Foreigners evacuated by air, land and sea as Israel-Iran conflict worsens
Days of attacks and reprisals by the two enemies have shuttered airspace across the Middle East, severely disrupting commercial flights and leaving people unable to get in or out of the region easily.
Some governments are using land borders to get their citizens out by road to countries where airports remain open.
Thousands of foreigners have already left since the conflict started last week when Israel launched surprise missile strikes on Iran.
Bulgaria
Bulgaria has moved all its diplomats from Tehran to the capital of Azerbaijan, Baku, the Balkan country's prime minister said Thursday.
"We are not closing the embassy, but moving it to Baku until the danger passes," said Prime Minister Rosen Zhelyazkov.
A group of 89 Bulgarians was evacuated from Israel by plane to Sofia, along with 59 nationals from Slovenia, the U.S., Belgium, Albania, Kosovo and Romania.
They left from the Egyptian city of Sharm el-Sheikh, where they had been transferred by bus across the border from Israel.
He said the government had urged all Bulgarians willing to join the convoy to do so. They set off in 11 vehicles on Wednesday morning.
"There were alternatives. They could travel via Turkey, but eventually we decided that they should go via Azerbaijan," Zhelyazkov added.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
2 days ago
- Mint
US Calls Off Sudan Peace Talks After Dispute Over Post-War Power
(Bloomberg) -- The US postponed a meeting of foreign ministers to discuss the war in Sudan because of a dispute over the wording of a proposed joint statement, according to people familiar with the matter. Secretary of State Marco Rubio was scheduled to host the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt in Washington on Wednesday. The discussions by the so-called Quad of countries were aimed at advancing peace talks between two Sudanese generals who've been at war since April 2023. The failure to proceed with negotiations came after Egypt disagreed with the wording of a planned communique that stated neither the Sudanese Armed Forces nor the rival Rapid Support Forces paramilitary group should have a leading role in a post-war transitional government, said the people who asked not to be identified as the information isn't public. Egypt historically has strong relations with Sudan's army-backed government, while the UAE has been accused of backing the RSF — an allegation it denies. Further talks by the Quad may be rescheduled for the United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York in September, one of the people said. The Egyptian foreign ministry didn't respond to a request for comment. The war in Sudan has left at least 150,000 people dead, according to US estimates, and forced millions of people to flee their homes in what the United Nations has called the world's biggest humanitarian crisis. Both sides in the conflict have announced rival governments, raising concerns that the North African nation risks splitting in two — similar to the situation in neighboring Libya. Washington's involvement in the talks forms part of a wider push by US President Donald Trump's administration to promote peace in a string of conflicts including in Ukraine, Gaza and the Democratic Republic of Congo. While the US brokered a tentative deal in eastern Congo between its government and the M23 rebel group, it's been less successful in other arenas. Under President Joe Biden, the US failed to forge peace in Sudan through the so-called ALPS group that included Switzerland, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, the African Union and the United Nations. The UAE has repeatedly called for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in the North African nation, as well as the resumption of a political process that leads to a civilian government independent of military control. --With assistance from Mirette Magdy.
Hindustan Times
3 days ago
- Hindustan Times
UK says will recognise Palestinian state unless Israel agrees to ceasefire
United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer said on Tuesday that the country will recognise the State of Palestine formally in September, unless Israel agrees to a ceasefire in Gaza and takes other steps to improve humanitarian conditions there, including allowing the United Nations to bring in aid. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer also discussed Gaza's situation with the United States President Donald Trump on Monday.(REUTERS) 'The UK will recognise the state of Palestine by the United Nations General Assembly in September, unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, agree to a ceasefire, and commit to a long-term sustainable peace, reviving the prospect of a two-state solution, and this includes allowing the UN to restart the supply of aid and making clear that there will be no annexations in the West Bank' Starmer said. Talking about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, he said that babies there are starving because of a 'catastrophic failure of aid'. 'The suffering must end,' he said. Starmer also discussed Gaza's situation with the United States President Donald Trump on Monday and added that aid from the UK was airdropped in Gaza on Tuesday. Also read: Gaza death toll crosses 60,000, says health ministry as war rages on 'We are supporting the US, Egyptian, and Qatari efforts to secure a vital ceasefire,' Starmer said. However, Trump said on Tuesday while leaving for the US that the two leaders did not discuss the UK formally recognising Palestinian state, reported Associated Press. The UK Prime Minister also asked Hamas to release Israeli hostages and disarm. "They must immediately release all of the hostages, sign up to a ceasefire, disarm and accept that they will play no part in the government of Gaza," he said. Israel rejects UK's move Israel has rejected United Kingdom's move to recognise the Palestinian state in September, saying "constitutes a reward for Hamas and harms efforts to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza". 'Israel rejects the statement by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. The shift in the British government's position at this time, following the French move and internal political pressures, constitutes a reward for Hamas and harms efforts to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza and a framework for the release of hostages,' Israel's foreign ministry said in a post on X. Last week, French President Emmanuel Macron also announced that the country will recognise a Palestinian state at the UN General Assembly in September. "True to its historic commitment to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, I have decided that France will recognise the State of Palestine. I will make a formal announcement at the United Nations General Assembly in September," the French head of state wrote on X and Instagram. (With AFP inputs)
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
4 days ago
- First Post
Operation Sindoor debate: What is the Sharm-el-Sheikh meeting that Jaishankar, Rajnath Singh are attacking?
