Armenian authorities have detained six parliamentary candidates from the opposition Strong Armenia bloc a day before the country heads to the polls in Sunday’s general election.
During recent televised debates, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, who came to power in 2018 following street protests dubbed the “Velvet Revolution,” called for the revocation of the registration of several major opposition groups.
The Central Election Commission refused to remove Strong Armenia from Sunday’s ballot altogether, but approved requests for criminal proceedings and the pre-trial detention of six candidates: Hayk Avagyan, Susan Badalyan, Artur Abrahamyan, Vahe Tavakalyan, Vahe Yeghiazaryan, and Ashot Sahakyan.
“In the course of the preliminary investigation into a criminal case concerning the material inducement of numerous individuals and the laundering of funds on an especially large scale, public criminal prosecution has been initiated against six parliamentary candidates from the Strong Armenia bloc,” the Investigative Committee said in a statement on Saturday, adding that all six were placed under arrest.
Opposition forces accused the authorities of exerting immense pressure ahead of the vote, in which Pashinyan’s ruling Civil Contract party – which has been pushing for closer integration with the EU while maintaining traditionally close relations with Russia – is expected to remain the largest single force in parliament, but could fall short of forming a one-party majority government.
Pashinyan’s leadership is being contested by a heavily fractured opposition of 17 parties and political blocs. The Strong Armenia bloc, led by Russian-Armenian businessman Samvel Karapetyan, is polling second, although figures vary widely depending on the pollster, how many parties cross the 4% threshold, and how the roughly 30% of undecided voters split. Should Civil Contract fail to secure a majority of seats, coalition talks among its rivals are not guaranteed to succeed.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova accused Armenian authorities of undermining democratic procedures, warning that such behavior casts doubt on the legitimacy of the election. Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev similarly accused Pashinyan of “trying to knock out all his rivals in the elections.”
Moscow warned that closer integration with the EU would make Armenia’s continued membership in the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) impossible due to incompatible standards. Russian President Vladimir Putin warned in May that the South Caucasus nation could lose up to 14% of its GDP if it leaves the economic organization.
Earlier this month, former President Robert Kocharyan warned that Pashinyan’s government was “artificially” turning Armenia into an enemy of Russia and leading the country down the same path as Ukraine.
SpaceX will soon go public, in an offering that will value the company at over a trillion dollars. Anthropic and OpenAI are Artificial Intelligence companies, who also plan megacap IPO’s for later in the year. Recent changes to indexing rules will compel massive share buys into these companies by retirement and pension plans, and by passive ETF’s and mutual funds. In the past, new companies were required to wait until insiders sold most of the shares after the lockup periods before being added to investment indices. Companies also needed to show a strong history of growth and sound financial practices.
An Israeli airstrike in southern Lebanon on the morning of 6 June killed Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) Brigadier General Martyr Wassim Sabra, Captain Martyr Eli Khoury, and enlisted soldier Hussein Abdul Ali Ghazal.
The LAF issued a statement condemning the “barbaric” attack and said continued Israeli violations will “only increase our steadfastness … to confront these aggressive attempts aimed at thwarting all efforts to reach a solution that allows for the restoration of stability.”
After the attack, the LAF released images showing the aftermath, revealing that the military vehicle was completely destroyed.
The Israeli military claimed the vehicle was “moving suspiciously” in a “combat zone” without “coordination” with Tel Aviv.
“Following the identification, and due to the warning information and the danger to the forces, the vehicle was struck,” the Israeli army said, adding that the operation is “under review.”
Over 30 LAF soldiers have been killed by Israel since 2 March. At least six other people were killed in Israeli strikes across south Lebanon on Saturday
Hezbollah condemned the strike on the Lebanese military vehicle, calling it a “deliberate crime.”
“This is a natural outcome of the state’s disregard for the country’s sovereignty and the blood of its people, alongside its gratuitous concessions—the latest of which was its complete surrender to the enemy’s conditions in Washington,” the Lebanese resistance group stated, extending condolences to the families of the soldiers.
The ongoing Israeli violations of Lebanon’s state institutions are taking place simultaneously with direct negotiations between Beirut and Tel Aviv, facilitated by Washington.
On Wednesday, both sides issued a statement declaring “no hostile intent” toward one another and agreed to extend the so-called “ceasefire.”
Beirut also agreed to a deal requiring Hezbollah to withdraw from the south Litani area amid ongoing Israeli bombardment and occupation, while not demanding an Israeli withdrawal from the south.
The proposal calls on Hezbollah to end resistance operations in exchange for Israel refraining from strikes on the capital only.
On Friday, Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam and President Joseph Aoun both issued public statements accusing Iran of “destroying” southern Lebanon and declaring that the war, which has killed more than 3,500 Lebanese and displaced over 1.2 million, is “not ours.”
“If I may address a word to Iran … Have mercy on our south, stop treating it … as merely a bargaining chip to improve the terms of your negotiations … Iran was the very first to reject the ceasefire. This confirms that this war is not ours, it is not being fought for our sake, but rather on our land and at the expense of our people,” Salam said.
“It’s not your country, it’s our country,” Aoun said hours later on 5 June, addressing Iran during an interview with Christiane Amanpour on CNN.
“You are not trying to help us … the people of Lebanon are paying the price … for the sake of your own interest … Our interests … do not coincide with your interests,” he added, claiming that displaced Lebanese Shias have told him they are “fed up” with “Hezbollah’s war.”
