EU and Israel resume dialogue with focus on Gaza’s future

LONDON: A British couple in their seventies were arrested by the Taliban in Afghanistan earlier this month, it was reported on Sunday.

Peter Reynolds, 79, and his wife Barbie, 75, who have spent 18 years running training projects in the country, were detained on Feb. 1 while returning to their home in Bamiyan.

Their daughter, Sarah Entwistle, told the BBC she had not heard from her parents in more than two weeks. Initially, they were able to send text messages from detention, with Afghan authorities assuring the family that they were “fine.”

However, communication ended three days later, leaving their children in the dark about their well-being since.

Speaking from Daventry in Northamptonshire, Entwistle said: “It’s been over two weeks since the messages stopped and they were taken into custody. We would like the Taliban to release them to go back to their home and continue their work.”

The couple, who met at the University of Bath and married in Kabul in 1970, have been running educational initiatives in Afghanistan since 2009.

Their work included training programs in five schools in Kabul and a project for mothers and children in Bamiyan, reportedly approved by local authorities despite the Taliban’s restrictions on female education and employment.

Entwistle told The Sunday Times: “They said they could not leave when Afghans were in their hour of need. They were meticulous about keeping by the rules even as they kept changing.”

She also expressed concern for her father’s health: “My mother is 75 and my father almost 80 and (he) needs his heart medication after a mini-stroke. They were just trying to help the country they loved. The idea they are being held because they were teaching mothers with children is outrageous.”

Entwistle and her three brothers have written to the Taliban, pleading for their parents’ release.

“We do not understand the reasons behind their arrest,” they said in the letter.

“They have communicated their trust in you, and that as Afghan citizens they will be treated well.”

They also distanced their parents from any potential prisoner exchange.

“Our parents have consistently expressed their commitment to Afghanistan, stating that they would rather sacrifice their lives than become part of ransom negotiations or be traded,” they said.

Taliban sources told the BBC that British nationals had been arrested in Bamiyan province for allegedly working for a nongovernmental organization and using a plane without notifying local authorities. The Taliban has imposed strict regulations on NGOs, banning women from working for them in 2022 and threatening closures for non-compliance.

The UK Foreign Office has acknowledged the detention of two British nationals in Afghanistan but has limited capacity to assist, as Britain does not recognize the Taliban and has no embassy in Kabul.

WASHINGTON: President Donald Trump has launched a sweeping shakeup of the Pentagon, firing top officers and moving to lay off thousands of civilian workers as he seeks to align the US military with his priorities.
The removal of the officers has pushed the Pentagon into the political spotlight, with Democrats accusing Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth of seeking to politicize the military and ensure it is led by people personally loyal to the president.
Remaining above the political fray is a core principle for the US armed forces, with troops even barred from engaging in some types of political activity in order to maintain the military’s neutrality.
Hegseth has insisted the president is simply choosing the leaders he wants, saying “there is civilian control of the military. Nothing about this is unprecedented.”
Trump “deserves to pick his key national security and military advisory team,” Hegseth told “Fox News Sunday.”
But Senator Jack Reed — the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee — argued that “what Trump and Hegseth are trying to do is to politicize the Department of Defense.”
“It’s the beginning of a very, very serious degradation of the military,” Reed said on ABC’s “This Week.”
Trump announced late Friday that he was firing top US military officer General Charles “CQ” Brown less than two years into his four-year term as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Hegseth then said he was also seeking a replacement for top US Navy officer Admiral Lisa Franchetti, as well as the Air Force vice chief of staff and three top military lawyers.
The shakeup of senior personnel came after the Pentagon announced it aims to cut at least five percent of its more than 900,000-person civilian workforce, saying the decision was taken “to produce efficiencies and refocus the department on the president’s priorities.”

Representative Adam Smith, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said Trump fired Brown as well as thousands of federal employees “not because they weren’t competent or good at their jobs, but because Trump wants sycophants.”
“Anyone who doesn’t pledge loyalty has to go,” Smith said in a video posted on X, adding: “That really undermines the competence and capability of the people serving our country.”
Trump administration officials have defended the firings, with Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary Kingsley Wilson arguing that the removal of the senior officers is in keeping with past presidential actions.
“Truman fired General MacArthur. Lincoln fired General McClellan. Obama fired General McChrystal. Yet the Fake News still claims we’re in ‘uncharted territory,’” Wilson wrote on X.
But those generals were fired due to specific problems — Douglas MacArthur for overstepping his authority and defying orders, George McClellan for insufficient aggression on the battlefield and Stanley McChrystal because he and his aides reportedly criticized US officials.
No accusations of misconduct have been made against the recently removed officers, with Hegseth saying Brown is “an honorable man” but “not the right man for the moment.”
Seth Jones, president of the Defense and Security Department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that while there are various examples of senior officers being relieved, “it has generally been for competence issues.”
“This does not appear to have been, at least to a significant degree, about the competence of General Brown, for example,” and if the removals were not based on performance, “then this is uncommon.”
Jones said he does not however think that “at this point... the vast majority of the uniformed military has been politicized.”
It is when civilian and uniformed leaders disagree that “you judge whether the military has been politicized. Are they giving their best military judgment on an issue, which is what they’re sworn to do? So we’ll have to see,” he said.