Defence Minister Rajnath Singh and External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar recalled the 2009 Sharm-el-Sheikh joint statement in Lok Sabha, calling it a grave misstep after the Mumbai terror attacks. Their sharp remarks revived criticism of the meeting between then-PM Manmohan Singh and then-Pakistan PM Yousuf Raza Gilani, which controversially referenced Balochistan and delinked terror from dialogue read more Pakistan's Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani (L) shakes hands with India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during the 15th Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit in the Egyptian Red Sea tourist resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, July 16, 2009. File Image/Reuters The Sharm-el-Sheikh summit — long considered one of the most contentious chapters in India's post-26/11 diplomacy — is back in the spotlight during the Monsoon session of the Lok Sabha. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh and External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, invoked the July 2009 meeting while discussing Operation Sindoor, sharply criticising the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) for its handling of relations with Pakistan in the aftermath of the Mumbai terror attacks. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Their interventions have revived the criticism of a joint statement issued after talks between then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his Pakistani counterpart Yousuf Raza Gilani in the Egyptian resort town of Sharm el-Sheikh on July 16, 2009, a document that not only altered the framing of dialogue between the two countries but also made an unprecedented mention of Balochistan. Sharm-el-Sheikh was a strategic error: Rajnath Singh Speaking on Monday in the Lok Sabha, Singh launched a pointed critique of the previous UPA government, accusing it of blunting India's position on cross-border terrorism at a time when international momentum was building against Pakistan after the 26/11 attacks. 'In 2009, the government back then made a mistake in the Sharm-el-Sheikh agreement,' Singh told the House, opening the Operation Sindoor discussion. He argued that the joint statement, issued after the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit meeting in Egypt, weakened India's insistence that any dialogue with Islamabad would hinge on a demonstrable commitment to curb terrorism emanating from its territory. 'This diluted the terms set that Pakistan will not be allowed to use its land for terrorism,' Singh said, drawing a contrast with the earlier stance of former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who, he recalled, made it 'unequivocally clear that any dialogue with Pakistan would be contingent upon a commitment to end terror originating from its soil.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Singh said the UPA missed an opportunity to mount decisive pressure on Islamabad after the Mumbai attacks of November 2008, which killed over 160 people and shocked the world. Quoting directly from the memoir of former President and UPA-era External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee, The Coalition Years, Singh read: 'Pranab Mukherjee has written in his book 'The Coalition Years' that when the Mumbai attacks happened, India had evidence that the terrorists came from Karachi port. No one in the world believed the excuse of Pakistan's 'non-state actors'. He has written, and I quote – 'Amid heated debates within the Cabinet, there was a demand for military intervention which I rejected'.' हमारी सरकार, हमारी सेनाएं और हमारी लोकतांत्रिक संस्थाएं, सभी मिलकर देश की एकता, अखंडता और सुरक्षा के लिए हर आवश्यक कदम उठाने को प्रतिबद्ध हैं। — Rajnath Singh (@rajnathsingh) July 28, 2025 STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Singh also recounted a meeting documented by a senior Indian Foreign Service officer, in which then Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon proposed a cruise missile strike on the Lashkar-e-Taiba headquarters in Muridke, Pakistan. 'Hearing this, Mukherjee took off his glasses, cleaned them, and thanked all the officers before concluding the meeting,' Singh narrated in Parliament — a vignette that, in his view, captured the indecision of the time. Singh's critique extended beyond military restraint. He argued that the government's response to 26/11 had long-term diplomatic costs. 'Just take a look at the documents of the Brics summit held after that incident; there is no mention of the Mumbai terrorist attacks anywhere,' he said, suggesting that India failed to rally global condemnation against Pakistan. He contrasted that with what he described as the more 'forceful' actions of the NDA government after later attacks, referencing the 2016 surgical strikes and the 2019 air strikes: 'I believe that if the government back then had taken decisive and tough steps like the 2016 (surgical strike) and 2019 (air strike), Pakistan's strategic calculus could have been altered. A powerful and decisive action could have proven to be a significant disincentive for Pakistan and its army-sponsored terrorist organisations.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'People who did nothing are questioning those who acted': Jaishankar Jaishankar challenged critics of the government's handling of Operation Sindoor and turning the spotlight on the UPA's response to earlier crises. 'We were asked, why did you stop at this time? Why did you not go further? This question is being asked by people who, after 26/11, felt that the best action was inaction,' Jaishankar remarked. Speaking in Lok Sabha during special discussion on India's strong, successful and decisive #OperationSindoor. — Dr. S. Jaishankar (@DrSJaishankar) July 28, 2025 In his sharpest attack, he pointed to the reference to Balochistan in the Sharm-el-Sheikh joint statement: 'In Sharm-el-Sheikh, the then government and the Pakistani Prime Minister agreed that terrorism is a main threat to both countries. Now, today, people are saying America is hyphenating you, Russia is hyphenating you — that is what I heard Deepender Hooda ji say. You are hyphenating yourself. You did not need a foreign country to say please link India to Pakistan… And worst of all, they accepted a reference to Balochistan in that.