scrap the event entirely.

The clash began when UK Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood revoked Uygur’s electronic travel authorisation, ruling that his presence in the United Kingdom would not be “conducive to the public good.” Uygur, for his part, says the ban stems from his public criticism of Israel. In a post on X, he explained that the UK government labeled his widely shared claim that Israel influences the U.S. Congress via campaign donations as antisemitic, even as it acknowledged his statement was factually grounded. “Don’t know if facts will soon be banned in Britain,” he wrote. “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.”

Piker, who spoke at the Oxford Union last year, noted his 2024 address focused on “the dangers of conflating Judaism and Zionism & how this foments antisemitism.”

In an exclusive interview with Middle East Eye published Monday, Elrayess issued a sharp rebuke of the government’s decision, doubling down on the union’s commitment to holding the event. “The Oxford Union was founded on one principle: that ideas are challenged through debate, not silenced by decree,” she said. “We have never turned a speaker away because of their political beliefs nor have we sought a permission slip from the state. We will not start now.” Reaffirming that the event would not be canceled, she added, “Free speech does not require a visa.”

Elrayess, who has personal experience with the censorship of pro-Palestinian speech, framed the standoff as a defense of the institution’s 201-year legacy. Founded in 1823 by students rebelling against official campus censorship, the Oxford Union has a long history of defending controversial speech that draws political backlash. In 1933, the union passed an anti-war motion that earned a blistering condemnation from Winston Churchill, who called the body “abject, squalid, shameless” and “nauseating.” In 1964, civil rights leader Malcolm X delivered a legendary address defending the principle that “extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” More recently, the union made headlines when O.J. Simpson spoke just after his acquittal on murder charges, and the UK government blocked broadcasts of a speech by Sinn Fein politician Gerry Adams. Just this year, the society drew widespread condemnation from right-wing British media after its members voted overwhelmingly to declare Israel “an apartheid state responsible for genocide.” It also faced criticism earlier this year for extending an invitation to far-right activist Tommy Robinson for an Islam-related debate, a decision that tested the society’s commitment to hearing opposing views.

The government’s entry ban has already drawn sharp criticism from across the British political left. Green Party leader Zack Polanski has accused the new Labour government of “doing everything possible to silence criticism of the Israeli government.” Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn echoed that criticism, denouncing the ban as “an attack on the freedom to criticise Israel, as well as the UK government’s own complicity in genocide.”

For Elrayess and the Oxford Union, the livestream event this weekend will be a tangible demonstration of whether Macmillan’s decades-old description of the society as a bastion of free speech still holds true today.

A sharp diplomatic rift between former U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been exposed by multiple U.S. officials, who have detailed a profanity-filled phone call where Trump lashed out at Netanyahu over Israel’s planned new offensive on Beirut, Lebanon. The confrontation came on the heels of Iran’s decision to pause ongoing indirect peace talks mediated by international actors, a move Tehran made directly in response to Netanyahu’s public announcement of plans to renew strikes on the southern Beirut suburb of Dahieh, a stronghold of the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah.

Citing two anonymous senior U.S. administration officials, news outlet Axios first reported that Trump unleashed a torrent of harsh criticism against Netanyahu during the conversation, steamrolling the Israeli leader and warning that any further military escalation in Lebanon would push Israel into complete international isolation. According to the officials’ accounts, Trump went so far as to call Netanyahu “fucking crazy” and bluntly stated that “everybody hates Israel” over the planned offensive. He repeatedly emphasized that his interventions were shielding Israel from global backlash, telling Netanyahu “I’m saving your ass. Everybody hates you now. Everybody hates Israel because of this.” At one point in the heated exchange, sources say Trump yelled the question “What the fuck are you doing?” in frustration at Netanyahu’s refusal to back down from the attack plans.

