Map Shows China's Visa-Free ‘Circle of Friends'
China has expanded its visa-free entry policy to more countries, allowing citizens from an additional four nations to visit for up to 30 days without a permit.
This brings the total number of visa-exempt countries to 47, with another 16 qualifying for 10-day exemptions, as shown on the Newsweek map below.
Inbound tourism to China is rebounding, with 132 million international visits recorded last year-97 percent of 2019 levels, according to government data. The momentum has carried into 2025, with 35 million arrivals in the first quarter, a nearly 20 percent year-over-year increase, said China's Ministry of Culture and Tourism.
Total international visitor spending last year was up to 93.5 percent of pre-pandemic levels, accounting for 0.5 percent of China's GDP-nearly $100 billion-according to the country's commerce authorities.
China's growing visa-exemptions list shows the country is determined to foster an open global economy, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian told reporters last week. Observers say the visa exemptions will also ease business and technical exchanges in sectors such as renewable energy.
Amid an intensifying trade war and geopolitical rivalry with the United States, China will see a strategic benefit in opening up to the rest of the world at a time when the West is trying to shut it out.
Newsweek reached out to the Chinese Foreign Ministry by email with a request for comment.
Beijing on Monday announced the start of visa-free travel for passport holders from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman and Bahrain on a one-year trial basis.
China has in recent years ramped up political and economic engagement with the Middle East, capitalizing on the U.S.'s declining influence and framing itself as a stable alternative following decades of U.S. military intervention.
Liu Zhongmin, a professor from the Middle East Studies Institute of Shanghai International Studies University, told the Chinese state-run Global Times newspaper that the exemptions were a major step toward deepening people-to-people exchanges with the region.
With the announcement, all six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council-a regional bloc that also includes Qatar and the United Arab Emirates-now enjoy some form of visa-free travel to China.
The move brings China's visa-free "circle of friends" to 47 countries, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said.
Citizens of the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Russia are permitted 10-day visa-free transits as well as access to two dozen provinces and regions-provided they show proof of onward travel upon entry, according to the policy.
The expansion follows China's decision in December to implement visa exemptions for travelers from nine countries, including Japan and eight European states.
Mao Ning, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson, told reporters last month: "China has given visa-free status to all Gulf Cooperation Council countries. We welcome more friends from GCC countries to visit China anytime."
Julia Simpson, president of the World Travel and Tourism Council, said in an April press release: "Recent moves, such as refund-upon-purchase for international visitors and the expansion of visa-free access to international visitors show a smart, outward-looking strategy.
"This is long-term thinking in action, focused on competitiveness, experience, and re-establishing China's position as a global travel and tourism leader."
A forecast by the London-based World Travel and Tourism Council said China would continue its tourism comeback this year, estimating the industry would add $1.9 trillion to the world's second-largest economy, support more than 83 million jobs and creating an additional 1.3 million.
By contrast, the U.S. economy could be in for a $12.5 billion-or 22.45 percent-tourism hit, the council warned last month, as vacationers look elsewhere amid reports of increased detainments at airports, which the Trump administration has defended as necessary for immigration control and national security.
"While other nations are rolling out the welcome mat, the U.S. government is putting up the 'closed' sign," Simpson wrote.
The International Trade Administration did not immediately respond to Newsweek's written request for comment out of hours.
