Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

What is Zionism? And what is anti-Zionism?

By David Miller | Tracking Power | January 25, 2026

I am asked to give definitional answers to this question quite often. So, here, for the record are the key extracts from my witness statement written in August 2023 (some weeks before the launch of Al Aqsa Flood by the Palestinian Resistance ion 7 October of that year.

Glancing over the statement at this distance I am struck by how long and detailed it is – 97 pages – and how, even then I was naive about malevolence of Zionism. If you look below you will see that I refer to Zionism as being inherently genocidal. This was not a popular view then, but it has certainly been more than amply borne out by the events since.

I should note that it was on the basis of my statement and my testimony under cross examination that the Tribunal determined that my anti-Zionist views were worthy of respect in a democratic society which is the legal test for philosophical beliefs to be protected under the Equality Act 2010. The definition of Zionism I have used is thus of greater import than just my own views and beliefs it has been accepted by the court as satisfying the five key elements of the so-called ‘Grainger’ test of which being worthy of respect is the fifth.

For a belief to be protected under Section 10 of the Equality Act, it must:

  1. Be genuinely held: It cannot be a fictitious or insincere claim.
  2. Be a belief, not an opinion: It must be more than a viewpoint based on the “present state of information available”.
  3. Relate to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behavior: It must concern significant matters rather than trivial or minor ones.
  4. Attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion, and importance: The belief must be intelligible and internally consistent.
  5. Be worthy of respect in a democratic society: This has three components

    a. The belief must not be akin to Nazism or totalitarianism. It does not have to be a popular or mainstream belief; even beliefs that are shocking or offensive to others may still be worthy of respect. The belief must be consistent with the principles of a pluralist society.

    b. Not incompatible with human dignity: It must not dehumanize or degrade others.

    c. Not in conflict with the fundamental rights of others: The belief must not seek to destroy the basic freedoms and rights of other individuals.

Here are some key excerpts from my statement including, first of all, a declaration of my anti-racism and then a very short and neutral definition of Zionism, and why I oppose it, which I have italicised. (The statement was in the form of numbered paragraphs which I reproduce here)

_________________________________________________________________

PHILOSOPHICAL BELIEFS

7. I believe it self-evident that racism, imperialism and colonialism are offensive to human dignity and that each of those interconnected phenomena should be opposed. Human beings are all equal and are of equal value. The arrogance and supremacism of racism and racist systems and practices – which assert that it is acceptable for one group of people to dominate others on racial or ethnic lines – can in my view never be tolerated.

8. I believe that Zionism, an ideology that asserts that a state for Jewish people ought to be established and maintained in the territory that formerly comprised the British Mandate of Palestine, is inherently racist, imperialist, and colonial. I consider Zionism to be offensive to human dignity on that basis, and I therefore oppose it.

9. These beliefs, and the work (academic and political) which I have done in consequence of them, are at the heart of the case before the Tribunal. It is because I believe the things I do about Zionism, and because I have been prepared to say them out loud and without apology, that I have lost my job. It is therefore important that I explain in some detail why I believe the things that I do about Zionism, and to be more precise as to what Zionism is, and what I believe about it.

…

24. By the late 1990s, my beliefs in relation to Zionism were fully formed. I have at all times since that date believed Zionism to be a settler-colonial and ethno-nationalist movement that seeks to assert Jewish hegemony and political control over the land of historic Palestine.

…

31. I believe Zionism to be a form of racism because it necessarily calls for the displacement and disenfranchisement of non-Jews in favour of Jews, and it is therefore ideologically bound to lead to the practices of apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and genocide in pursuit of territorial control and expansion. This is not just a matter of historic observation: my belief concerns the nature of Zionism itself. Nor is it of only historic interest. Zionism remains, today, a colonial project which necessitates the oppression of the Palestinian population that remain within the territory that formerly comprised the mandate of Palestine (that is, modern-day Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories in the West Bank and Gaza Strip).

32. Crucially, Zionism requires not only the oppression of Palestinians, but also coercion of non-Palestinians who oppose the racist practices of the State of Israel. Zionism has implications that go beyond the territory of Palestine. A central facet of my research has been the identification of a transnational Zionist movement as a key supporting element of the continued ethnic cleansing in Palestine. This movement, and its allied constellation of organisations, seeks to pressure, censor and suppress critics of Israel, which is evident in my case and many others.

33. For example, Israel’s Law of Return, which was passed by the Knesset in 1950, allows Jews from outside of Israel, who have no material or ancestral ties to historic Palestine, to migrate to the State of Israel, at the expense of indigenous Palestinians who were expelled from their homes in the war of 1948 (or since) who are not permitted to return (and whose return was, in fact, prohibited by law in 1952). All of this flows directly from the logic of Zionism.

…

36. Anti-Zionism stands as the antithesis of the racist Zionist movement, calling for an end to the practises of apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and genocide against the Palestinian people, and calling for the liberation and decolonisation of Palestine. As someone who is fervently opposed to racism and colonialism, it is only natural for me to believe in anti-Zionism. Indeed, it is my strong belief in the repudiation of the racist values that Zionism exists to promote that make anti-Zionism an irrevocable part of my personal worldview, identity, and belief system.

