标签： Europe

For every Israeli prime minister, few responsibilities carry more weight than navigating the delicate dual challenge of preserving Washington’s unwavering support while pushing back against U.S. demands that are viewed as threatening Israeli national security. No leader in Israel’s modern history has pulled off this precarious balancing act for longer than Benjamin Netanyahu, the country’s longest-serving head of government. But with the ongoing conflict with Iran locked in a stalemate and U.S. President Donald Trump prioritizing winding down regional tensions ahead of American congressional elections, Netanyahu’s political tightrope walk has grown exponentially more difficult — and it is unfolding just three months before Israel’s national elections.

On Sunday, Netanyahu formally rejected Trump’s latest proposal to break the deadlock on a long-stalled ceasefire in the Gaza Strip. In his statement, the prime minister made clear that Israeli forces would not withdraw from any part of the roughly 60 percent of Gaza that it currently controls until Hamas, the militant faction that governs the remaining 40 percent of the enclave, is fully and completely disarmed — a condition Hamas has rejected consistently for years.

The rejection puts Netanyahu in a risky political bind: defying the same U.S. president he has repeatedly called the strongest ally Israel has ever had in the White House could erode the bilateral relationship he has long leaned on for political capital. Yet any public hint of compromise on the disarmament demand would almost certainly be fatal to his reelection bid, in a nation still reeling from the traumatic Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack that occurred on Netanyahu’s watch.

For Trump, the standoff comes as he faces mounting pressure to deliver on his self-styled reputation as a global peacemaker. With nuclear talks with Iran stalled and global energy prices remaining elevated ahead of November’s U.S. congressional elections, the Trump administration needs visible progress on regional de-escalation. Trump’s latest Gaza proposal builds on a ceasefire framework he announced last fall, which paused large-scale Israeli military operations and secured the release of all remaining Israeli hostages held by Hamas, but has failed to move toward a permanent peace agreement.

Under the terms of the new plan, Hamas would surrender its weapons in a phased process, in exchange for a permanent end to Israeli strikes and a gradual withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza. Hamas has already accepted the framework, though it has tied the surrender of its heavy weaponry to the formal establishment of an independent Palestinian state — a concession that Netanyahu’s far-right-led government and the vast majority of Israel’s political establishment reject outright.

Netanyahu’s refusal to accept the plan puts all other elements of the ceasefire proposal on indefinite hold, including the deployment of an international peacekeeping force and the start of reconstruction for the Gaza Strip, which has been left devastated by months of conflict. Data from Gaza’s Health Ministry shows that more than 1,250 people have been killed in Israeli strikes since the initial October ceasefire took effect, though Israeli military activity has eased in recent days.

Israeli media reports have indicated that the authority to approve new strikes in Gaza has been restricted exclusively to the Israeli army’s chief of staff, a quiet, unpublicized concession to Trump’s ceasefire push. The Israeli military declined to confirm or deny the report when contacted for comment. A senior official with the Board of Peace, the Trump-led body tasked with overseeing the ceasefire process, spoke to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity, saying that while progress has been incremental, there have been tangible gains on the ground.

“We are focused on actions, not rhetoric or politics,” the official said. “There have been some results on the ground in the last few days, including restraint from strikes and new Israeli military procedures. There is constructive cooperation behind the scenes and our conversations continue.”

As the election campaign heats up, the legacy of the Oct. 7 attack hangs over every political calculation Netanyahu makes. On the campaign trail, he has leaned heavily on highlighting Israeli military gains from the wars that followed the 2023 attack: Israeli forces have seized large swathes of territory across Gaza, southern Lebanon and Syria, and launched two major air campaigns targeting Iran’s military and its disputed nuclear program. But the “total victory” Netanyahu promised over Hamas in Gaza has yet to materialize, and a large share of the Israeli public continues to hold him directly responsible for the massive security failures that allowed the Oct. 7 attack to occur. Critics have also pointed to his past policy of allowing Qatar to deliver cash payments to Gaza, a strategy intended to appease Hamas that many now argue directly helped the group rearm.

Netanyahu’s rejection of Trump’s plan has been enthusiastically embraced by his far-right coalition partners, who are expected to play a critical role in any new government he forms after the election. Jonathan Lis, diplomatic correspondent for leading Israeli newspaper Haaretz, noted that Trump’s priority is advancing tangible steps to rebuild Gaza, but Netanyahu’s vulnerable election position and the demands of his right-wing allies leave him unwilling to make even the smallest concession.