Related Articles
Satellite Photo Shows US Aircraft Carrier in Pacific Rivalry With ChinaDonald Trump Says China 'Not Easy' As Trade Talks Kick OffUS Detains Chinese Scientist for 'Smuggling' Biological Material From WuhanChina Challenges US Sea Power With Two Aircraft Carriers in West Pacific
2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
E-2 Hawkeye Replaces USAF E-3 Sentry, E-7 Cancelled In New Budget
A seismic shift has occurred in the Trump administration's new defense spending plan that is just emerging when it comes to the USAF's airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) predicament. The service's E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft are dwindling in number and rapidly aging into unsupportability. The proven and in-production E-7 Wedgetail, based on the Boeing 737 and serving with multiple allies, was supposed to bridge the gap between the E-3's retirement and pushing the sending part of the mission to space-based distributed satellite constellations. You can read all about this here. Now, if the administration gets its wish, that won't happen. The E-7 will be cancelled and the E-2D Hawkeye, currently flown by the U.S. Navy, will step in to fill the gap. This major turn of events came to light today as Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Air Force Gen. John Caine, and Bryn Woollacott MacDonnell testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee. MacDonnell is Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense and is currently performing the duties of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and the Pentagon's Chief Financial Officer. In 2023, the USAF announced its intention to purchase E-7s, potentially as many as 26 of them, as replacements for a portion of the E-3 fleet. At the hearing today, the question of the current future of the USAF AEW&C force came from Sen. Lisa Murkowski late in the hearing. Murkowski is a Republican from Alaska, where fighters, tankers, and E-3 Sentry jets launch regularly to intercept foreign planes, primarily Russian fighters, bombers, and surveillance aircraft, over the vast arctic wilderness. Chinese H-6 missile carrier aircraft also appeared off Alaska last year for the first time, as part of a joint mission with Russia. Chinese air and naval presence in the region is only expected to grow in the future. China and Russia conduct joint air strategic patrol over Bering Sea on July 25. This marks the eighth air strategic patrol organized by the two militaries since from China PLA Air Force Weibo accounthttps:// — Ryan Chan 陳家翹 (@ryankakiuchan) July 25, 2024 With this in mind, just how big of an issue the age of the E-3 fleet has become was central to Murkowski's question. 'I have been concerned. We have E-3 capability up north, of course, but we were all counting on the E-7 Wedgetail coming our way. We're kind of limping along up north right now, which is unfortunate. And the budget proposes terminating the program. Again, the E-3 fleet [is] barely operational now, and I understand the intent to shift towards the space-based – you call it the 'air moving target indicators' – but my concern is that you've got a situation where you're not going to be able to use more duct tape to hold things together until you put this system in place. And, so, how we maintain that level of operational readiness and coverage, I'm not sure how you make it.' 'You know, the E-3 and the E-3 community have been really important to us for a long, long time, and I'll defer to the Comptroller, but I you know the Department has a bridging strategy through investing in some additional airborne platforms in order to gap fill while the space-based capabilities come online,' Kane replied in response to the senator's question. This is where the E-2D comes in. MacDonnell then added, 'Ma'am, we do have in the budget $150 million in FY26 [Fiscal Year 2026] for a joint expeditionary E-2D unit with five dedicated E-2Ds, and the budget also funds for additional E-2Ds to fill the near-term gap at $1.4 billion.' Currently, the only branch of the U.S. military that operates the E-2D is the U.S. Navy. The Alaskan senator then inquired, 'Can you tell me, will that have implications for what we're seeing up north in Alaska?' 'The answer is yes. I would. I would file this entire discussion under difficult choices that we have to make. But you know, the E-7, in particular, is sort of late, more expensive and 'gold plated,' and so filling the gap, and then shifting to space-based ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance] is a portion of how we think we can do it best, considering all the challenges,' Hegseth responded. At a separate hearing before the House Appropriations Committee yesterday, Hegsteth had also described the Wedgetail as an example of a capability that is 'not survivable in the modern battlefield' and mentioned broad plans 'to fund existing platforms that are there more robustly and make sure they're modernized.' An annual assessment of high-profile U.S. military procurement programs from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a Congressional watchdog, which was released today, offers additional insight into issues with the USAF's effort to acquire E-7s. The original plan was to acquire a pair of production representative prototype (or RP) aircraft ahead of production of examples in a finalized configuration, starting this year. The service had then expected to reach initial operational capability with the Wedgetail in 2027. 