For its part, Hezbollah has vowed to continue fighting until Israel ends its attacks, withdraws from Lebanon, and releases all Lebanese prisoners.
The Israel government has done a lot to earn dislike through bringing death and destruction on a vast scale. People are seeing Israel’s attacks in the last few years on Gaza, Lebanon, Iran, and beyond as using destructive force that is not just defensive and focused on military targets. General annihilation is seen as a clear objective.
Americans have had special reason to become aware of reasons to dislike Israel given that the United States government has been working as a coconspirator, funding and otherwise assisting Israel’s mayhem. Indeed, a new Pew Research Center poll of the views of people across 36 countries found that in America 60 percent of queried individuals have a very or somewhat unfavorable opinion of Israel, while only 37 percent have a somewhat or very favorable opinion of Israel.
Still, Americans, compared with other people questioned across the world, come in as less critical of Israel than most. The figures for median views of people in the 36 surveyed countries came in at a 67 percent unfavorable view of Israel and a 25 percent favorable view.
In each of the 36 surveyed countries where people were questioned, the opinion regarding Israel tilted negative except for in India and three African nations — Ghana, Kenya, and Nigeria — where the positive opinion regarding Israel came in on top.
How will the Trump years in office play out in the history books? Recently, a number of unthinkable scenarios have taken place which will mark Trump and 2026 out as a seismic watershed moment in America’s history which will change the country’s identity and standing in the world forever. The decision by Trump to strike Iran on February 28th was remarkable in that it was a decision that Trump more or less took while disregarding his chief of staff and most of the cabal of decision makers around him, in preference for what Israel was insisting was a quick, winnable weekend war.
If we are to believe the explosive expletives though which were delivered by Trump to Netanyahu in a telephone call, it would appear that the greatest nightmare the world has about America – that it is run entirely these days by Israel – has come true. The anger and frustration by Trump might be real, even though what was reported might have been exaggerated for political purposes but the reality is that Israel is blocking any deal that Trump might believe he can pull off with Iran. And worse than just blocking it, based on Netanyahu’s statement about Lebanon, Bibi has not “turned back” IDF troops from making the south of Lebanon a new Gaza. The killing goes on, the systematic destruction of property and the war with Hezbollah has not been halted which puts Trump in an even tighter corner than he might have imagined he was in just a couple of weeks ago. He himself is unable to strike Iran as GCC partners have critically denied his military the support it would need, but in reality those governments and their elites – in particular MbS of Saudi Arabia – have played the safety lever role on Trump’s madness that Washington couldn’t pull off itself. Trump’s firing of all chiefs of staff from Biden’s days and surrounding himself with under qualified yes men has resulted in Trump himself being able to cultivate the maddest ideas and it is only leaders of the middle east who can tell him no. Enough is enough.
Presently, what we are witnessing in the region is the division of GCC countries – those who are allied to Israel via the Abraham Accords – and those who have formed a new anti Israel alliance with its own nuclear deterrent, a group made up of Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan which doesn’t have a name but is now an informal pact.
And in the middle of all this madness, comes more. Now we are hearing plans for Israel to move ahead with plans which would guarantee its annual 3.8 bn USD military gift from the U.S. for the next 20 years, shrouded in even more secrecy through a bill in congress which would essentially merge the Israeli government with the Washington apparatus making the IDF one with the U.S. military.
This fusion of the IDF and U.S. forces comes when Israel is sensing that future governments and congress will demand more accountability of how the annual defence gratuity is spent and Israel’s intentions in future wars. It also comes when public opinion seems to be against America’s support for Israel and its regional goals.
For example, according to Al Jazeera, a survey this month from The New York Times and Siena College found that 57 percent of U.S. voters opposed providing Israel with additional economic and military support.
Moreover, 62 percent said they disapproved of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel’s genocidal war against Gaza, which started in 2023, has killed more than 75,000 people, prompting widespread condemnation, Al Jazeera claims.
There is some kickback from both houses against the so called Section 244 although those who have opposed it have predictably been called ‘anti semitic’.
But the very fact that Israel is using its leverage with congressmen which it has on its payroll to push through a bill which would ‘co-ordinate’ all military action that both the U.S. and Israel are involved in shows just how advanced Israel is with its absolute control of Washington. We’ve reached a new high-water mark of servility and it’s the Trump second term which has been a catalyst to this new world order which is going to make any deal with Iran even harder – first of all to get signed, but more importantly to implement, which of course the Iranians know, which explains their lethargic pace in the negotiations compared to Trump’s panicky buffoonery.
To Trump’s credit, he at least presented some resistance to U.S. forces being sent to their deaths when Israel turned up the heat and insisted on getting dug into a longer, drawn out deeper conflict with Iran. Sceptics rush to point out that Israel will only use a closer union to sell on the open market all of America’s military secrets, the bigger point is being over looked. If this article 244 gets through, it will only be a matter of time before an Israeli PM can simply order U.S. troops to fight any battle it wants. The days of heated arguments, threats or even blackmail will be looked back upon almost nostalgically as a golden era where a U.S. president still had the final call on whether to send in American troops. Netanyahu’s identity for three decades has been built on him bragging that he and Israel have been running America but the claim has been largely uncontested until now. Are we now about to enter a new phase?