The officials added that Trump also publicly accused Netanyahu of ingratitude, a remark widely interpreted as a reference to Netanyahu’s ongoing ongoing corruption trial in Israel and Trump’s previous public calls for the Israeli leader to receive a full pardon. Immediately after the call, Trump moved quickly to de-escalate the situation, posting an announcement on his social media platform clarifying that no U.S. troops would be deployed to Beirut, and any U.S. military assets already en route had already been ordered to turn back. He also claimed he had held a productive discussion with Hezbollah representatives to work out the terms of a full ceasefire, writing “They agreed that all shooting will stop – That Israel will not attack them, and they will not attack Israel.”

Initial responses to the ceasefire proposal from regional stakeholders have revealed mixed positions. Hassan Fadlallah, a Hezbollah member of the Lebanese parliament, released a public statement Monday confirming the group supports a comprehensive ceasefire across all of Lebanese territory, noting that such an agreement should be followed by a full withdrawal of Israeli military forces from all occupied Lebanese territory. Fadlallah also made clear that Hezbollah rejects any partial truce deal that would spare Beirut from Israeli strikes in exchange for Hezbollah halting attacks on northern Israel. Shortly after Fadlallah’s statement, the Lebanese presidency officially confirmed that Hezbollah had agreed to the U.S.-brokered proposal for a mutual halt to all hostilities across the entire country.

Netanyahu, however, has refused to back down from his original stance. In a post on the social platform X, the Israeli prime minister confirmed he had spoken with Trump, and reiterated that “if Hezbollah does not cease attacking our cities and citizens – Israel will attack terror targets in Beirut. This stance of ours remains unchanged.”

Regarding Iran’s decision to suspend indirect peace talks, Trump initially offered a dismissive response, telling reporters “I don’t care if they’re over, honestly…I really don’t care. I couldn’t care less.” Later, speaking to NBC News, Trump added that he had not received any direct communication from Iran since the suspension, and suggested that a period of diplomatic silence could be beneficial. “I think we’ve been talking too much if you want to know the truth. I think going silent would be very good, and that could be for a long time,” he said, adding “It doesn’t mean we’re going to go and start dropping bombs all over there. We’ll just go silent. We’ll keep the blockade. Blockade is a piece of steel.” He subsequently walked back the suggestion that talks were permanently halted, posting on social media that negotiations with Iran were continuing “at a rapid pace.”
This report was originally published by Middle East Eye, an outlet that provides independent, in-depth coverage of the Middle East and North Africa region.

A controversial Israeli bill that would codify restrictions on the Islamic call to prayer, known as the adhan, has cleared a critical legislative hurdle, drawing sharp condemnation from senior Muslim religious leaders and Palestinian communities who frame the measure as an attack on their religious identity and a violation of international law.

On Sunday, the Ministerial Committee for Legislation — the body that vets whether proposed bills move forward for a preliminary vote in Israel’s parliament, the Knesset — advanced the legislation. The bill was submitted by far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir and Zvika Fogel, chair of the Knesset’s National Security Committee, and while it has secured committee backing, it still requires approval from the full Knesset, with no vote date scheduled as of yet.

Under the terms of the proposed law, the installation and operation of loudspeakers for religious calls to prayer would be banned by default, with permits granted only at the discretion of Israeli authorities. Approval would hinge on a set of criteria including volume limits, required noise reduction infrastructure, a mosque’s geographic location, proximity to residential neighborhoods, and the perceived impact on local residents. If permit conditions are violated, police would gain the authority to immediately order loudspeakers shut off, with repeated violations leading to equipment confiscation and steep financial penalties: unpermitted loudspeaker use would carry a fine of 50,000 Israeli shekels (approximately $17,719), while violations of permit terms would incur a 10,000 shekel fine (around $3,545).

Sheikh Ekrima Sabri, the imam of Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa Mosque — one of the holiest sites in Islam and a flashpoint of longstanding Israeli-Palestinian tension — labeled the latest legislative push a dangerous escalation of repeated, previously unsuccessful efforts to curtail the adhan. “The current attempt to ban the Muslim call to prayer has taken a dangerous turn by legalising the banning of the call to prayer through issuing a law to prohibit it,” Sabri stated on Monday. He emphasized that Israeli authorities have no legitimate standing to classify the centuries-old religious practice as unwanted noise or a public nuisance, arguing “The disturbance and noise come from the war machines of the aggressors.”