'Air Force officials said that they now plan to begin production by the second quarter of fiscal year 2026 before completing the E-7A RP MTA [Middle Tier Acquisition] rapid prototyping effort by initiating a separate, concurrent program on the major capability acquisition pathway,' according to GAO. 'They said that it was necessary to begin production concurrently with the E-7A RP rapid prototyping effort to offset the lead time associated with the build and subsequent modification of the aircraft.' 'The program definitized its contract with Boeing since our last assessment. After the contract was definitized, Boeing delayed the first flight test by 9 months to May 2027,' the report adds. 'According to Air Force officials, the delay was due to a late-breaking, required critical security architecture change that affected the procurement of parts, qualification testing, and modification of the airframe.' 'The program stated that the Air Force definitized the MTA rapid prototyping effort contract in August 2024 to deliver two operationally capable E-7A prototype aircraft in fiscal year 2028,' GAO's new assessment further notes. 'The program added that the total acquisition cost increase of 33 percent resulted from updated methodologies to include additional scope related to non-recurring engineering, with the primary drivers being software and air vehicle subsystems.' Last year, the Air Force had been very open about the difficulties it was having finalizing a contract with Boeing for the RP jets. The two parties ended up agreeing on a deal valued at nearly $2.6 billion. A contracting notice the service put out earlier this year also pointed to significant expected differences between the RP aircraft and the full production examples, including the possibility of a new radar. Existing versions of the E-7 in service elsewhere globally today are equipped with Northrop Grumman's Multi-Role Electronically Scanned Array (MESA) radar. The USAF's move to drop the E-7 and leverage the E-2D, which is already in the Pentagon's stable, prompts many questions. For instance, just how many of these aircraft will the USAF end up with? As of 2024, the USAF's E-3 fleet stood at 16 aircraft. Above all else, there are major capability trades here. The Hawkeye is a much smaller aircraft than both the Sentry and the Wedgetail. It is extremely capable, but it is also optimized to exist within the confines of carrier operations. The crew size is just five individuals. This limits the amount of shear manpower to perform highly complex operations and other tasks beyond traditional AEW&C. The E-2 also has less range and is far slower than both the E-3 and E-7. This means longer transit times, and the aircraft doesn't fit in as seamlessly with the jet-centric operations for the counter-air mission the service currently enjoys. The E-2D's AN/APY-9 radar from Lockheed Martin is hugely capable, but many of its other advanced data fusion and relay systems are unique to the Navy. These systems would either be stripped or just left unused for USAF-focused operations. It's also possible that other systems will replace them, but this will cost money and take time to integrate and field. Hawkeyes, being turboprop aircraft, also operate at lower altitudes, giving their radar, radio systems, and electronic surveillance suites reduced line-of-sight, limiting their range and fidelity at distance for some targets and surveillance application, in some cases. Then there is the aerial refueling issue. The E-2D has gained this ability relatively recently, which expands its endurance. Typical missions can now last over seven hours. However, the aircraft uses the Navy-preferred probe-and-drogue refueling method, not the boom and receptacle one favored by the USAF. The USAF's KC-46 tankers do have a hose and drogue system and some of the service's KC-135Rs have podded hose and drogue systems. Otherwise, they require a basket attachment to their boom, often called the 'Iron Maiden' or 'Wrecking Ball,' due to its rigid metal frame and potential to smack into and damage airframes. This system makes the KC-135R useless for refueling receptacle-equipped aircraft when it is fitted. The E-2D also refuels lower-and-slower than jet aircraft. All these issues are not 'show-stoppers,' but they are ones that will impact operational planning and flexibility. The E-2D, being already a highly upgraded and a much smaller airframe, also lacks the same capacity for future expansion compared to the E-7. This could include adding more personnel for various non-traditional functions, including using its advanced radar to scan the surface more extensively or for unique battle management needs, such as controlling future drone swarms, or even for more extensive passive intelligence collection and exploitation and data fusion operations. High-bandwidth datalinks can possibly make up for some of the manpower differentials, allowing folks on the ground to execute critical functions in near real time as part of a distributed crew arrangement, but there are downfalls to this concept, as well. On the other hand, having commonality with the Navy's AEW&C aircraft should help reduce costs for both services and accelerate the type's entry into USAF service. It could also