“He’ll do whatever I want him to do,” Donald Trump declared recently about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The statement may be one of the most revealing statements Trump has ever made—not for what it says about Netanyahu, but for what it reveals about Trump’s psychology. It was intended as a display of strength. Instead, it exposed the opposite.
Trump has built a political persona around hyperbole, self-aggrandizement, and declarations of superiority to cover up for an oversized inferiority complex, he only knows its extent. When he insists that Netanyahu is acting at his command, he is projecting an authority he does not possess. The louder the boast, the more apparent the insecurity beneath it.
If there is one lesson since the election of Trump, it is that Netanyahu, not Trump, has consistently dictated the pace of America’s wars in the Middle East. Trump may occupy the White House, issue ultimatums, and proclaim himself the master negotiator, but the facts on the ground tell a different story. Again and again, Netanyahu acts, and Trump adjusts.
For years, Netanyahu worked relentlessly to pull the U. S. into another made-for-Israel war, this time against Iran. Successive administrations, despite their deference to Israel, stopped short of falling for the scheme. Trump, however, proved far more susceptible to the influence of his Israel-first donors and to Netanyahu’s chicanery. Yet he continues to portray himself as the one calling the shots.
This week, Trump proudly recounted a phone call in which he supposedly instructed Netanyahu to halt a planned Israeli attack on Beirut. It took little time after Trump’s statement for Israel’s defense minister to announce that military operations “will continue under all circumstances.” True to that pledge, Israel launched fresh attacks on hospitals and villages in southern Lebanon, killing and wounding civilians despite the so-called Trump’s war cessation.
Two days later, on Wednesday June 3rd, Lebanese and Israeli delegations meeting in Washington announced another ceasefire. The third such extension since last April. One day after reaching the agreement, Israel resumed strikes on South Lebanon and said it would neither withdraw nor allow Lebanese civilians back to their homes in the south.
It is almost certain, when the Lebanese resistance eventually counters the repeated Israeli violations, Trump—as he has done before—will condemn the retaliation rather than the provocation. To save face and avoid appearing weak before Netanyahu, he will once again blame the Lebanese side while ignoring the Israeli occupation and military actions that triggered the response.
The same pattern is evident in the negotiations with Iran. For months, Trump’s stated objective was to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon—a framework which aligns with Tehran’s declared position. But nuclear-armed Israel, which never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty that Iran did, has different goals entirely. Netanyahu’s government will not be satisfied with anything short of the destruction of knowledge and the reduction of Iran to a failed state, precisely the fate that befell Iraq and Libya after both countries agreed to surrender their nuclear ambitions.
For Israel, a negotiated agreement between the U.S. and Iran, may be far less desirable than the continuation of regional turmoil. For its objective is the preservation of a strategic environment that sustains military and geopolitical dominance. Zionism has long viewed the emergence of democratic, technologically advanced, and self-reliant neighboring states as a threat. Fragmentation and disorder in surrounding countries serve that objective by limiting the rise of independent regional powers that could one day, potentially challenge Israeli primacy. In this case, Israel may be unique among nations: it derives strategic advantage not from a stable and prosperous region, but from entropy, and has built a regional doctrine whose success depends on propagating chaos.
The cost to ordinary Americans is tangible, and personal. They feel it every time they fuel their cars, pay inflated prices for goods, or watch Congress cut healthcare or financial student aid for Americans in order to finance another military aid package for Israel.
Americans are not only financing Israel’s wars through tax dollars and weapons transfers. They are also paying what amounts to an Israeli surcharge tax at the pump.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has been trying for weeks to assure consumers that gas will hover around $3 a gallon between June and September, as if it is acceptable for Americans to pay elevated prices until Netanyahu deigns to approve a ceasefire, especially when Trump boasts that America is a net oil exporter.
Gaza is another front in Israel’s endless wars. Trump personally signed the ceasefire agreement in Sharm el-Sheikh in October 2025, chirping “we have peace in the Middle East.” He had since watched in silence as Israel systematically dismantled every commitment it had made. During the “ceasefire,” it maintained a starvation diet blockade, murdered more than 800 and wounded thousands.
Under Phase One of the agreement, Israeli forces were required to withdraw to approximately 53 percent of Gaza. Phase two stipulated further withdrawal. Instead, Netanyahu ordered the seizure of an additional 32 percent, increasing total Israeli military occupation to 70 percent of the besieged territory, confining 2.3 million Palestinians to 30 percent, or roughly 50,000 human beings per each square mile of rubble.
On all fronts, Trump did not merely follow Netanyahu’s lead. He enabled it, funded it, armed it, and defended it diplomatically. Then, standing before television cameras, he attempted to compensate for this reality by insisting that he was the one in control.
To that end, and following recent Republican primary elections, lame-duck Republican members of Congress have already begun treating the Trump administration as a lame-duck presidency, long before the midterm elections. The recent congressional vote to limit presidential war powers is a telling sign that Trump’s political capital is eroding far sooner than expected.
Nevertheless, Americans may be witnessing a historic inflection point in the decades-long power of Israel-first Zionist influence over American political life. It is clear the political landscape is shifting, and the assumptions that long governed Washington’s relationship with Israel no longer appear as immutable as they once did. From growing dissent within the Democratic Party—and among Republican influencers—to deepening unease across the Washington Beltway, genuine cracks are appearing in a system that for generations treated Israel as a sacred cow. Eight decades of unquestioned manipulation and political leverage over American leaders is now facing resistance from constituencies that were once among its most reliable friends.