…

39. … Zionism is, as I have described, a belief that a Jewish ethno-state should be established in historic Palestine: a land that has at all times since Zionism’s inception had a very substantial non-Jewish population (indeed, when Israel was created in 1948, the non-Jewish population of Palestine was the overwhelming majority of historic Palestine). Zionism is inherently and necessarily racist for that reason, and it is inherently and necessarily settler-colonial in its nature. The racist and colonial logic that sits at the very heart of Zionism necessitates the racist practices that have had, and continue to have, severe consequences for indigenous Palestinians, beginning with the forced expulsion of the majority of the Palestinian population from their homeland in 1948.

40. The idea of a non-racist Zionism is, however, hypothetical: it is outside the realm of actual history and at odds with existing Zionist ideology. Herzl said openly in The Jewish State that the state he wished to conceive was for European colonists and must be created somewhere that is comfortable for their sensibilities rather than a wild expanse of land. He suggested that were a patch of suitable land to be found, for example, “natives” might be put to work draining swamps and killing snakes on behalf of these European colonists with promises of future employment in a land to which they would later be deported.

41. What is at the heart of my anti-Zionist beliefs is an objection to – at least since the coming into prominence of Theodor Herzl’s views – Zionism as an inherently racist movement because of its ideological and practical commitment to settler-colonialism. This necessitates racist practices that have had, and continue to have, severe consequences for indigenous Palestinians.

…

47. There is nothing racist or “anti-Semitic” about anti-Zionism, and the Israeli-state-directed efforts to vilify anti-Zionism as a form of anti-Jewish hatred should be rejected. It is precisely because Zionism – on its own terms, as expressed through its chief ideologues and leaders – is a racist and settler-colonial movement, that so much effort is invested in defending Zionism and even rebranding it as so-called “Jewish self-determination”.

48. To be an anti-Zionist is, in my view, a moral and political duty as an anti-racist, and it has no relation to the “denial” of anyone’s “rights” or “self-determination”. On the other hand, it is Zionism that denies indigenous Palestinians their right to self-determination, among many other of their human rights.

___________________________________________________________________

I await the judgement in the appeal to my victory at the Employment Tribunal. The University of Bristol appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) and there was a hearing in mid-November last year.

Here is the statement on it from my law firm Rahman Lowe. The judgement is supposed to appear within three months. However, the Judge, Lord Fairley, who is the President of the EAT, said that while he hoped to have the judgement ready within three months, he could not guarantee it. So, we wait.

February 22, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Comments Off on What is Zionism? And what is anti-Zionism?

Hungary’s Blocking of EU Loan to Ukraine May Jeopardize IMF Funding – Reports

Sputnik – 22.02.2026

Hungary’s blocking of a 90 billion euro ($106 billion) EU loan to Kiev could impact a loan to Ukraine worth over $8 billion from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that has not yet been approved, the Financial Times newspaper reported on Sunday.

On Friday, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said that Budapest would block the EU’s loan as Kiev failed to restore oil transit via the Druzhba pipeline. On Saturday, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said that Budapest, following Bratislava, was weighing cuts to electricity supplies to Ukraine.

According to the report, the IMF loan depends on plugging Ukraine’s anticipated budget shortfall, which was slated for closure by April using EU funds.

“Without that [EU and IMF] support, Ukraine’s economy would most likely collapse,” Maksym Samoiliuk, an economist at the Kiev-based Centre for Economic Strategy, was quoted as saying by Financial Times.

On December 19, 2025, a summit in Brussels concluded with the EU temporarily abandoning plans to seize Russian state assets and instead agreeing to extend a 90 billion euro loan to Ukraine from the EU budget. Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic refused to take on responsibility for the loan.

On November 26, 2025, the IMF said it had reached a preliminary expert-level agreement on a new Extended Fund Facility arrangement for Ukraine worth approximately $8.2 billion.

February 22, 2026 Posted by | Economics | , , | Comments Off on Hungary’s Blocking of EU Loan to Ukraine May Jeopardize IMF Funding – Reports

Was MAHA Too Good to Last in the Trump Administration?

By Adam Dick | Peace and Prosperity Blog | February 21, 2026

Donald Trump’s presidential administration has been a big disappointment in several major areas, including the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) prospect of reducing government spending and the America First prospect of the United States government pursuing a foreign policy much less interventionist than before. On both counts, the Turmp administration has led the government in the opposite direction than what was promoted in Trump’s presidential campaign. Spending and the national debt have grown. At the same time, the Trump administration has continued the Biden administration’s Ukraine, Israel, and other wars, while stirring up new wars in Venezuela, Iran, and beyond.

As far as Trump’s campaign promise to empower Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to help make America healthy again (MAHA) there has been some progress. Significant moves toward MAHA achieved under Kennedy’s direction include curtailing the US government’s role as a drug promoter and shrinking the US government’s childhood vaccine schedule. Kennedy went astray at times from pursuit of MAHA as secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, including when he jumped in to help lead and promote the Trump administration’s crackdown on free speech critical of Israel at American educational institutions. Still, it seems that in the area of drug policy Kennedy has been on net carrying through on the promise to act to improve the health of Americans.

As if to confirm the saying that all good things must come to an end, Amanda Chu reported Saturday at Politico that indications are that the Trump administration is stepping in to restrain Kennedy from pursuing much of the MAHA program. Chu began her article as follows:

Year two of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s tenure as health secretary is already yielding some wins — but not for him and his Make America Healthy Again movement.