The bill’s backers have defended the proposal as a necessary public health and quality of life measure. Ben Gvir has claimed that excessive noise from muezzins (the religious figures who recite the adhan) harms the well-being of Israeli residents, saying, “In many places, the noise of the muezzin is unreasonable and harms the quality of life and health of residents. This is a phenomenon that cannot be tolerated.”

Palestinian citizens of Israel, who would bear the direct brunt of the new regulations, have widely condemned the proposal, rejecting the claim that the adhan constitutes a noise problem. They argue the legislation is just the latest example of the current Israeli government’s systematic efforts to erode Palestinian religious and cultural identity across territories under Israeli control.

A key unresolved question remains: whether the new rules would apply to Al-Aqsa Mosque, located in occupied East Jerusalem. Israel formally annexed East Jerusalem in 1980, a move that has never been recognized by the international community. Consistent with international law, most of the global community regards East Jerusalem as occupied Palestinian territory, holding that an occupying power cannot claim sovereignty over the area and is barred from implementing permanent legal or structural changes to the occupied territory. Sabri emphasized this principle, noting that as an occupying power, Israel “has no right to alter the existing status quo of the occupied territory” and “has no right to enact laws that contradict the laws that were in effect in the country before its occupation.”

Efforts to restrict the adhan in Israel are not a new development. In 2017, a nearly identical bill targeting loudspeaker use for the Islamic call to prayer passed a preliminary Knesset reading but was never enacted into law. Most recently, at the end of 2024, Ben Gvir already issued a directive ordering Israeli police to block mosques from broadcasting the adhan, repeating his claim that the practice disturbs Jewish residents.

After Thailand unilaterally scrapped a decades-old bilateral agreement aimed at managing overlapping maritime claims, Cambodia has officially launched compulsory conciliation proceedings through the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to resolve its long-running sea border dispute with neighboring Thailand, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet announced Tuesday in a live address on national state television.

The contested stretch of water, claimed in full by both Southeast Asian nations, is widely believed to hold significant commercially viable reserves of natural gas and other hydrocarbon resources, making the dispute a high-stakes issue for both countries’ energy and economic outlooks. Tensions between the two neighbors escalated dramatically last year, when deadly armed clashes broke out along their shared land border. The violence stoked widespread nationalist sentiment in Thailand, which put growing domestic political pressure on Thai Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul’s administration to walk away from the 25-year-old memorandum of understanding (MoU) that had governed bilateral talks on the overlapping claims. Thailand followed through on that pressure in May, terminating the agreement unilaterally.

In his televised address, Hun Manet confirmed that his government had submitted formal notification of the conciliation request to both the Thai government and UN Secretary-General, triggering the formal process under UNCLOS regulations. He emphasized Cambodia’s commitment to a peaceful, rules-based resolution, saying, “Cambodia has never violated the sovereignty of other states. At the same time, we are unwaveringly determined to defend Cambodia’s sovereignty. Today, we continue to honor that responsibility, not through force, but through international law; not through unilateral action, but through peaceful engagement.”

It remains unclear how long the conciliation process will take or when a preliminary outcome may be reached. Responding to Cambodia’s announcement, Anutin told reporters that the move itself does not create an insurmountable barrier to dialogue, noting that Thailand has long stated it is committed to resolving the dispute in line with UNCLOS frameworks. However, the Thai leader has made clear that his government rejects Cambodia’s push for a forced conciliation process.

Notably, any outcome from the UNCLOS conciliation process is non-binding for all participating parties, even though both Cambodia and Thailand are official signatories to the treaty. Thailand has a long-standing preference for resolving all territorial disputes through direct bilateral negotiations rather than third-party international adjudication, a stance rooted in decades of resentment over a 1962 International Court of Justice ruling that granted Cambodia control over the disputed Preah Vihear hilltop temple along their shared land border. That ruling has remained a persistent source of friction between the two nations, contributing to cycles of tension that have flared repeatedly over the decades.