Hence, no amount of presidential bravado or social-media posturing can obscure what has become undeniable: under Donald Trump, American foreign policy has served Netanyahu’s Israel-first agenda, not America’s. And when the history of this era is written, this odd couple may be remembered for ushering in the sunset of Israel-first Zionist dominance over the U.S. government.
Netanyahu and Trump are conditioning the end of the war in Iran on the condition that all countries in the region sign the Abraham Accords, a tacit submission to Israel. Drawing on Daniel Levy, Omer Bartov, and the Pew Survey, I address the reasons, the urgency, and the limits of Netanyahu’s simultaneous battles on several fronts in the quest for a Greater Israel project.
When Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich talks about expanding Israel’s reach “to Damascus,” or Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expresses personal attachment to broad territorial ambitions or Israel being not only a “regional superpower” but “in some respects, a global superpower,” these are not just messianic daydreams. They reflect a deliberate, and deeply destabilizing strategic doctrine. For years, the idea of Greater Israel was dismissed by Western analysts as the rhetoric of a few Israeli hardliners. Sustaining this dismissive position is no longer possible.
Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator and now head of the U.S./Middle East Project, offers a sharp analytical lens for understanding today’s events. He suggests that Greater Israel isn’t just about land—it’s about Israel aiming to establish itself as the dominant hard-power player across the Middle East. As Levy puts it, this is about seeing how far Israel can extend its reach and consolidate its role as the region’s unrivaled hegemon.
Territorial control—occupying the Golan, reasserting presence in southern Lebanon, pushing forward with West Bank annexation, and the continuation of the genocide in Gaza—is only the most visible layer. The deeper game is about forging new regional alliances, as the one with the UAE, systematically weakening rival states, and building webs of hard-power dependency that lock neighboring governments into Israel’s orbit.
The ideological consolidation of this project was the 2018 Jewish Nation-State Basic Law, which constitutionally defined Israel as “the national home of the Jewish people.” For many, including the PLO’s Saeb Erekat, this law was the moment when a Zionist aspiration became a formal legal reality, and for critics, a codification of a system of apartheid. What was once an ambition is now written into the legal foundations of the state.
Omer Bartov, a leading scholar on genocide and Israeli history, traces this shift with a heavy sense of loss. In his book Israel: What Went Wrong?, he shows how Zionism, once rooted in the humanitarian ideals of 19th-century Jewish emancipation, has been transformed into a state project of ethno-nationalism, exclusion, and, in the end, violence. As Bartov puts it, what began as a struggle for Jewish liberation has become a machinery for dominating Palestinians, with all the tragedy that implies.
The Logic of Urgency
The pace and simultaneity of Israeli military operations in recent years demand careful analysis. In just two years, Israel has bombed Gaza, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Qatar and Yemen; it has occupied the Golan Heights, Gaza, the West Bank, and parts of southern Lebanon. Israel even succeeded in drawing the United States into a direct conflict with Iran, a move that, as Secretary of State Marco Rubio accidentally admitted, was driven more by Israeli rather than American priorities. As for Netanyahu, this is a posture of someone convinced that the window for reshaping the region is closing fast, and determined to act before it closes.
Levy describes the current moment as the “Pax Greater Israel” era, a time when the old constraints of American power, the so-called Pax Americana, have faded. With a more pliable U.S. administration, Israel’s room to maneuver has expanded. Iran still hasn’t rebuilt the deterrence it once had before Israel and America struck last year. The region’s strategic balance is more fluid—and more precarious—than it’s been in a generation.
While there’s international outrage over Israel’s actions in Gaza, Iran, and Lebanon, Israel has not suffered any punishment. The European Union, which heralds itself as the guardian of morals and Western values, has seen these values undermined by Israel, yet no single action has been taken. Netanyahu, who has piloted Israeli politics for nearly two decades, is unlikely to let an opportunity like this slip by.
Netanyahu’s sense of urgency isn’t just strategic. It is also deeply personal and political. He faces criminal charges, widespread public disapproval (polls showed most Israelis wanted him out even before the Gaza war), and an election looming in 2026. His personal survival and his political project are now intertwined. History teaches us that war often delays accountability, and Netanyahu knows that he has survived through wars.
By keeping the nation in a constant state of crisis, Netanyahu postpones his own reckoning while pushing forward his broader regional ambitions. There is always a danger when embattled leaders manipulate the machinery of state.
The Collapse of the Impunity Consensus
For decades, Israel benefited from an unspoken Western consensus that gave it extraordinary complacency on international law. UN resolutions could be swept aside, settlements could expand, human rights abuses against Palestinians could be perpetrated, and the memory of the Holocaust—too often used as a diplomatic shield—offered a kind of moral immunity no other state enjoyed. That consensus is now breaking down, even if its institutional traces remain stubbornly in place.
The visibility of the Gaza war and its horrendous violence has triggered a generational break like never before and a breakdown of this consensus. According to an April 2026 Pew survey, 60% of Americans have unfavorable views of Israel and 37% favorable ones. This becomes more important, as it is the first in history. The same survey also showed Netanyahu’s administration with 27% approval and 59% disapproval. In the last Global Country Perceptions Survey, Israel ranked in the last position, several points behind North Korea and Afghanistan.