Instead, the agriculture and pharmaceutical industries he’s long targeted are breathing a sigh of relief as the White House signals it’s reining in Kennedy’s attacks on their products and tasking him with touting healthy eating and President Donald Trump’s efforts to cut drug price deals.

The latest evidence came Wednesday when Trump issued an executive order promoting the production of glyphosate, the herbicide Kennedy and his MAHA followers believe is a carcinogen.

For Washington’s lobbyists, the move was an early glimpse of how midterm realities are forcing the administration to shift away from Kennedy’s anti-vaccine, anti-chemical plans.

“It’s politics” is an explanation for the change suggested by Chu’s article. She notes farmers are an important part of the Republican base to be appeased. “Drugmakers and manufacturers of chemicals, including pesticides, are some of the biggest spenders in Washington, typically outpacing food makers,” Chu also related. Chu quoted Jeremy Furchtgott, a director at Baron Public Affairs, to provide an assessment of why the shift in regard to MAHA is taking place before the midterm elections. Wrote Chu:

‘It’s easier to get a win in the food industry,’ said Furchtgott. ‘The food industry spends a lot less on lobbying than the pharma industry.’

More and more, the Trump administration is sinking into the swamp that Trump used to promise he would drain. Hopefully, Kennedy, who has held much promise as a “swamp drainer,” will be able to move MAHA forward overall despite efforts to limit his action. If he cannot, nobody should fault Kennedy for walking away from a job deprived of the promise it originally entailed.

February 21, 2026 Posted by | Corruption | , | Comments Off on Was MAHA Too Good to Last in the Trump Administration?

Vermont advances bill letting unelected Health Commissioner decide which vaccines ctizens should receive

By Jon Fleetwood | February 19, 2026

The Vermont House of Representatives has passed House Bill 545, a sweeping law that grants the state’s unelected Health Commissioner the authority to issue official recommendations determining which vaccines children and adults in Vermont should receive, explicitly names influenza vaccines in statute—including future reformulations—and shields healthcare providers from civil liability for injuries caused by those injections.

The law also authorizes pharmacy technicians—personnel who historically served in support roles rather than frontline clinical injection roles—to administer influenza vaccines to children as young as five, dramatically expanding the range of individuals authorized under state law to deliver those shots.

You can see which representatives voted in favor of the bill here, with only nine voting against.

House Bill 545 is now advancing through the Vermont Senate, where it has already received favorable committee approval.

Taken together, the legislation embeds influenza vaccination directly into Vermont’s permanent statutory immunization infrastructure while placing vaccine recommendation authority in the hands of a single appointed official and protecting those administering the vaccines from lawsuits if harm occurs.

The bill’s passage comes as governments in the United States and internationally have poured billions of dollars into influenza pandemic preparedness, surveillance networks, and next-generation influenza vaccine development, with influenza repeatedly singled out in federal funding laws and global planning frameworks as a priority pandemic-capable virus.

It also comes as Kentucky Senator Rand Paul (R) has introduced federal legislation to strip vaccine manufacturers of their nationwide liability immunity, directly challenging the decades-old legal framework that shields the industry from civil lawsuits and reroutes injury claims into a federal compensation system.

This highlights a growing split between expanding liability protections for those administering vaccines at the state level and simultaneous federal efforts to remove liability protections for the manufacturers producing them.

February 21, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Comments Off on Vermont advances bill letting unelected Health Commissioner decide which vaccines ctizens should receive

Why the US-Israeli alliance will lose against Iran

By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | February 21, 2026

While it is impossible to predict precisely what the war on the Islamic Republic of Iran and its regional allies will result in, the winnability of the regional conflict is clear. The only thing driving this attack is sheer Israeli arrogance, as there is no conceivable situation where all out regional war delivers anything short of uncontrollable chaos.

Why is an all out regional war unwinnable? Although there are various reasons as to why this is the case, it suffices to say that the US and Israelis have no way of controlling its outcomes, in addition to this, they simply do not possess the military industrial capacity to wage such a war for a long period of time.

Now, when this argument is made, it is not done from an idealistic point of view. Therefore, it is important to preface this piece on the fact that there is a clear Israeli-US superiority in terms of technology and the kinds of weapons they possess. Nobody disputes this. There is also clear superiority in the field of their intelligence agencies.

So, let us first assume that the United States and the Zionist entity manage to score all of their desired tactical victories. Working on this assumption will then definitively prove the injudicious nature of the endeavour.

Therefore, under the best case scenario for the Zionist coalition, perhaps they succeed in conducting another decapitation strike on the Iranian military leadership, manage to penetrate and destroy some missile bases, nuclear facilities, while gutting the Islamic Republic’s air defences. These are very likely goals that they will seek to achieve.

Let’s also work under the assumption that they manage to put Tehran on the backfoot for at least a week, due to the intensity of their air campaign, making it difficult for the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) to fire large bursts of ballistic missiles at a single time. Then, after achieving air dominance, strikes on essential infrastructure begin, including cultural sites, government buildings, the media, but also the likes of oil facilities, agricultural areas and water systems.