benefit the future evolution of the E-2D as more money will be flowing into the program. It's also a very capable and well-proven platform, lowering risk. Above all else, joint service E-2Ds could be absolutely critical to the USAF's Agile Combat Employment (ACE) combat doctrine that will see its forces distributed to remote forward locales and constantly in motion. The E-2D's turboprop performance, robust landing gear, and arrested landing capabilities mean it can be pushed far forward to very austere operating locations with limited runway length. And it can do this without sacrificing the quality of the data it collects or the efficacy of its use as a battle manager. This is something a 707 or 737 platform simply cannot match and could prove decisive in a major peer-state contingency. TWZ highlighted these exact benefits after U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) released a video last year showing a Navy Hawkeye refueling from a USAF HC-130J Combat King II combat search and rescue aircraft, which can act as a probe-and-drogue tanker, primarily for helicopters and Osprey tiltrotors. A @USNavy E-2D refuels inflight from an @usairforce HC-130 over the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility. — U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) August 6, 2024 While the USAF's move away from the E-7 is certainly surprising, and it will result in shortfalls in some areas, it also unlocks new capabilities, some of which are arguably more applicable to tomorrow's wars. It also buys down additional risk, which is looming very large as it isn't clear at this time, at least publicly, how far along the Pentagon's persistent space-based aircraft sensing constellation development actually is. All of this still has to make it through congressional approval, which could be a challenge considering the special interests involved. But as it sits now, the flying service is pivoting big once again when it comes to its increasingly dire AEW&C needs. Contact the author: Tyler@
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why Trump Is Losing His Trade War
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Donald Trump's trade war is fast turning into a fiasco. When the president started the war, Team Trump advertised it as certain to be fast, easy, and cheap. Trump would impose tariffs. The world would yield to his will. The tariffs would do everything at once. They would protect U.S. industry from foreign competition without raising prices, and generate vast revenues that would finance other tax cuts. Americans could eat their cake, continue to have the cake, and trade the same cake for pie—all at the same time. 'There's not going to be any pain for American workers,' Trump's press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, vowed in April. The advertising rapidly proved false. The U.S. economy is slowing because of the Trump tariffs; China's is thriving in spite of them. Team Trump falsely promotes vague five-page outlines with alienated former allies as big deals; China is successfully wooing some of its former rivals, such as Vietnam. America's standing in the world is measurably sinking; China's is measurably rising. Courts are ruling that Trump's tariffs are illegal; public opinion mistrusts the tariffs, regarding them as expensive and unproductive. The promise of huge flows of painless money from tariff revenues is evanescing as the fantasy it always was. Oh, and the country's largest chain of Halloween retailers canceled its traditional summer grand opening because of Trump-caused supply disruptions. What comes next, as things go wrong? Trump's first instinct is to blame the targets of his economic aggression for not cooperating with his wishes. On May 30, Trump accused China of violating an imaginary agreement with him. On June 4, he complained that Xi Jinping was 'extremely hard to make a deal with.' But Trump seldom chooses to quarrel with foreign dictators, saying in the same breath, 'I like President Xi of China, always have, and always will.' Today, in all-caps emphasis, Trump announced that a deal had been done, declaring that his 'RELATIONSHIP IS EXCELLENT' with the Chinese president-for-life. The lack of details in the announcement strongly suggests that Trump yielded more and gained less than his publicity apparatus wants Americans to believe. That's because, in reality, Trump's global trade war has always been subordinate to his domestic culture war. Trump much prefers to vent his rage against enemies within. Get ready for him to blame the failure of his trade war on fellow Americans who did not support him enough. The Trump tariffs will be ballyhooed as an act of patriotism, a necessary sacrifice to be laid on the altar of the nation. One of Trump's television talkers reminded viewers that Americans melted down their pots and pans to win the Second World War. If the president needs to ration dolls and colored pencils, how dare any true American raise a contrary voice? The coming call for national solidarity with Trump's Great Patriotic War against imported Halloween costumes deserves all the scoffing it will get and more. Trump ordered the nation into economic warfare. He did not do any of the things necessary to create any hope of success in that war. The impending defeat is his personal doing, entirely his own fault. [Jonathan Chait: The good news about