The generational divide is even sharper among young people, many of whom reject any complicity in what prominent scholars, including Bartov, now formally call genocide. Netanyahu’s act of tearing up the UN Charter at the General Assembly, followed by a mass walkout, was more than symbolism. It marked the end of an era for both Netanyahu and Israel. Criticism of Israel or Zionism is no longer quickly conflated with antisemitism, especially among the younger generations.
And yet the institutional lag is severe. The European Union, bound by Article 2 of its Association Agreement with Israel, which explicitly conditions the relationship on respect for human rights, has consistently refused to act on its own legal framework. The cost of this cowardice is not merely moral. The EU, having lost industrial competitiveness, seeks its international influence as a regulatory and normative superpower. This claim rests on credibility. A bloc that intends to police the digital practices of technology companies but cannot enforce a human rights clause in its own trade agreement with a small state faces difficulties in imposing itself as a normative power, and the Global South has drawn that conclusion because of the lack of moral authority and double standard.
The pro-Israel lobby in the United States, sensing the tide turning, has responded by intensifying rather than moderating. More money is being spent, more countries are being pressured, more political careers are being threatened or terminated, as was the case with Thomas Massie and Marjorie Taylor Greene, and more communication and online platforms are being acquired; censorship is being imposed, especially on platforms such as Facebook and YouTube, and algorithms are being “re-educated,” as Mr. Larry Ellison said when he acquired TikTok. The main lobby, AIPAC, has, in great measure, turned into a politically toxic brand, according to The Intercept.
But Levy is right to note the structural limits of this approach. Lobbying is most effective when it moves with the current of public opinion or when it operates in the dark. It is least effective when it operates openly against an overwhelming public majority, against a country’s perceived national interest, and against the values of the rising generation. The lobby is fighting a rearguard action — powerful, well-resourced, and increasingly desperate.
The Next Iran and the Regional Order
It’s no accident that Israeli security officials—from Naftali Bennett to the current establishment—have started designating Türkiye as “the next Iran.” This isn’t just rhetoric; it is also part of “Greater Israel” strategy. Three decades ago, Israel argued that Iran was the existential threat that had to be contained before it led the region. Now, the same logic and language are applied to Türkiye: any regional power capable of building a new security order outside Israeli influence is seen as a threat to be isolated or confronted before it can consolidate.
But Türkiye is a different kind of challenge. As a NATO member with the largest NATO army in Europe, a strong economy, and the anchor of a coalition with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan, Türkiye is not easily marginalized. Recent agreements point to a regional bloc that aims to build security frameworks explicitly outside Israeli (and, by extension, Western) dominance. This coalition news has not pleased Israel and soon reached the EU, with Ursula von der Leyen declaring, “We do not want to live under the influence of China, Russia, or Türkiye.”
The regional threat map has changed. For much of the Arab world and for Türkiye’s Erdoğan, Israel—not Iran—is now seen as the chief destabilizer. This shift in perception has real geopolitical consequences, and it’s not something American air power can easily undo.
Are we at the point of no return? In some ways, yes. The two-state solution, no matter how often it’s invoked in diplomatic statements, is functionally dead. It wasn’t killed by a single act, but by decades of illegal settlements, legal discrimination, disproportionate violence, and the systematic fragmentation of Palestinian territory. The ethnostate is already a reality on the ground. Bartov’s assessment is sobering but direct: unless there is sustained, structural pressure and actions from the international community, a real course correction is unlikely, and so far, that pressure hasn’t materialized.
But in another sense, we’re not quite past the point of no return for Netanyahu’s grand project. The conditions that have enabled the Greater Israel strategy are starting to slip away. American public opinion is shifting faster than the country’s political leaders; the support for Palestine is now higher than the support for Israel. A new regional bloc—with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt—offers a real counterweight. Iran, for all its setbacks, still possesses significant strategic resources and has the backing of China and Russia. And inside Israel, recent polling shows that a large majority (71%) support replacing the current Basic Laws with a formal constitution. Beneath the surface noise of hardline politics, there’s evidence that Israeli society hasn’t wholly given in to the ethnonationalist vision Bartov describes.
One thing is clear: this current trajectory of forever war and continued violence and humiliation of Palestinians can’t last forever. As Levy notes, Netanyahu is playing a high-stakes game of “use it or lose it.” The real question isn’t whether this moment will end — sure it will — but what the aftermath will look like. Will the region be forcibly remade in the image of Greater Israel, or will a new order, forged through painful resistance, emerge in its place? The stakes for Israelis, Palestinians, and the broader Middle East couldn’t be higher.
Ricardo Martins – Doctor of Sociology, specialist in European and international politics as well as geopolitics
On May 18, Israeli commandos attacked 54 civilian boats carrying food and medical supplies to Gaza. The boats were near Cypress, nearly 300 miles from Gaza, in international waters.
The Israelis fired at the boats and kidnapped 428 unarmed humanitarian activists. Those people were never charged with any crime. How could they be? When kidnapped, they were exercising their right to sail in international waters. It was the Israelis who were committing the crime of maritime piracy, which carries a penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment.
But piracy and kidnapping were just the initial crimes. Sexual assault, rape, and torture followed. It began almost as soon as the Israeli pirates boarded the victims’ boats. According to Dropsite News, “The flotilla says at least 12 sexual assaults were documented aboard the vessel alone, including anal rape and forcible penetration with a handgun.”