On top of all of this, assume hybrid warfare tactics will be ongoing. Militant groups, especially those focused along the Iranian periphery, will start major offensive operations, working in conjunction with foreign intelligence agents and operatives on the ground, similar to what we witnessed during the 12-day War in June of 2025.

Note that the much debated potential goal of assassinating Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei is not included above. Although many have speculated that the strategy could very well hindge upon this, it guarantees a war with no predictable end, no escalation ladder and will likely trigger calls for global Jihad.

An inevitable US-Israeli defeat

Giving the Zionist coalition the best possible conditions and achievements as a result of their opening offensive, this strategy will quickly begin to run into major issues.

As we saw last June, decapitation strikes against the Iranian leadership do not work at crippling the government and its military, they are simply replaced by another line of leadership, who implement a whole series of pre-planned counter attack strategies.

The Israelis wrongfully believed that their success during the initial attack on Iran last year was going to yield major results, even attempting to utilise their asset in the United States, the son of the deposed Iranian dictator, to call for a revolt. Not only did no such action take place, as Iranians outside of the diaspora do not support this clear Zionist puppet, but the very opposite occurred as the population rallied behind the flag.

Within 15 hours, the Iranians not only managed to get their air defences back online, but captured the initiative and began launching huge volleys of ballistic missiles into the heart of Tel Aviv. As the conflict evolved, a few important developments occurred: the Israeli air defences began to buckle – with the draining of anti-air munitions – while their agents on the ground carried out most of the attacks, something that is key to note.

While it is clear that the US will bring in greater firepower than the Israelis can muster, an air force is still run by human operators who get tired and operate equipment that needs to be serviced. Iran will very easily be able to launch drones waves constantly at US and Zionist positions, and even if their ability to launch large salvos of missiles is constrained during the first week of the conflict, eventually the opportunity will present itself.

If the Iranian State has not crumbled and civil war has not erupted within this time, then the US and Israelis will then be subjected to wave after wave of counterattacks. Inevitably, this means that airbases will be struck, equipment will be lost, and with fewer assets, this means less ability to keep up the pace of their offensive.

Bear in mind that warhawks employed by Washington and Tel Aviv based pro-war think tanks, who claim that the Iranian State is crumbling at least once a year, are far detached from reality. Take the latest round of foreign backed riots for example, the Western corporate media invented an alternate reality in order to sell the idea that Iran was falling, yet the entire ordeal was more or less over in two days.

It is clear to any learned observer, that without a significant ground element, toppling the Iranian government is impossible. Which then leads to the obvious next question: What if major militant offensives occur inside Iranian territory?

Answering this in depth would take time and a more nimble military mind. Yet, again assuming some level of success on the behalf of separatist militias and al-Qaeda linked Takfiri groups, even if they were to seize territory, Iran is a massive country that allows for mistakes. None of these groups compare and can stand up to the Iranian army and IRGC, nor do they likely possess any considerable advanced capabilities.

What this means is that even if they manage to see some level of initial success, the much larger, well trained, motivated and well equipped Iranian armed forces will eventually crush these insurgents. The only real threat is some kind of mass civilian mobilisation that will deal a blow to the Iranian economy, for which there is no indication this will happen, especially as the nation is suffering through a bloody war of aggression against it.

Then come the attacks on missile bases and nuclear sites. Even if some of these attacks are successful, they won’t destroy all of Iran’s capabilities, and as we saw in June of last year, the US attacks on the nuclear facilities don’t appear to have stopped the nuclear program. If it were that easy to simply take out Iran’s capabilities, it would have been done long ago. The Israelis tried last year and failed. If anything, on the nuclear issue, such a war could end up leading to Tehran actually reversing course on its stance against developing the bomb.

Even with full US-Israeli air superiority, the remaining air defences of Iran will at some point come back online, but even in the event that 100% of their anti-air capabilities are gone, their power is in their offensive, not defensive capabilities.

Once this initial period of assumed US-Israeli offensive dominance is over, Iran can easily block the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf, inflict large casualty events on US and Israeli targets, while taking out assets. It is impossible to predict which strikes will be the most effective, however, it is clear that everything will become a target. So expect a big hit on the global oil market, resulting in an economic crisis.

If Iran simply keeps up a pace of fire against the Israelis, the likes of which we saw during the 12-day War, then they only have a matter of weeks before their air defences also become useless.

This is all without factoring in Iran’s various allies, which may enter at any level of intensity at any point in this conflict. There’s Ansar Allah, which has the capability of striking the Israelis, but also assets throughout the Persian Gulf. If Hezbollah manages to wage a considerable ground war, the Israelis have proven in the past to be the weakest in this arena.

The Iraqi Popular Mobilisation Units (PMU/PMF, Hashd al-Shaabi) are around 250,000 men strong, alongside Saraya Awliya al-Dam, who can use their own capabilities to not only target the US, but the Israelis also. So far, since October 7, 2023, we have not seen a true demonstration of their power. Another factor which is not often discussed, but is also very important, is the role of the Palestinian resistance, who are more likely to wait for the right opportunity, but can also pose a major ground challenge to the Israelis from Gaza.