Ghaith al-Omari, a former Palestinian negotiator and now a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, explained that even if the White House chooses to overlook Netanyahu’s rejection, Trump cannot move the plan forward without convincing the Israeli prime minister to reverse course. In al-Omari’s assessment, Hamas has already emerged from the standoff with a strategic PR win, positioning itself as the more reasonable party in the conflict.

Trump’s standing among Israeli voters has shifted noticeably in recent months, as his policy priorities have diverged from Netanyahu’s. During Trump’s first term in office, he enjoyed widespread popularity in Israel, thanks to unprecedented pro-Israel moves including moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. That popularity held steady early in his second term, when he backed Israel’s military campaign in Gaza and joined Israel in bombing strikes on Iran. For Netanyahu, the close alliance with Trump was a major political asset, helping to shore up his domestic standing at a time when his political future was very much in doubt.

But the two leaders’ strategic interests diverged sharply last spring. Netanyahu pushed for continued military strikes against Iran and the Hezbollah militant group in Lebanon, while Trump prioritized winding down regional conflicts to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global energy chokepoint, and ease economic pressure on global markets. Since the rift opened, Trump has said he would “likely” endorse Netanyahu ahead of the Israeli election, but has not yet issued a formal full endorsement. While a U.S. president’s endorsement still carries weight in Israeli politics, the public rift between the two leaders is complicating Netanyahu’s campaign.

Yohanan Plesner, president of the Jerusalem-based Israel Democracy Institute think tank, noted that just a few months ago, a large majority of Israelis believed Trump prioritized Israeli security interests when making policy decisions. “This is no longer the case,” Plesner said. The once-close relationship between Netanyahu and Trump “used to be an asset, but not anymore.”

Netanyahu has a long track record of defying sitting U.S. presidents, particularly Democratic chief executives. During his first term in office in the late 1990s, he resisted Bill Clinton’s efforts to broker a permanent peace deal with the Palestinians. In 2015, he clashed publicly with Barack Obama over the landmark Iran nuclear deal. But political analysts warn that defying Trump now carries far greater risks than past standoffs with U.S. leaders. Israel’s aggressive regional military campaigns have left it increasingly diplomatically isolated across the globe, and eroded its longstanding bipartisan support among U.S. voters, leaving Trump as one of Israel’s few remaining high-level powerful allies in Washington.

Plesner argues that Netanyahu’s dependence on Trump is “tremendous,” and Israeli voters will punish the prime minister if he is seen as mismanaging the critical bilateral relationship. “If Trump will insist on carrying on, I think Netanyahu will have no choice but to tag along rather than take on the president, since he’s left Israel with very few diplomatic cards to maneuver,” Plesner said.

Associated Press writers Sam Mednick in Tel Aviv, Israel, and Matthew Lee in Washington contributed to this report.

On the sun-kissed coast of eastern England, the quiet seaside town of Clacton is hosting one of the most surreal special elections in modern British political history. What began as a political gamble by Nigel Farage, the firebrand leader of anti-immigration party Reform UK and a long-time ally of former U.S. President Donald Trump, has turned into a contest that upends every expectation of how British elections work.

For nearly 20 years, Farage has built his entire political brand on positioning himself as an anti-establishment outsider, a plain-speaking populist who took on the elite to deliver Brexit, the defining political upheaval of 21st-century Britain. His charismatic, everyman persona—often described as “the bloke you’d have a pint with at the local pub”—fueled the 2016 Leave campaign’s unexpected referendum victory, and later shifted to galvanizing support around hardline policies on small boat migration across the English Channel. After eight failed attempts to win a seat in Parliament, Farage finally claimed Clacton, a deeply pro-Brexit constituency, in 2024.

But that victory brought unforeseen trouble: the scrutiny of public office that comes with being a lawmaker. Just months after taking his seat, Farage triggered a snap special election by resigning, amid growing awkward questions about his personal financial dealings and undeclared political donations. Farage framed the move as a chance for Clacton’s voters to deliver a verdict in a classic “people versus the establishment” showdown, but major parties across the political spectrum dismissed the election as a self-serving political stunt and refused to field candidates. That decision left an open field that defied all political norms.

Today, Farage—who has spent his career painting himself as an outsider taking on mainstream politics—finds himself cast as the prohibitive incumbent favorite, with his most high-profile opponent being Count Binface: a comedy candidate who portrays himself as a space alien with a trash can for a head, performed by comedian Jon Harvey. Farage is not laughing. He and his allies have framed Binface’s candidacy as yet another plot by the political establishment to undermine him, with Reform UK board member and former Farage press officer Gawain Towler claiming the establishment is using “every means available, fair and foul” to discredit the Reform leader before voters cast their ballots.