The kidnapping victims were subjected to sadistic sexual abuse in the form of strip-searches accompanied by sexual taunting and groping. Many were raped. Participants described “rubber bullets fired at close range, tasers used on the face and upper body, stun grenades thrown into groups of detainees (and) prolonged stress positions under permanent bright light.” The activists were brutally beaten, emerging with “broken ribs (and) fractures to the torso, shoulders, and back.”
The kidnappers took their victims to the Israeli port of Ashdod for “further beatings, sexual humiliation, prolonged interrogations, and torture.” Israel responded to the media outcry and formal diplomatic protests from twelve governments, including Spain and Italy, by having extremist minister Itamar Ben-Gvir film himself participating in the abuse of the kidnapped civilians. After Ben-Gvir proudly posted his torture selfies on social media, even the US, UK, and Canada protested. Facing universal condemnation, the Israelis finally released their victims four days after the kidnapping, sending most of them on deportation flights to Turkey.
The kidnapped and tortured activists pointed out that the four days of hell they experienced were nothing compared to what Palestinian prisoners endure every single day. They called attention to the fact that Israel is currently imprisoning more than 400 Palestinian children, and that almost three-quarters of the children kidnapped by Israel report experiencing sexual violence or abuse.
Israel’s crimes against the flotilla activists were shocking but not surprising. Israel, after all, is a nation that trains dogs to rape prisoners, as reported by The New York Times. It is a nation with a “right to rape” movement that makes national heroes of prison guards who sodomize people to death. In his article “Israel Is the Global Rape Capital” Elias Akleh describes how “Sadistic sexual rape seems to be an endemic character of the whole Israeli society, making Israel the rape capital of the world, where sexual abuse and rape are not restricted against Palestinians only, but against Jewish Israeli girls in general.”
All of this is just the proverbial tip of an iceberg of evidence that Israel is a nation of sadistic sex criminals. Depraved, violent, sadistic sexual abuse is even part of Israeli Orthodox Jewish religious rituals, as reported by the Jerusalem Post(6/3/2025). Social media is full of pictures posted by Israeli soldiers who murder Palestinian women, dress up in their victims’ bras and underwear, and take selfies.
In relatively normal societies, it is estimated that two per cent or less of the population consists of clinical psychopaths, while 98% are non-psychopathic. Among the Israeli Jewish population, it seems, that ratio is reversed. Polls show that the vast majority of Israeli Jews support the genocide of Gaza, which has featured the murders of tens of thousands of innocent women and children, most of whom have been slowly crushed to death beneath the rubble of their own houses.
None of these crimes could happen without the roughly ten trillion dollars of support Israel has received from American taxpayers. That money has been bestowed on the Dog Rape Nation by our politicians, who are bribed or blackmailed by Israeli agents like Jeffrey Epstein, himself a shining example of Jewish-Israeli sexual psychopathy.
Epstein described himself as “Donald (Trump’s) closest friend for ten years.” But it gets worse. In his 20s, Trump was the protegé of Jewish-Zionist gangster Roy Cohn, a sadistic homosexual pedophile who, according to journalist Anthony Summers, ran an Epstein-style blackmail operation that filmed powerful men, including J. Edgar Hoover, abusing little boys.
And it isn’t just Trump. Our whole political class is compromised. Just look at how they vote on Israel-related issues.
The USA desperately needs a serious, French Revolution style housecleaning.
See Also:
"Sexual violence against young boys and girls. Things that are done in the name of a religious ritual… These rituals, most of which are ancient rituals from the days of Ba'al worship, have not vanished from the world".
Slamming US-Israeli acts of nuclear terrorism, Iran says the international community must adopt a “zero-tolerance policy” towards any armed attack on peaceful nuclear installations and promote binding international norms on the inviolability of such facilities.
Iran’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Vienna made the call in a statement during the Special Meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors in Vienna on Friday.
It said military strikes against civilian nuclear energy sites constitute a fundamental violation of the very objects and purposes of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and the IAEA Statute.
Such attacks also weaken the legitimacy and credibility of the international non-proliferation framework, particularly the IAEA’s safeguards system, and deteriorate the very basis of global peace and security, it added.
It emphasized that the most relevant resolutions of the IAEA General Conference banning strikes on nuclear installations are resolutions 444 and 533, both put forward by Iran. Conversely, the United States rejected both.
The statement urged the international community to stop these attacks on nuclear facilities from becoming a normal occurrence, warning, “Otherwise, in addition to our security, the main victim would be the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.”
The mission insisted that efforts to prevent such normalization must be carried out in a systematic manner, free from political manipulation, biased approach, or double standard.
“We must adopt a ‘zero-tolerance policy’ towards such attacks. We must promote the adherence to, and effectiveness of, the existing norms on the inviolability of peaceful nuclear activities,” it pointed out.
It further stressed the need to establish international norms where necessary aim to “absolutely prohibit attacks or threats against safeguarded nuclear installations under any and all circumstances.”
According to the statement, Iran believes that it is entirely reasonable to expect the IAEA Director General — especially given his candidacy for UN Secretary-General — to follow officially recognized UN terminology and to use the official names of geographical features as reflected in relevant UN documents and also historical documents.