None of this considers the other elements that could come into play, such as the roles played by regional nations, armed groups we may not have previously heard of, the likes of the Fatemiyoun of Afghanistan and Zainabiyoun of Pakistan, or the general populations throughout the region and what we could see in the event that chaos erupts. Governments could be overthrown, the civilian populations of Jordan and Egypt could become active and out of control. There is also the possibility that some groups in Syria could seize the opportunity to attack the Israelis.

In the event that such a war occurs, the longer it goes on, the more chaotic and unpredictable it becomes. A situation will be totally out of the US’s control, especially as the only means of combating this regional explosion is through the air. As we witnessed with the US campaign against Yemen, airstrikes alone change very little. Even in Gaza, the armed resistance groups fought for over 2 years with no supply chain, and by the admissions of the US and Israelis, their fighting force is still roughly the same size.

If things don’t go their way very quickly, then the Zionist coalition is going to get battered, and not even nuclear weapons will get them out of it. Therefore, [if] the US and Israelis, as long as we again grant them another assumption, that they are somewhat sane, choose to go to war, they will have to try and establish an escalation ladder, devising a real exit strategy.

The question becomes whether the Iranians and their allies allow them to exit the fight. An all out war will be bloody, it will claim an enormous amount of civilian lives, and it will also inflict considerable damage on civilian infrastructure. Truly, the effects of such a war are not desired by anyone in the region, yet the Iranian-led Axis of Resistance have long prepared their capabilities in order to combat what appears to have been inevitable.

Another thing to be mentioned here is that the US government, under the Trump administration, is totally captured by the Zionist entity. For all the reasons noted above, no previous administrations have dared escalate to this extent. If it were easy to launch a regime change operation against Iran, it would have been carried out many years ago.

However, a Zionist stooge is occupying the White House, a narcissistic man whose already low cognitive abilities are clearly declining. He is a President that an FBI report concluded had been compromised by the Mossad, but even if that report isn’t to be taken seriously, his whole campaign was bankrolled by Zionist donors, and his administration is an embarrassing collection of Zionist war hawks. If there was ever any US administration that was foolish enough to launch such a war, it is that of Donald Trump.

February 21, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Why the US-Israeli alliance will lose against Iran

US envoy Huckabee claims Israel has ‘biblical right’ to conquer all West Asia

The Cradle | February 21, 2026

During a recent interview with Tucker Carlson, US ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee claimed Israel has a biblical right to take over “all” of West Asia.

“It would be fine if they took it all,” Huckabee said when asked whether a passage from the Book of Genesis can be interpreted as granting Israel the right to steal all the land between the Nile River in Egypt and the Euphrates in Syria.

Huckabee was appointed by President Donald Trump as Ambassador to Israel in 2025. He is a former Arkansas governor and Southern Baptist minister.

Carlson and Huckabee discussed interpretations of Old Testament (Torah) scripture used by Christian Zionists to justify Israel’s killing and expulsion of native Christians and Muslims from the Holy Land.

Carlson asked Huckabee about a biblical verse in which God promises Abraham that his descendants will receive land “from the wadi of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates – the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites.”

“Israel is a land that God gave, through Abraham, to a people that he chose. It was a people, a place, and a purpose,” Huckabee claimed.

Carlson responded, saying this would include “like, basically the entire Middle East.”

“The Levant … Israel, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon – it’d also be big parts of Saudi Arabia and Iraq,” Carlson said.

“I’m not sure it would go that far, but it would be a big piece of land,” Huckabee answered.

Since 7 October 2023, Israel has launched wars to occupy land in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria, including to establish settlements for Israeli Jews. Israel has also escalated its efforts to steal and annex Palestinian land in the occupied West Bank.

Israel has killed at least 72,000 Palestinians during its effort to conquer Gaza, the majority of whom were women and children. Tens, if not hundreds, of thousands more may die from the indirect effects of Israel’s destruction of the strip.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sought to justify the eradication of Palestinians in Gaza at the start of the war, calling them “Amalek,” a reference to the Biblical account of a people exterminated by ancient Israelites.

Israeli Finance Minister and settler leader, Bezalel Smotrich, has stated that Israel would expand “little by little” and eventually encompass all Palestinian territories as well as Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia.

“It is written that the future of Jerusalem is to expand to Damascus,” he said, referencing the “Greater Israel” ideology.

Carlson also pressed Huckabee about Israel’s role in pushing the US to go to war against Iraq in 2003, which led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of US soldiers.

“How many Americans put their boots on the ground for Israel?” the US ambassador asked.

“Everybody who served in Iraq,” Carlson responded, adding that the intelligence falsely claiming that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction had come from Israel.

As Gary Vogler has detailed, neoconservatives inside the government of George W. Bush worked secretly with the Israeli lobby and government to launch the invasion of Iraq to satisfy Israel’s energy needs.

Since the start of the genocide in Gaza, members of Trump’s so-called “America First” political movement have become increasingly critical of Israel’s dominant influence in the US government, in particular at the expense of US citizens.

President Trump has currently amassed an “armada” of US forces in West Asia to prepare for a possible attack on Iran, long a key priority for Israel and Netanyahu, which would lead to the deaths of additional US citizens for Israel’s sake.

February 21, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on US envoy Huckabee claims Israel has ‘biblical right’ to conquer all West Asia

Testing the Alliance: Netanyahu’s Washington Visit

By Abbas Hashemite – New Eastern Outlook – February 21, 2026

Netanyahu’s recent rush to the United States signals that Israel seeks Washington to expand the agenda of negotiations with Iran. However, the Trump administration seems to recalibrate its policy alignment with Israel.