Count Binface, a veteran of joke British elections, has centered his entire platform on the contrast with Farage, with a key pledge that he “will not accept 5-million-pound gifts from crypto billionaires (on Earth)”—a clear jab at the controversies that sparked the election. Farage is currently under investigation by Britain’s parliamentary standards watchdog over an undeclared £5 million ($6.7 million) donation received in 2024 from Thailand-based cryptocurrency billionaire Christopher Harborne. Farage defends the transaction, arguing the sum was a personal gift to fund his personal security received before he took office, and thus not required to be declared under parliamentary rules, which mandate disclosure of gifts over £300 ($400) tied to political activity for incoming lawmakers.

A second investigation is also ongoing into Farage’s financial ties to George Cottrell, a 32-year-old aristocratic crypto and gambling entrepreneur who served eight months in a U.S. prison a decade ago after pleading guilty to fraud charges connected to a proposed money laundering scheme with undercover agents posing as drug traffickers. Cottrell remains a close ally of Farage, who has publicly stood by him, saying “I don’t ditch my allies” in comments from August 3. British media have reported that Cottrell and his mother have been interviewed by police as part of a broader probe into Reform UK donations, though no arrests have been made.

Beyond Binface, the Clacton ballot features 33 other candidates, ranging from single-issue pro-Rejoin EU campaigners to representatives of the long-running Official Monster Raving Loony Party, making it one of the most crowded candidate fields in recent British electoral history. While most political analysts predict Farage will win the seat comfortably, as he did in the 2024 general election, the outcome of the vote carries far broader implications for British politics than a single parliamentary seat.

If Farage secures victory, the parliamentary investigations into his finances will immediately resume. A finding of wrongdoing could result in his suspension from Parliament and force yet another special election for the constituency. For Reform UK, which has led national opinion polls for more than a year and currently holds just seven parliamentary seats (eight if Farage retains Clacton), the election comes at a tense moment for the party. After a long stretch of leading national polling, Reform has suffered a string of recent defeats in special elections, including a June loss that saw Labour’s Andy Burnham elected prime minister. Farage’s party is also facing pressure from multiple sides: Labour is enjoying a post-Burnham polling boost, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has stabilized her party after a rocky start, and the far-right Restore Britain party, which holds one seat and enjoys amplified social media reach via Elon Musk, is chipping away at Reform’s right-wing base.

Political analysts note that Farage’s greatest political strength has always been his charismatic outsider persona, but that same image has now created a trap for him. “It’s that very charismatic aspect of Farage that is both his strength and his weakness,” explained Simon Usherwood, professor of politics and international studies at the Open University. “He has fallen into a trap of thinking that he is somehow immune from the kind of scrutiny that would undo other politicians.”

There is also the long-running question of Farage’s commitment to holding office: the 62-year-old politician has a history of stepping down from the parties he founded, having resigned from both the UK Independence Party and its successor, the Brexit Party, over the past decade. Outside of his parliamentary salary, Farage has earned more than £2 million ($2.7 million) in the past two years from speaking engagements, media appearances, and promotional work—far outstripping his income as a lawmaker—leading to speculation he could walk away from politics again if the financial scrutiny continues to mount.

Martin Farr, a contemporary historian at Newcastle University, noted that regardless of the final vote count, the election will reinforce the existing perceptions of Farage among both supporters and opponents. “To his supporters, this will be an example of how he’s fearless and he’s prepared to fight against, as he will put it, the tyranny of the majority, the tyranny of the establishment,” Farr said. “To his opponents, it suggests a thin-skinned demagogue who has reacted petulantly to scrutiny and has been embarrassed by the fact that no one else has taken his stand seriously.”

A Moscow court has delivered a ruling that blocks Yabloko, Russia’s sole registered liberal anti-war political party, from competing in the upcoming national parliamentary elections scheduled for next month. The legal challenge that led to this ban was filed by Rodina, a pro-Kremlin nationalist political party, bringing forward a series of allegations against the opposition group.

The accusations against Yabloko are threefold. First, Rodina claimed the party violated Russian law by publicly backing what Moscow has labeled an extremist organization: Yabloko published website material expressing support for the international LGBT movement, which Russia’s Supreme Court designated as an extremist group in 2023. Second, the lawsuit alleged copyright infringement after a senior Yabloko figure quoted lyrics from the iconic Soviet-era song *Let There Always Be Sunshine* during a media interview. Third, Russia’s federal financial monitoring service testified during the hearing that Yabloko had received illicit foreign funding from nations including Germany and the United States through indirect third-party channels.