“Such consistency is important for preserving the impartiality, professionalism, and credibility expected of senior international officials,” it emphasized as IAEA head has refused to explicitly condemn US-Israeli attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities during two rounds of US-Israeli aggression on Iran in June 2025 and January to April 2026.
The mission further noted that the “gravest, most extensive and unprecedented” armed attacks against IAEA-monitored nuclear sites in the Agency’s history have been carried out against Iranian facilities.
“In their illegal acts of aggression in 2025 and 2026, the US-a nuclear-weapon State-and the Israeli regime – an outlaw nuclear-weapon-possessor – carried out 17 waves of multiple attacks against Iranian safeguarded nuclear facilities,” it said.
According to the statement, one of the “gravest” attacks targeted a structure located just 350 meters away from the reactor of the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, resulting in human casualties.
It added, “After all, US high-ranking officials had publicly threatened to attack Iranian nuclear power plants! This Plant hosts thousands of kilograms of nuclear materials, and as the IAEA DG stated, a direct hit thereto could result in a ‘very high release of radioactivity to the environment’.”
The mission declared that any such attack constitutes a “material breach of a peremptory norm of international law, namely, the prohibition of aggression” and warned that both the crime of aggression and war crimes carry international liability as well as individual criminal accountability for the perpetrators.
It further reminded the meeting that the first time the IAEA considered such acts was after the Israeli regime’s attack on an Iraqi nuclear installation in 1981 and said that in its resolution adopted on 12 June 1981, the UN nuclear agency’s Board of Governors strongly condemned the attack and recommended suspending any assistance to the Israeli regime as well as its membership.
The General Conference later described the attack as “an attack against the Agency and its safeguards” and suspended the provision of assistance to Israel, though it fell short of suspending the regime’s membership, it added.
However, the mission noted, declassified US documents have since revealed that American pressure and threats to cut the IAEA budget had been the main cause behind the failure to fully suspend Israel’s membership.
“Moreover, in a number of resolutions and decisions adopted from 1981 to 2009, the General Conference reaffirmed that any attack or threat against safeguarded nuclear facilities constitute a violation of UN Charter, international law and IAEA Statute,” it said.
America’s position on the Ukraine conflict has become almost indistinguishable from that of the EU, making US President Donald Trump’s stated ambition to mediate an end to the fighting hollow, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has told RT.
Trump repeatedly blamed the conflict between Russia and Ukraine on his predecessor, Joe Biden, and claimed that he could bring it to a swift conclusion while campaigning in 2024.
However, recent statements by members of his administration suggest a different course, Lavrov said on Thursday in an interview on the sidelines of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum.
“Biden’s war has become Trump’s war,” the Russian foreign minister said.
Speaking to Congress this week, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said efforts to facilitate Russia-Ukraine talks were complicated “because, frankly, we’re not an impartial mediator.” He cited the continuation of the sanctions on Russia and sales of US weapons to Ukraine.
“After we agreed to the United States proposal in Anchorage [in August 2025], Washington began to shift its position. Instead of advancing those same proposals in its dealings with Ukrainians, it is now pretending that the parties should sort things out themselves. This is not a very consistent position,” Lavrov said.
“It is the West that cannot be trusted to keep its agreements. Its approach is: ‘I’ll promise something now, then stall for time.’ If the US had truly advanced its own initiative, I think… the fighting would already have stopped.”
According to Lavrov, the only major difference between Trump’s policy and that of Biden and the EU is that his administration resumed direct talks with Russia. Dialogue is important, he said, but it must be matched by action on commitments already made. … Full video interview
A suspected Ukrainian maritime drone exploded in the Romanian port of Constanta on Friday morning, prompting a major emergency response and the evacuation of the area, local media and officials said.
The unmanned boat was discovered in the port several hundred meters from the oil terminal, local media said. It was reportedly carrying explosives and became stuck in an anti-pollution barrier before detonating. The location is also close to the headquarters of the Romanian Agency for Saving Human Life at Sea.
Romania’s Defense Ministry said the object self-detonated at around 10:30 AM without causing casualties. The area had already been secured and isolated by the Romanian authorities while the drone was being assessed.
The ministry has also stated that the drone did not belong to the Romanian military and had not been involved in recent exercises in the Black Sea, describing it as being “of the type used in the war in Ukraine.”
Local media later reported that three more drones had exploded. Another one near the Port of Constanta, and two more in Ukrainian waters. Constanta County Prefect Adrian Picoiu told the News.ro outlet that the drones were of Ukrainian origin.
Commander Sandu Mateiu also told local news outlet Digi24 that the vessel resembled a Ukrainian MAGURA V5 maritime drone used by Kiev’s military intelligence, which can carry hundreds of kilograms of explosives, travel long distances, and often operate in swarms.
The authorities in Constanta have issued a Code Red warning due to the danger of further explosions along the coast, ordering people to keep at least 1 km away from the shoreline until the threat is eliminated.
The Russian Embassy in Romania responded to the incident by stressing that the drones in question are “Ukrainian unmanned maritime vehicles, used by the Kiev regime to commit terrorist acts against civilian ships and to create threats to the safety of navigation in the Black Sea.”
The diplomatic mission emphasized that “any attempts to directly or indirectly associate these drones with Russia and to attribute responsibility for the incident are without any basis.”
In recent months, Ukrainian drones have repeatedly veered into the airspace of nearby countries, including the Baltic states and Finland, triggering warnings and airport shutdowns, crashing into buildings, and damaging infrastructure.