A Diplomatic Visit or a Geopolitical Stress Test?

Soon after the first round of US-Iran peace negotiations, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rushed to Washington. This visit was not part of routine diplomacy, but rather a test of geopolitical endurance. Israel and the United States had always been close allies. This bilateral relationship reached a new high during the tenure of US President Donald Trump. Since Donald Trump’s reelection as the 47th President of the US, both sides have exchanged numerous visits. Yet the recent visit of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu displayed pressing importance and urgency that signaled Israel’s anxiety over the recent US-Iran peace talks. Since the visit, analysts around the world are trying to analyze if the US will once again conduct a military attack on Iran at the behest of the Israeli government or if it will assert strategic independence.

The regional landscape in the Middle East is fraught with stress. Washington has intensified its military posture across the region to reinforce strategic deterrence and stability. The United States is critical of Iran’s nuclear program. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran’s uranium enrichment purity reached up to 60 percent as of mid-2025. This made Tehran’s nuclear enrichment levels the flashpoint for Western concern. Iranian officials insist that their nuclear program is merely for peaceful purposes and reversible. However, Tel Aviv views Iran’s nuclear enrichment levels as an existential threat. Some Arab states are also concerned about Iran’s nuclear program.

Due to these concerns by Israel and some pro-West Arab states, the United States imposed economic sanctions on Tehran. Moreover, it increased its military pressure on Iran by intensifying its military presence in the region. The United States deployed its largest aircraft carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln, in the Middle East. Reports suggest that the Pentagon has also ordered the deployment of another aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford, in the region. US President Donald Trump has also confirmed the deployment of another aircraft carrier in the region. However, none of these arrangements appears to be enough to appease Israel.

Expanding the Negotiation Framework

Netanyahu visited Washington to seek expansion of the US-Iran negotiation outline. Tel Aviv has long maintained that any negotiations and agreement with Tehran must also include restrictions on Iran’s regional alliances and ballistic missile program. This demand has further increased after the recent 12-day war between Iran and Israel. Israel views the range of Iranian missiles and its regional proxy network as a unified threat to its security and expansionist ambitions.

However, Washington’s posture after the Trump-Netanyahu meeting did not suggest any major breakthrough. After the meeting, President Trump stated that nuclear talks with Iran would continue, without mentioning anything about Iran’s ballistic missile program. This suggests that President Trump made no immediate commitment to the Israeli Prime Minister about including Iran’s ballistic missile program in the agenda of ongoing diplomatic negotiations. The absence of a clear US stance on Israel’s demands has drawn global attention.

Domestic Pressures and Global Constraints on Washington

The United States has been Israel’s closest ally for decades. Israel has received the largest amount of US aid in terms of money and weapons. However, it appears that this time the US wants to draw a boundary. There are numerous reasons behind this shift in Washington’s response to the Israeli demands. On the domestic front, the Trump administration is dealing with scores of challenges. American society is highly polarized over the Israeli aggression. Independent estimates suggest that the Palestinian death toll since October 7, 2023, has surpassed 80,000.

More than 90 percent of Gaza’s civilian infrastructure has been intentionally destroyed by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). A recent report revealed that Israel used prohibited US-made thermobaric weapons, capable of generating temperatures above 3500 degrees Celsius, in Gaza, which made thousands of Palestinian people evaporate. The United States also provided diplomatic assistance to Israel at international forums. Such reports sparked sustained protests across the United States against unequivocal military and strategic alignment with Israel. These protests and the American youth’s criticism have altered the domestic environment in the country and diminished the influence of the AIPAC on American politics.

On the international front, the United States is already facing diplomatic and strategic challenges. Due to Trump’s “America First” approach and his increasing sanctions, tariffs, and interventionist attitude, Washington is facing diplomatic isolation. The rapid rise of Russia and China as new global superpowers and the increasing role of middle powers in global politics have made the world multipolar. The American economy is also burdened by federal debt of around $34 trillion. A war with Iran would deepen Washington’s economic strain and complicate its diplomatic standing. Due to all these issues, the Trump administration seems to adopt a cautious approach towards Iran. However, given the Zionist influence in the US establishment, it would be hard for President Trump to reject Netanyahu’s demands. The increasing US military posture in the Middle East suggests that the coming few weeks will be decisive for the region.

Аbbas Hashemite is a political observer and research analyst for regional and global geopolitical issues. He is currently working as an independent researcher and journalist.

February 21, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on Testing the Alliance: Netanyahu’s Washington Visit

Britain is once again poisoning peace diplomacy with Russia and fueling war in Europe

Strategic Culture Foundation | February 20, 2026

For discerning observers, there was an obvious attempt this week by Britain to poison a delicate stage in peace negotiations for ending the conflict in Ukraine.

The sabotage effort was as vivid as, well, how should we put it?, as vivid as a brightly colored dart frog from the South American rainforests.

Five European governments signed a joint statement this week that dramatically claimed that Russian opposition figure Sergey Navalny was murdered two years ago in a Siberian prison by poisoning.