Trump's tariffs] Recall the classic Norm Macdonald bit in which the comedian marvels that in the 20th century, Germany decided to go to war with 'the world,' twice. That was meant as a joke. Trump adopted it as his actual strategy. Trump's rationalizers invoke anxiety about China as his justification. Yes, China numbered among the targets of Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs. But so did Australia. So did Brazil. So did Canada. So did Denmark. So did Egypt. And on and on, through the whole alphabet of American allies and trading partners. The United States is by far the planet's strongest national economy, producing slightly more than one-quarter of the planet's goods and services. Including its historic and recent partners, the United States could potentially lead a group of nations sufficiently influential to write economic rules that everybody would need to take into account. That fact underpinned the Trans-Pacific Partnership concept of the Obama years: Form a large-enough and attractive-enough club, and China will have no choice but to comply with the founding members' terms. Trump's alternative concept is for a quarter of the world economy to cut itself off from the other three-quarters, and then wait for the three-quarters to beg for mercy from the one-quarter. Unsurprisingly, that concept is fast proving a stinker. But suppose the president sincerely believed that the U.S. had no choice: The one-quarter must fight the three-quarters as a matter of national survival, or 'liberation,' from the tyranny of foreign goods and services, foreign fruits and vegetables. Crazy, but suppose he did. What would follow? A rational president would grasp that a U.S. economic war against the rest of the world would be a big, protracted, and painful undertaking. Such an enormous commitment would require democratic consent from a large majority of the public, all the more so because the United States is starting the war itself. Trump's trade conflict is very much a war of choice. The president must explain why he chose it. A rational president determined to fight an economic war would try to mobilize broad support from the public and from Congress. He would seek allies in Congress, and not only from his own party. He might, for example, compromise on some of his other goals. If he also wanted to tighten immigration at the same time as waging a global trade war, or to roll back DEI programs, or to cut taxes for the wealthy, or to relax anti-corruption measures, or to pardon the crimes of his violent supporters, or to plan any other ambitious but divisive project, he might think twice about pursuing them. You can't ask your opponents to pay more and do without if you won't forgo even a scrap of your partisan agenda. You can ask anyway, but don't be shocked when they answer with a Bronx cheer. That president would also lead from the front. A president seeking to inspire Americans to endure hardship for the greater good would certainly not throw himself a multimillion-dollar birthday parade at public expense. He would not accept lavish gifts from foreign governments, would not operate a pay-for-access business that collected billions of dollars for himself and his family from undisclosed favor-seekers. While asking other Americans to accept less, he would not brazenly help himself to more. He certainly would not troll, insult, and demean those who may not have voted for him, but whose cooperation he needs now. This president has, of course, done the most egregious version of every item above. His economic war is adjunct to his partisan culture war. He did not seek broad support. He gleefully offends and alienates everyone outside his base. Which works for him as long as times are prosperous, as they were in the first three years of his first administration. Allow things to get tough, though, and it's a different story. Trump cannot ask for patience and trust, because at least half the country has unalterably judged him as untrustworthy and out only for himself. [David Frum: The ultimate bait and switch of Trump's tariffs] Trump bet his presidency on the theory that trade wars are 'good and easy to win,' as he posted during his first term. His second-term trade war, however, is proving not so easy, and not so good, either. He is fighting it alone, without global allies or domestic consent, because that's his nature. It's now also his problem. In the 1983 movie WarGames, a computer thinks its way through dozens of terrifying nuclear scenarios and concludes: 'The only winning move is not to play.' In other words, the only safe way to conduct a nuclear exchange is never to have one. The same could be said of trade wars, at least when fought by one nation, however big and rich, against all the others, all at once. Trump decided he did not care about Americans' support for his economic war. He did not ask for their backing. He did not make any effort to win it. He willfully alienated at least half of the public. Now that he's losing, his supporters want to scold the country because it rejects the whole misbegotten project as stupid and doomed. Don't listen to their reproaches. This is Trump's war, and his alone. The only way to win now is to end Trump's trade war as rapidly as possible. And then end the excessive, unilateral trade powers of a corrupt president who blundered into a pointless and doomed conflict without justification, plan, or consent. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Lammy is picking a needless fight with America