Moscow has accused Western states of consistently ignoring or downplaying the incidents, particularly after it is confirmed that a Ukrainian aircraft was responsible, or trying to pin the blame on Russia.
Russian officials have also repeatedly raised concerns that Kiev could intentionally be staging drone provocations outside its borders in an effort to trigger a direct confrontation between NATO and Moscow.
Two National Institutes of Health (NIH) researchers are charged with conspiring to smuggle biological materials, including deactivated monkeypox virus samples, into the U.S. from Africa. The researchers also allegedly lied to federal authorities about what they were carrying, according to a criminal complaint unsealed Tuesday in federal court in Detroit.
Vincent Munster, Ph.D., a Dutch citizen and chief of the Virus Ecology Section at NIH’s Rocky Mountain Laboratories in Hamilton, Montana, and Claude Kwe Yinda, Ph.D., a Cameroonian research fellow, are charged with conspiracy to smuggle goods into the U.S. and making false statements to federal investigators.
Both men work at a Biosafety Level 4 laboratory, the highest level of containment used for research involving dangerous pathogens.
According to federal prosecutors, the researchers arrived at Detroit Metropolitan Airport on Jan. 25 after traveling from the Democratic Republic of Congo, where a monkeypox outbreak was ongoing.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers questioned the pair about a large black case they were carrying. Prosecutors allege the men told officers the case contained diagnostic and testing equipment, but investigators later determined it held 113 vials stored in Styrofoam coolers.
Testing of a portion of the samples found deactivated monkeypox virus in 17 vials, chickenpox virus in one vial and human DNA in two others.
“These NIH experts apparently broke our laws by smuggling viral pathogens on a packed commercial airplane from an outbreak in the Republic of Congo,” U.S. Attorney Jerome F. Gorgon Jr. said in announcing the charges. “Let that sink in.”
Federal authorities stressed that the case centers on alleged violations of importation and disclosure requirements. Prosecutors did not accuse the defendants of intentionally releasing pathogens or harming the public.
FBI Detroit Special Agent in Charge Jennifer Runyan said the allegations demonstrate that scientific credentials do not exempt researchers from federal statutes.
“No researchers should believe their positions, credentials, or professional status place them above the law,” Runyan said.
The complaint alleges Munster “adamantly denied” carrying biological samples and at one point told investigators that any necessary documentation was on his laptop. “I do this all the time,” he said, according to an FBI affidavit. Authorities said Munster did not produce the documentation he claimed to have.
Neither defendant responded to emails requesting comment.
Congressional inquiry into past research ties
Munster has previously been mentioned in congressional oversight inquiries involving COVID-19 research.
A 2024 letter from Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), then ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, to then-NIH Director Monica Bertagnolli said committee investigators had reviewed documents they believed showed collaboration among researchers affiliated with NIH, EcoHealth Alliance, the University of North Carolina and the Wuhan Institute of Virology on SARS-related coronavirus studies.
The letter cited Munster as a participant in the work alongside EcoHealth Alliance’s Peter Daszak, Ph.D., University of North Carolina virologist Ralph Baric, Ph.D., and Wuhan Institute of Virology scientist Zhengli Shi, Ph.D.
The correspondence did not make a finding of wrongdoing but said the materials “indicate” involvement in coronavirus research projects under congressional review.
Richard Ebright, Ph.D., a molecular biologist at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey, said the letter raises additional questions about Munster’s past medical ties.
“If the letter is correct, Munster’s record likely includes the unlawful importation and false claims incidents for which he was arrested, but also a share in culpability for causing COVID,” Ebright said.
‘Experimental laboratory approaches’
In a LinkedIn post earlier this year, Munster referenced an article about transmission of the monkeypox (also referred to as mpox) virus “translating our work in the Republic of the Congo towards experimental laboratory approaches.”
Munster and Yinda also co-authored a paper published earlier this year in The Lancet warning that the spread of monkeypox was becoming a “global threat.”
They said cases detected in multiple regions suggested ongoing international spread and called for expanded surveillance, stronger contact tracing and further research into how efficiently the virus transmits and whether sustained community spread is possible outside Africa.
NIH ‘cooperating fully with law enforcement’
The NIH has not commented on the charges, but the agency said it would assist legal authorities in the case.
“This matter is currently under investigation, and NIH is cooperating fully with law enforcement and appropriate authorities,” the agency said in a statement.
The charges emerge amid reports of an employee at Rocky Mountain Laboratories potentially being exposed to Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever (CCHF) in late 2025.
Federal officials said the leak was contained and posed no risk to public health, while some legal experts told The Defender these instances were “surprisingly common.”
Munster and Yinda are scheduled to appear in federal court in Montana. If convicted, they face up to five years in prison.
Henrick Karoliszyn, DSW, is an investigative reporter for The Defender.
For quite some time the British have accepted that British Jewish organizations have hijacked the political discourse. As has happened in other Western countries, the British political establishment has engaged is a relentless rant against antisemitsm. Sometime the focus drifts for a day or two. An alleged ‘Russian nerve gas attack’ provided a 48 hour pause. Occasionally we bomb Arabs in the name of ‘human intervention’ only to realize a day or two later that we have, once again, followed a premeditated foreign agenda. But, somehow, we always return to the antisemitism debate, as if our media and politicians are a herd of flies gravitating to a pile of poop. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.