The scripted drama and media orchestration always betray a psychological operation intended for public consumption, which warrants the rapid prescription of healthy scepticism as an antidote.

The intergovernmental report claimed that the lethal toxin allegedly used on Navalny was “epibatidine,” which is naturally produced in the skin of the dart frog. Without any evidence, Britain and four other European governments – France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden – asserted that Navalny was murdered by the Russian authorities. Oh, those evil, dastardly Russians… cue the theme music from a James Bond movie!

Moscow rejected the latest claim as “feeblemindedness of fabulists” and condemned the European governments and media for engaging in “necro-propaganda”. Russia claims that Navalny (47) died of natural causes while serving a 19-year prison sentence for extremism and corruption. He was thought to be suffering from congenital ill health and on various medications before he began his penal sentence.

The joint European government statement on Navalny’s alleged poisoning is suspect for several reasons. For a start, it provides no verifiable data on the supposed toxicological analysis or how biomedical samples were obtained two years after Navalny’s death. The timing is also suspicious, coinciding with the Munich Security Conference last weekend and the second anniversary of Navalny’s demise on February 16, 2022, suggesting that the announcement was timed to maximize media attention.

Moreover, this week saw another round of trilateral negotiations between the United States, Ukraine, and Russia on finding a political settlement to the four-year conflict in Ukraine. The talks are at a tricky stage with little traction or trust between Kiev and Moscow.

The exotic frog story seems conveniently loaded to poison the atmosphere in the negotiations.

Tellingly, it is the British government that is the main protagonist in instigating the “necro-propaganda”.

This is true to form. It was the British who confabulated the Novichok poison story about double agent Sergey Skripal in 2018, and the polonium radioactive poisoning of another former Russian spy, Alexander Litvinenko, in a hotel in London in 2006. The Sun tabloid has today dredged up the latter story on the back of the Navalny case. This all speaks of British intel-media orchestration.

In an interview for the BBC state broadcaster, Britain’s Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper claimed that the alleged poisoning of Navalny showed that the Cold War is not over and that “we need to be ready for Russian aggression continuing towards Europe.”

She said that Europe must impose more sanctions on Russia and supply more weapons to Ukraine. Hardly conducive to negotiations.

It is remarkable, too, how Britain is not a member of the European Union, yet London appears entitled to define foreign relations with Russia for the 27-member bloc.

It is also significant that the Americans did not seem to be involved in creating the latest twist in the Navalny narrative. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio appeared to be blindsided by the development, saying, “We don’t have reason to question it,” but he disclosed that the U.S. had not been involved. “These countries came to that conclusion. They coordinated that… it wasn’t our endeavor. Sometimes countries go out and do their thing based on the intelligence [sic] they gathered.”

This has all the hallmarks of Britain’s endeavor, and to be more accurate, it wasn’t based on factual intelligence. It was based on a concocted black propaganda to demonize Russia and derail the peace diplomacy.

Another significant development was that during the trilateral talks in Geneva, Britain’s National Security Advisor, Jonathan Powell, showed up unexpectedly at the venue in the Intercontinental Hotel, where he held unofficial sideline talks with the Americans and Ukrainians. Powell’s visit was unannounced by the British government. He wasn’t formally invited to attend. Why was a senior British intelligence figure hanging around a venue for private trilateral discussions?

Britain has a malicious record of sabotaging peace diplomacy in Ukraine. In April 2022, just when the Ukrainian and Russian sides had worked out an early end to the conflict that erupted in February, the then British Prime Minister Boris Johnson suddenly intervened to persuade the Kiev regime to fight on, with promises of more NATO weapons. The baleful result has been a four-year war, a slaughterhouse, with over one million Ukrainian soldiers dead and a large number of Russians.

The Trump administration wants to extricate itself from the proxy war in Ukraine against Russia. Washington seems to recognize that the gambit for “strategic defeat” of Russia is a dead-end.

Not so the Europeans, who, for various reasons, are still fixated on prosecuting the proxy war. The European political class seems to be more infected by Russophobia and is incapable of rational thinking or diplomatic engagement with Moscow.

The has-been empire that is Britain is taking a lead role in galvanizing the hostility in Europe towards Russia. It is to that end that London is the main protagonist in the so-called coalition of the willing, along with that other has-been empire, France. The proposal to deploy British and French troops to Ukraine as a “security guarantee” in the event of a peace deal is intended to act as a deal-breaker since Moscow has repeatedly stated that deployment of any NATO troops in Ukraine is unacceptable and non-negotiable.

Britain appears to be taking an increasing role in the covert mentoring of the Ukrainian regime. This week, the British Foreign Office announced the opening of a new embassy office in Lvov, in western Ukraine, which is a stronghold for anti-Russian nationalists and NATO weapons supplies. London said the new office in Lvov was to “expand the UK’s diplomatic [sic] presence in Ukraine as the two countries deepen their relationship.”

Ukraine’s former top military commander, Valery Zalushny, was appointed the ambassador to London in 2024. The “Iron General” is an admirer of Nazi figure Stepan Bandera, and is considered to be a strong contender to replace Vladimir Zelensky, no doubt under British tutelage.

Continuing the war in Europe gives the British state a political purpose and standing among the Europeans. For petty self-aggrandizement, London is exploiting Russophobia.