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD For Jaishankar, this amounted to a damaging equivalence between victim and perpetrator: 'Now, here is a country reeling after 26/11, and you are equating Balochistan and 26/11, what happened in Mumbai, and you are saying that the perpetrator and the victim have both got a problem. And then, now you are asking me, why didn't you go further? People who did nothing are asking the Government that did so much, why didn't you do more?' Jaishankar noted that the current government had succeeded in bringing down Bahawalpur and Muridke terror sites, declaring: 'Who thought that terror sites in Bahawalpur and Muridke would be brought down the way they were?' He also traced a pattern back further, citing the UPA government's actions after the July 2006 Mumbai train bombings: 'Some years ago, if you remember Sir, the Mumbai train bombing. The Mumbai train bombing happened in the July of 2006. In September of 2006, three months after the Mumbai train bombing, at Havana, the UPA Government with its Pakistani counterpart condemns all acts of terrorism – as though we were both again equal, and agrees that it is a scourge that we need to effectively deal with together. And then they directed again, the resumption of dialogue. So, what I want to highlight is, for the people who did nothing, to have that temerity, that gumption today, to ask a Government which did so much, which brought down Bahawalpur and Muridke, to say why didn't you do more – I think it's extraordinary.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD What happened at Sharm-el-Sheikh in 2009 The Sharm-el-Sheikh meeting took place on the sidelines of the Non-Aligned Movement summit in July 2009, only eight months after the Mumbai attacks. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Pakistan's Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani held discussions that led to the issuance of a joint statement — a document that became one of the most controversial diplomatic texts in India's recent history. Pakistan's Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani (L) shakes hands with India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during the 15th Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit in the Egyptian Red Sea tourist resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, July 16, 2009. File Image/Reuters The statement declared terrorism 'the main threat to both countries,' and included an assurance from Gilani that Pakistan would 'do everything in its power' to bring those responsible for 26/11 to justice. It also recorded that 'Pakistan had provided an updated status dossier on the investigations of the Mumbai attacks and had sought additional information/evidence,' which Singh said was being reviewed by India. 'Both Prime Ministers recognised that dialogue is the only way forward. Action on terrorism should not be linked to the Composite Dialogue process and these should not be bracketed. Prime Minister Singh said that India was ready to discuss all issues with Pakistan, including all outstanding issues,' the joint statement said. However, two elements triggered outrage back home. First, the statement explicitly noted that 'action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and these should not be bracketed.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD This effectively delinked dialogue from Pakistan's progress on curbing terror — a shift from India's post-26/11 stance that talks could only proceed after credible action against perpetrators. Second, Gilani's mention of Balochistan — recorded in the statement — provided Islamabad with an opening to publicly accuse India of meddling in its insurgency-plagued province. Returning home, Gilani used the reference to claim that India had tacitly acknowledged involvement, a claim India denied but one that added to the political backlash. 'Both leaders agreed that the two countries will share real time, credible and actionable information on any future terrorist threats,' the statement read. 'Prime Minister Gilani mentioned that Pakistan has some information on threats in Balochistan and other areas.' 'Both Prime Ministers recognised that dialogue is the only way forward. Action on terrorism should not be linked to the Composite Dialogue process and these should not be bracketed. Prime Minister Singh said that India was ready to discuss all issues with Pakistan, including all outstanding issues.' The fallout in India was immediate and intense. Opposition parties branded the joint statement a 'sell-out' and accused the UPA government of compromising India's position. The BJP declared in Parliament at the time: 'Waters of the seven seas will not be able to wash the shame.' Congress launched a damage-control effort, with senior figures arguing that continued engagement with Pakistan was unavoidable despite the 26/11 attacks. Manmohan Singh defended his stance in Parliament at the time, delivering a statement that framed dialogue as a strategic necessity: 'We do not dilute our positions or our resolve to defeat terrorism by talking to any country. Other major powers affected by Pakistan-based terrorism are also engaging with Pakistan. Unless we talk directly to Pakistan, we will have to rely on third parties to do so. That route, I submit to this August House, has very severe limitations as to its effectiveness, and for the longer term the involvement of foreign powers in South Asia is not something to our liking. I say with strength and conviction that dialogue and engagement is the best way forward.' For the current NDA government, it is a case study in what it portrays as UPA-era indecision — a moment when India, in its view, squandered the opportunity to decisively confront Pakistan after the Mumbai attacks. Also Watch: With inputs from agencies