On the day of the eight-hour hearing, hundreds of mostly young supporters gathered outside the Moscow courthouse to demonstrate backing for the party. Many brought apples — a symbolic nod to Yabloko, which means “apple” in Russian — and chalked pro-freedom, pro-Yabloko messages onto the pavement outside the building. Social media footage captured the crowd’s reaction when the verdict was announced: demonstrators immediately began chanting “Shame! Shame!” in protest of the ruling. For Russians opposed to the war in Ukraine, the gathering represented a rare opportunity to show public dissent, as broad wartime censorship laws have banned most open protests, punishable by heavy fines or lengthy prison sentences.

The road to this ruling has been marked by escalating pressure on Yabloko for months. In late July, the Kremlin-controlled Central Electoral Commission (CEC) had initially approved Yabloko’s candidate list, but multiple senior party figures had already been disqualified from running. That included deputy leader Maxim Kruglov, who was sentenced to seven years in prison in June over social media posts documenting civilian casualties in the Ukrainian cities of Bucha and Mariupol. Just one week before the court ruling, Yabloko also suffered a large-scale cyberattack just hours after it launched a public appeal for donations to its election campaign fund.

Founded decades ago and once led by former presidential candidate Grigory Yavlinsky, Yabloko holds a long record of consistent opposition to Russian military intervention. The party has opposed the Chechen wars, Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, and the full-scale 2022 invasion of Ukraine. While the party has not secured any seats in the State Duma, Russia’s lower parliament, since 2003, it has participated in every national election held since that time. It has also faced internal divisions over the years, most notably expelling late opposition leader Alexei Navalny in 2007 and maintaining criticism of him even after his 2024 death in prison.

In the lead-up to the 2026 election, Yabloko’s public support had been rising amid growing public discontent with the Kremlin. Ruling party United Russia’s approval rating has fallen to just 33%, dragged down by persistent inflation, widespread internet blackouts, and repeated cross-border drone strikes on Russian territory. Yabloko ran its campaign under the slogan “For peace and freedom! For a life without fear!” and explicitly called for an immediate ceasefire in Ukraine, a shift to diplomatic negotiations, and an end to political repression within Russia.

Political analysts say the shift from the CEC’s initial conditional approval to the full court ban reflects a change in the Kremlin’s political calculations. Initially, observers believed the government would allow Yabloko to run to use the party’s poor 2021 result — just 1.34% of the national vote — to demonstrate that anti-war sentiment has no broad support among Russian voters. But as signs of growing public dissent over the war have mounted, the Kremlin opted to remove the anti-war opposition from the ballot entirely.

The ban is expected to suppress turnout among anti-Kremlin voters, a outcome that benefits United Russia, as low turnout among opposition-minded citizens works to solidify the ruling party’s projected majority. All 10 other parties approved to compete in September’s election either openly support the war in Ukraine or refrain from public criticism of it. Independent election monitoring groups have already been stripped of most of their authority to oversee the election process and challenge results, leaving the Kremlin with full control to secure its desired outcome.

On Monday, Russia’s highest judicial body ruled to remove Yabloko, the only registered Russian political party that publicly opposes the Kremlin’s military campaign in Ukraine, from the ballot for the country’s upcoming parliamentary election scheduled for next month.

The ruling came in response to an appeal filed by a pro-Kremlin political party, and resulted in the Supreme Court formally annulling Yabloko’s ballot registration. Just one month prior, Russia’s Central Election Commission had granted the party approval to appear on the ballot, alongside 10 other competing political groups.

Yabloko first emerged as a prominent liberal voice in Russian legislative politics, where it built a long record of consistent criticism of government policy. However, over the past two decades, as the Kremlin consolidated greater control over Russia’s political landscape, the party gradually lost all of its parliamentary seats, fading from formal legislative representation.

In recent years, Yabloko has stood alone as the only registered opposition party in the country that maintains an explicit public stance against the deployment of Russian troops to Ukraine. Its 2024 campaign platform centered heavily on peace advocacy, with slogans calling for an immediate ceasefire, diplomatic negotiations to end the conflict, and measures to prevent nuclear escalation. The party also campaigned on a platform of ending widespread political repression and creating a Russia where citizens do not live in fear of government retaliation.

The ruling has come even as dozens of prominent Russian opposition figures living in exile had publicly urged Russian voters to support Yabloko in the upcoming election. Notable figures backing the party included Yulia Navalnaya, widow of the late prominent Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny, as well as exiled opposition politicians Ilya Yashin and Vladimir Kara-Murza.