The alarming revelation that 2024 recorded the highest number of global conflicts since the Second World War should be taken as an incentive to deepen ties with key allies, not fracture them. That would certainly be the response of any government committed to the defence of the realm faced with the depressing statistic that last year saw 61 conflicts taking place in 36 countries. Of these, 11 were defined as full-blown conflicts – those that claimed at least 1,000 battlefield deaths – and included the ongoing wars in Ukraine and Gaza, as well as other less-publicised violent eruptions in Sudan, Syria, Nigeria and Ethiopia. At a time when Sir Keir Starmer is attempting to promote his national security credentials, the rising tide of conflict detailed in a report by Sweden's Uppsala University should prompt his Government to strengthen ties with key allies such as the US and Israel. Instead, by opting to target two members of the Israeli government with sanctions, Starmer has shown that he is more interested in virtue-signalling than common sense. National security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and finance minister Bezalel Smotrich may come from the ulta-nationalist fringe of Israeli politics, but they remain important members of Israel's democratically elected government, which is one of the UK's closest allies in the Middle East. Moreover, Israel, just like Ukraine, finds itself in the vanguard of the West's deepening confrontation with two of the most potent threats it faces, in the form of Vladimir Putin's Russia and Iranian-sponsored Islamist terrorism. The UK's support for Ukraine, together with its European allies, is predicated on the understanding that Western security would be fatally compromised if Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine were to succeed. Similarly, the UK's declaration of support for Israel in the wake of the October 7 attacks in 2023 was based on the tacit acknowledgement that it was in the West's interests that Iran's backing for Hamas terrorists must not be allowed to go unchallenged, especially given the ayatollahs' fixation with developing nuclear weapons. The Labour Government's decision, therefore, to single out two prominent members of the Israeli government for public censure not only threatens to undermine relations with a key regional ally. It runs the risk of jeopardising our own national security, especially if the Israelis conclude it is no longer in their interests to share vital intelligence with the UK. Israeli foreign minister Gideon Saar has already announced the Israeli cabinet will meet next week to respond to what he called an 'unacceptable decision'. The British Government's decision to pick on the two politicians is hardly surprising given its previous lamentable track record of targeting Israel, with Foreign Secretary David Lammy declaring his support for the International Criminal Court and its highly politicised move to prosecute Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu for war crimes. Yet, by siding with other self-righteous, but wholly naive, administrations in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Norway, to provoke an entirely avoidable diplomatic row with Israel, Starmer and Co have placed themselves firmly on the wrong side of history. Apart from alienating Israel, the move also risks causing a rift with the US, another key ally. America's secretary of state Marco Rubio was particularly critical of the measures imposed against Ben-Gvir and Smotrich for 'inciting violence against the Palestinian people'. The sanctions 'do not advance US-led efforts to achieve a ceasefire, bring all hostages home and end the war,' he said, urging the UK 'not to forget who the real enemy is'. Hitting two controversial Israeli politicians with sanctions might play to Labour's vociferously anti-Israel supporters, but it could prove to be a self-defeating move in terms of safeguarding our own long-term interests. In terms of the likely impact it will have on Israeli policy, the sanctions will be about as effective as Greta Thunberg's equally puerile attempt this week to break Israel's Gaza blockade with her Freedom Flotilla. At the same time they run the risk of sending a signal to Iran and other hostile regimes that the UK is more interested in embarrassing its allies than confronting its enemies. It is certainly hard to grasp the logic of why, when Western powers like the UK are preparing to confront Iran over its nuclear programme, they should choose this moment to pick a fight with Israel, Tehran's sworn enemy. The need to impose fresh sanctions against Iran was very much in evidence at this week's meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, when Rafael Grossi, the body's director general, confirmed three new previously undeclared nuclear sites had been identified in Iran that could be used for developing nuclear weapons. The UK is among a number of European powers that have responded by pressing for the reimposition of sanctions against Tehran. But the ayatollahs are unlikely to change course on their nuclear ambitions if they believe they share a common interest with Britain and its allies in targeting the Israelis. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