Concocting propaganda is part of Britain’s toxic agenda. The history of London’s incitement of wars in Europe – not least its sinister role in precipitating World Wars I and II – is consistent with the latest maneuvers to keep fueling the conflict in Ukraine.

February 21, 2026 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia | , , , | Comments Off on Britain is once again poisoning peace diplomacy with Russia and fueling war in Europe

Russian fuel tanker to test US sanctions amid Cuba crisis

Al Mayadeen | February 21, 2026

A tanker believed to be carrying Russian fuels is heading toward Cuba, putting US sanctions on Cuba to the test as President Donald Trump intensifies pressure on the island amid a worsening energy crisis.

The vessel Sea Horse is expected to arrive in early March carrying urgently needed fuel supplies, according to Bloomberg, which cited maritime intelligence firm Kpler Ltd.

Cuba is facing acute shortages of fuels essential for cooking, transportation, and power generation, and authorities are struggling to maintain electricity supply. Available power output has declined sharply since the start of the year, with satellite imagery indicating that nighttime light levels across the island have fallen by as much as 50%.

The Sea Horse loaded its cargo through a ship-to-ship transfer off the coast of Cyprus. Kpler’s lead oil analyst Matt Smith estimates the tanker is transporting nearly 200,000 barrels of Russian gasoil, according to Bloomberg.

Gasoil, a diesel-type fuel widely used in transportation and electricity generation, has become particularly critical as both sectors operate under mounting strain in Cuba’s deepening energy crisis.

Whether the vessel will ultimately be able to complete its delivery remains uncertain. US enforcement measures have already resulted in the seizure of at least nine ships accused of participating in the transport of oil unilaterally sanctioned by Washington, underscoring the risks surrounding the current shipment.

US sanctions on Cuba intensify under Trump administration

Pressure on Havana has been mounting since late last year, when US forces seized a ship carrying Venezuelan crude bound for Cuba. After the subsequent abduction of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, the Trump administration applied further pressure on Caracas to halt shipments to Cuba.

Trump threatened tariffs on any nation that supplies Cuba with fuel. In January, the White House formalized the measure through an executive action authorizing steep tariffs on countries that export oil to Cuba. The move effectively pressured third states to scale back deliveries or risk penalties in their trade with the United States.

As a result, Mexico, previously a steady supplier, cut off shipments.

Cuba, which does not produce significant quantities of oil, depends heavily on imported crude and refined fuels to run its refineries and sustain electricity generation. In January, the island did not receive any oil for the first time in a decade.

US military presence in the Caribbean disrupts shipment

The US’ military presence in the Caribbean has choked off much of Cuba’s oil supply.

Earlier this month, the tanker Ocean Mariner, frequently used to ship fuels to Cuba, diverted and is now signaling the Bahamas as its final destination, according to vessel tracking data. The ship was carrying 30,000 barrels of diesel loaded at the Colombian port of Barranquilla, according to a shipping report.

The tightening supply situation has intensified fuel scarcity across Cuba, contributing to rolling blackouts, transportation slowdowns, and mounting strain on municipal infrastructure. Garbage collection and water pumping systems in Havana have reportedly been affected, while energy shortages have weighed on tourism and small business activity.

February 21, 2026 Posted by | Solidarity and Activism, War Crimes | , , | Comments Off on Russian fuel tanker to test US sanctions amid Cuba crisis

EU state issues ultimatum to Zelensky over Russian oil supplies

RT | February 21, 2025

Slovakia will cut its emergency electricity supplies to Ukraine unless Kiev resumes deliveries of Russian oil by Monday, Prime Minister Robert Fico has warned.

The standoff centers on the Soviet-era Druzhba pipeline, the main artery carrying Russian crude to Hungary and Slovakia. When supplies stopped in late January, Ukraine blamed a Russian airstrike. Moscow, however, insisted that Kiev was using energy to blackmail the two EU countries, which have been critical of the bloc’s support for Ukraine. Both Slovakia and Hungary echoed Moscow’s stance.

Writing on Saturday on X, Fico issued a direct ultimatum to Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky while hinting at Kiev’s ingratitude over past humanitarian assistance and readiness to host around 180,000 Ukrainian refugees.

Zelensky, he said, “refuses to understand our peace-oriented approach and, because we do not support the war, he is behaving maliciously toward Slovakia.”

Fico recalled that Ukraine had already halted Russian gas supplies to Slovakia, a move he said costs the country €500 million ($589 million) per year. “Slovakia cannot accept Slovak-Ukrainian relations as a one-way ticket benefiting only Ukraine,” he said.

The Slovak leader also stressed that Ukraine is highly dependent on outside energy supplies as its own power grid is reeling under Russian strikes, which Moscow says come in retaliation for Kiev’s “terrorist attacks” deep into the country.

”In January 2026 alone, these emergency supplies, needed to stabilize the Ukrainian energy grid, were required twice as much as during the entire year of 2025,” he said, adding that Zelensky’s “unacceptable behavior” once again proved that Slovakia had been right to opt out of the €90 billion EU loan to Kiev.

This comes as Hungary has also warned Kiev that it is “considering the option of stopping power and gas shipments towards Ukraine” over the Druzhba pipeline stand-off.

February 21, 2026 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | Comments Off on EU state issues ultimatum to Zelensky over Russian oil supplies

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »