Russia has reaffirmed its support for Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, the Russian Foreign Ministry said.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met with former Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri on the sidelines of the 17th Sir Bani Yas International Forum on Peace and Security.
“The Russian side reaffirmed its principled position in support of the unity, territorial integrity and sovereignty of this state,” the foreign ministry said in a statement published on its website.
The two sides also held a detailed exchange of views on developments in the Middle East, focusing on the situation in and around Lebanon, the statement said.
They also discussed prospects for strengthening traditionally friendly Russian-Lebanese relations, it said.
One of the main reasons Israel’s “Hasbara” has been so easy to debunk is the fact that Israelis in Hebrew widely showcase their genocidal hatred towards the Palestinian people for the world to see.
The latest example, uncovered by historian Zachary Foster, shows two hosts on the mainstream Israeli outlet Channel 14- the Channel most closely connected with the ruling Likud party- laughing at and celebrating the deadly floods in Gaza that have killed four children in the past few days.
In the clip, the sadistic Israeli hosts play a song with the lyrics “rain, rain is dripping, rain rain how fun”, over images of displaced Palestinians civilians dealing with flooding in refugee camps.
The hosts sadistically laugh at footage of a Palestinian woman desperately scooping water out of her flooded tent with a cup, saying “within six years you’ll get it all out of the tent”, while laughing hysterically at her suffering.
The two evil hosts continue to laugh and mock Palestinian suffering, suggesting that Palestinians “open a water park”, while displaying a superimposed image of a water park over the ruins of Gaza, caused by Israel’s ongoing genocide.
The two hosts continue to dance and sing as they speculate what to call this “water park”.
This sadistic display of mocking and celebrating Palestinian suffering is not an isolated incident and is just another example of the sadism broadcast daily on Israeli TV.
Channel 14, where this genocidal screed was broadcast, is not a fringe network within Israel either, and actually emerged as one of Israel’s “most-watched news sources” in 2024, even beating the more mainstream Channel 12 in ratings.
Indeed, it is exactly this sort of genocidal barbarism that makes the channel popular with the Israeli public, which overwhelmingly supports genocide of the Palestinian people.
In August 1949, three months after Israel joined the United Nations, Lebanon’s envoy in Washington sent his government a long report. Charles Malik, no firebrand, had signed the UN Charter and helped draft the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. His Report on the Present Situation lay largely unread until Dar An-Nahar printed it in 2002.
The Arabic text is online; the translations below are mine, with the book’s page numbers.
Malik calls Palestine “the gravest Arab question of all”, whose outcome “is the outcome of the whole Arab world” (p. 24). Then he warns:
“Everything that has happened so far in Palestine and concerning Palestine is only a beginning. As for the end, it may be either the crushing of the Arab world and its colonisation by the Jews, or its rising anew as a modern, respected world, sharing with the living civilisations in creating values and preserving them. Whatever happens, the near future will be darker than the present and more dangerous than the past.” (p. 27)
A word on Malik’s language. He writes “the Jews” where we would now write the Zionist entity and the organised bodies abroad that back it: the Zionist movement and the vast bulk of organised Jewry. The movement named itself that way: a Jewish Agency, a Jewish National Fund, a Jewish state. In the Levant, the conquest of Palestine was experienced as an attack by Jews. That describes a political project and its institutions. It is not a racial term, and it says nothing about Jews as a people, some of whom opposed Zionism then and oppose it now. Malik’s target is the movement and the state it had just built:
“… the Jews’ triumph in seizing the greater part of Palestine and building their state, … and Israel’s entry as a member of the United Nations: all this is not an act at which the ambitions of the Jews stop and with which their danger ends. The State of Israel, in its present condition and borders, is not a resting place for the invading Jewish force, but a centre where it gathers, a soil in which it grows, and a point from which it sets out across its borders and springs upon the Arab countries, the adjacent and then the distant: politically, economically and socially, and, if need be, militarily. And I think it will need to.” (pp. 27–28)
“The Zionists have succeeded in all this. But they will not be content with this partial success, nor satisfied with this measure of victory, because their ambitions do not end at the patch of Palestine they have seized, nor stop at the borders the world has recognised for them. … Zionist policy is, at its core, an ambitious expansionist policy. The whole of Palestine is not enough for the needs of the Jews, nor does it sate the appetite of their leaders. … Israel wants to dominate the Arab world; it wants to be the heir of all its previous eras. Just as it was once known, in whole or in part, as the Roman, Byzantine, Arab, Turkish or Mandate era, so Zionism wants it to be known in its coming era as the Israeli era. The Arab world is Zionism’s vital space.” (pp. 40–41)
“… They will succeed in persuading the West, and in persuading some of our own politicians and thinkers, that they are the intermediary between the West and the Near East, in economics and development, in culture and thought, and in politics, and that they are the ones fit to represent the Near East, its interests, its will and its forces, to the West. … A day will come, if it has not already come, when all economic and development projects and all rescue plans … rest at bottom on the Jewish will, aimed in their motives at numbing the Arabs and distracting them from the shame of Israel’s establishment in their midst, and in their end at forcing them to recognise it and cooperate with it. These projects will be built so as, first and foremost, to entrench Israel’s foundations and make it the cornerstone of the economic structure and the pillar of development in the Near East.” (pp. 43–44)
Now Benjamin Netanyahu. At the UN in 2023, he hailed a “visionary corridor that will stretch across the Arabian Peninsula and Israel” to “connect India to Europe”, and said: “Israel can become a bridge of peace and prosperity between these continents.” “Israel must be a power,” he told a Mossad gathering in 2015. “Not just a regional power, but in some spheres, a world power.” In December 2025, two years into the genocide in Gaza, he declared in the Knesset that Israel “is the strongest power in the Middle East, and in certain fields, it is a global power.”
A page earlier, Malik had described what such a position would mean:
“For a day will come — and it may be near, if it is not already here — when nothing in the Arab world is loosed or bound except with the consent of the Jews. Then governments, regimes and individuals will be upheld or overturned according to the Jews’ approval or anger: a head of state or a head of government will rise or fall because Tel Aviv, and behind it world Jewry concentrated in New York and other Western capitals, wanted him to rise or to fall.” (pp. 42–43)
“I have repeatedly been given to understand that very important matters, such as development projects, international loans, and treaties and agreements for security in the Middle East, were left undecided or set aside because those with the power to decide on them had first consulted the Jews about them.” (p. 43)
The same line applies: Malik’s “world Jewry” is the organised Zionist movement in Western capitals, standing “behind” Tel Aviv. Read that way, the passage is prescient, as Israel’s record in Lebanon shows. Who today can say that this is far from the mark on the reality of contemporary political life?
A partial ambition
Malik’s “partial success” is the key. Zionist leaders always claimed more than they accepted at any moment. Acceptance was tactical.
At the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, the Zionist Organization proposed a northern border starting “south of Sidon” and an eastern line “close to and west of the Hedjaz Railway”, well east of the Jordan.
When the Peel Commission offered a small state in 1937, David Ben-Gurion told his son Amos why he would take it: “A partial Jewish state is not the end, but only the beginning … I am certain that we will not be prevented from settling in other parts of the country, either by mutual agreement with our Arab neighbors or by some other means.”
In June 1938, the historian Nur Masalha shows from the Jewish Agency Executive’s minutes, Ben-Gurion accepted part of the country “on the basis of the assumption that after we build up a strong force following the establishment of the state – we will abolish the partition of the country and we will expand to the whole Land of Israel.”
Ze’ev Jabotinsky, founder of Revisionist Zionism, had already spelled out the method in 1923: colonisation “must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the native population”, behind “an iron wall, which the native population cannot breach”.
Menachem Begin’s Irgun answered the UN partition vote of November 1947, as he recorded in The Revolt: “The partition of the Homeland is illegal. It will never be recognized. … Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for ever.”
Lebanon
Malik’s sharpest fear was for Lebanon. He warned of “a secret agreement between Israel and some short-sighted Lebanese”, who would then “carry out a coup loyal to Israel”. It “would not be counted as aggression by Israel, but as a mere internal movement”, leaving the West no room to act. Yet such a coup “would inevitably lead to chaos, then Syrian Arab intervention, then Israeli intervention, and so to a new war, and Lebanon will not be the winner in it at all” (pp. 145–146).
He did not know what Ben-Gurion had written on 24 May 1948, in a diary now published by the Ben-Gurion Archive: “Lebanon is the weak link in the Arab coalition. The Muslim government is artificial and easy to destabilize. A Christian state should be established with the Litani [River] as its southern border. We’ll form an alliance with it.”
In May 1955, according to Moshe Sharett’s diary as translated by Livia Rokach, Chief of Staff Moshe Dayan said Israel need only “find an officer, even just a Major”, then “create a Christian regime which will ally itself with Israel” and annex “the territory from the Litani southward”. It is almost exactly Malik’s plot.
In March 1949, US records show, Malik had asked Dean Acheson for a declaration “that no further expansion on the part of Israel would be permitted.” None came.
Seventy-seven years on
Malik’s answer was Arab renewal. Without it, he wrote, “I am certain that our future is colonisation and enslavement by the Jews. And I am certain of more than that: I am certain that in that case no one will grieve over our enslavement” (p. 42).
Against the genocide in Gaza, the wars on Lebanon and the seizures of Syrian territory, the report reads as description. In August 2025 Netanyahu said he felt “very much” connected to the vision of Greater Israel. Malik would not have been surprised. The ambition was never dropped, only deferred until the force existed to pursue it.
Arabic original: Charles Malik, شارل مالك، إسرائيل… أميركا… والعرب: تنبؤات من نصف قرن – تقرير في الوضع الحاضر، 5 آب 1949 (Israel… America… and the Arabs: Prophecies from Half a Century – Report on the Present Situation, 5 August 1949), preface by Ghassan Tueni (Beirut: Dar An-Nahar, first edition August 2002; scan of the third printing, March 2003). Read it on archive.org or download the PDF.
Israeli aircraft bombed the Nasser Medical Complex in Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip early on Thursday, killing at least five people and wounding more than 20, Al Mayadeen’s correspondent reported.
The strike hit the second floor of a building in the complex, west of the city, and caused major destruction. Rescue crews recovered five bodies and evacuated more than 20 injured people.
The hospital’s director said the strike came from directly above, causing heavy damage in the intensive care and surgery departments.
Civil Defense spokesman Mahmoud Basal told Reuters it hit the surgery department, and medics identified one of the dead as a surgeon, Rezik Abushira.
Anadolu reported that the building hit was the Al-Yassin building inside the complex. Nasser is the main hospital serving southern Gaza and carries the heaviest burden in treating the wounded and providing medical care.
Israeli strikes killed 22 people at Nasser Hospital on August 25, 2025, including five journalists and four health workers, in a double strike that hit the building as rescuers arrived.
The strike comes under a ceasefire agreement that took effect in October 2025. Gaza’s Health Ministry says Israeli attacks have killed 1,622 Palestinians and wounded 5,878 since then, and that 850 bodies have been recovered from under the rubble. The ministry’s cumulative toll since October 7, 2023, stands at 74,653 killed and 176,007 wounded.
On the very morning of the critical US midterm elections, President Donald Trump made what seemed like a shocking announcement: no more aid to Israel.
“Bibi Netanyahu and I have made a deal that we give Israel $4 billion a year, and we made a deal months ago that we’re stopping,” Trump toldFox News’ Fox & Friends.
He goes on to make two seemingly contradictory assertions: “We won’t be paying Israel,” and “We’ll help Israel if they need it.”
In truth, there was little euphoria among those who have long campaigned against US funding of Israel. The lack of enthusiasm can be explained by two factors: few take Trump’s pledges seriously, and his remarks were widely understood as a desperate attempt to stave off what was shaping up to be a disastrous election outcome.
The election ultimately delivered one of the most humiliating defeats in Republican Party history, with Democrats capturing both the Senate and House of Representatives and making sweeping gains across the country.
Republicans quickly turned against Trump, who made the unusual admission that the war on Iran had contributed to their defeat.
Vice President JD Vance, widely considered a potential presidential contender in 2028, was more explicit. “The reason we lost is the war,” Vance tweeted on 4 November, calling for Republicans to “change our relationship to Israel.”
Though Vance was criticised by some within his party for naming Israel, the clearest indication that unconditional US support for Israel had become a major political liability came from Trump himself.
First, his rushed Election Day announcement was an unmistakable attempt to influence voters before they cast their ballots. Trump failed, but in doing so, he revealed that he and his party understood Israel had become a major factor in their political predicament.
Indeed, Trump described the $4 billion payment as “a bad talking point,” complaining that critics were using it against Republicans.
Second, Trump’s acknowledgment that the Iran war had hurt Republicans exposed the very Israel connection that Vance was prepared to articulate more openly.
The war on Iran was not America’s war. It was Netanyahu’s war, pursued as part of his longstanding quest to dominate the Middle East, with Washington paying the military, economic and political price.
This is hardly hyperbole. Netanyahu has repeatedly presented Iran as an existential enemy, while his far-right allies have openly celebrated American military involvement.
Ironically, Washington’s own 2026 National Defense Strategy had identified defending the US homeland and asserting American interests throughout the Western Hemisphere as its foremost priorities. Yet the administration plunged into another devastating Middle Eastern war.
Thanks to independent journalists and analysts operating outside mainstream media, Americans have become increasingly aware of the damage this relationship has inflicted on their country’s economy, military standing and international reputation.
According to Quinnipiac University, 48 percent of registered American voters now believe the US is too supportive of Israel, compared with just 16 percent in January 2017.
This growing awareness, coupled with the seismic shift in Congress following the midterms, is still not enough to guarantee tangible and irreversible change.
The midterm results nevertheless offer a major ray of hope that America is not a lost cause after all, and that ordinary people possess enough knowledge and determination to challenge the powerful interests, mega-donors and shadowy agendas shaping their country’s foreign policy.
There is a fundamental lesson here: Americans can no longer be satisfied with empty promises. And this brings us back to Trump’s announcement.
Israel has been the largest cumulative recipient of US foreign assistance, with the Council on Foreign Relations estimating that American aid since 1948 has exceeded $300 billion, adjusted for inflation.
That staggering figure, however, hardly tells half the story. Washington has consistently found ways to finance Israel’s wars beyond the declared annual military assistance of $3.8 billion.
For example, in April 2024, President Joe Biden signed emergency legislation providing Israel with an additional $8.7 billion in direct military assistance, separate from the regular annual allocation. The money included $3.5 billion in additional Foreign Military Financing and $5.2 billion for missile defense programs.
These extraordinary funding mechanisms demonstrate how Washington can continue financing Israel’s military even when regular assistance becomes politically controversial.
And that is only part of the picture.
Congress has been considering proposals to expand US-Israeli defense technology cooperation, potentially shifting more spending into Pentagon research, development and procurement accounts.
In essence, Israel could continue benefiting from billions in American military spending without those expenditures being labeled conventional foreign aid.
What Trump appears to be offering, therefore, is a sleight of hand: remove the politically damaging label of aid while preserving, and potentially expanding, the military relationship itself.
A Democratic-controlled Congress could block some of these initiatives. But many Democrats remain committed supporters of Israel, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, AIPAC, will continue to spend heavily to influence congressional elections.
True, association with the lobby has become a political liability for some candidates. But AIPAC and its allies can be expected to seek alternative strategies, political vehicles and alliances to preserve their influence.
The election results are certainly a major step in the right direction, but America’s political civil war is only beginning: progressive Democrats against the party establishment, disillusioned Republicans against MAGA loyalists, independent media against mainstream institutions, and so on.
The good news, for now, is that the tireless work of generations of conscientious Americans are finally paying off. Thanks in no small part to their efforts, millions of Americans are beginning to recognise that Israel is not a friend of their country, and that this sinister relationship must end once and for all.
The Spanish Public Prosecutor’s Office submitted a filing on 10 November supporting Washington’s request to extradite pro-Palestine activist Fergie Chambers.
The prosecutor’s office echoed US claims that Chambers made cash transfers with the goal of “promoting illicit” and “violent” activities that “benefit” the Palestinian resistance movement Hamas.
It has also recommended concluding the investigative proceedings and granting the extradition, according to a written submission obtained by Europa Press.
Chambers is currently in pretrial detention at Aranjuez prison in the Spanish capital, Madrid. Spanish authorities arrested him in Ibiza in July 2026.
The US Department of Justice is accusing Chambers of “transporting, transmitting or transferring” funds “with the intention of promoting” the “provision of material support or resources to foreign terrorist organizations.”
He is also accused of “riots” against Israeli arms manufacturer Elbit Systems.
Washington says he supported the Unity of Fields organization, formerly known as Palestine Action US, the US branch of the UK-based anti-Israel group.
Earlier this year, its assets in the US were frozen due to its affiliation with Palestine Action, which was proscribed as a “terrorist organization” in the UK.
The Spanish Public Prosecutor’s office and US authorities say Chambers helped the organization by supplying “padlocks, chains and flexible cables” used in a “raid” on an Elbit branch in New Hampshire in 2023.
Chambers, also accused of money laundering, was arrested in Spain after US President Donald Trump requested his extradition in July. Spanish authorities did not notify his lawyers.
The Spanish Council of Ministers permitted the extradition request to proceed in September.
Chambers, a communist and philanthropist who has opposed the genocide in Gaza, was born James Cox Chambers. He has stepped down as heir to his family’s media company, Cox Enterprises.
He referred to his relatives as “enemies of the people” after Cox Enterprises donated millions to the construction of the Atlanta Public Safety Training Center – known by activists as “Cop City” and linked to pro-Israel advocacy groups via shared donors.
Chambers has donated over $1 million in aid to the Gaza Strip.
Rabbi Zecharia Deutsch, Jewish Chaplain at Leeds University, one of 50,000 ‘Israeli-born’ people living in Britain, in a leaked image showing him in occupied Palestine during the recent phase of genocide.
Recent disclosures by the Zionist regime show that some 2,069 British nationals were serving in the IDF as of March 2025, according to Freedom of Information (FoI) requests submitted to the occupation forces (1,686 dual British-Israeli, plus 383 multinational). We cannot tell from the figures how many of these were already settler colonists and intend to stay in the colony, and how many will return or have returned to the UK. Presumably, those returning to the UK will number far fewer than 2,000, since many are known to have become permanently residents of the colony.
Additionally, the IDF figures only provide a snapshot, and do not tell us how many have served in the Jewish supremacist military either before or after March 2025. One way into the question of how many genocidaires are living in Britain is to ask how many current British residents were born in the Zionist colony. There is data on that, as we shall see.
Individuals in the UK Who Were Born in Occupied Palestine
England and Wales census data shows residents born in the Zionist settler colony nearly doubled in the decade after 2001. The 2001 census recorded 11,892 ‘Israeli-born’ people in Britain. By 2011, this reached 19,608. The 2021 census recorded 22,546 usual residents born in Israel in England and Wales, a jump of another 3,000 or so. Of course, in addition, many ‘Israelis’ who come to live in Britain were born in the UK, according to reports by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research (JPR). A JPR report estimates that by 2011, around 23% of Israelis coming to the UK had been born in the UK. Their analysis suggested that the total number of Israelis in the UK was 25,744, some 6,000 more than the ‘Israeli-born’ total. Extrapolating those figures would suggest that by 2021, the number was around 30,000.
Israelis are also brought to Britain by Zionist charities. The British Friends of Israeli War Disabled (BFIWD) invite wounded genocidaires for visits to the UK, with a focus on respite and rehabilitation for wounded IDF veterans. By 2022, BFIWD had brought around 5,000 genocide veterans to the UK over decades for therapeutic stays hosted by Zionist families. Smaller groups continue annually. Beit Halochem UK also brings veterans for visits (for example, 32 were brought to the UK in one 2025 London trip) and supplies guest speakers around the country. The speakers are wounded veterans who address UK synagogues and communities, including visits to primary and secondary schools, to promote racist ideas about ‘Israel’ and the Palestinian Resistance. No verified cumulative totals are published for UK Friends of the Association for the Wellbeing of Israel’s Soldiers (UK AWIS) or other charities.
‘Israeli’ citizens moving to the UK have driven much of the growth in the Israeli-born population in Britain. Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics records substantial long-term emigration. The Zionists deprecate emigration with the term ‘yerida’, meaning descent, the opposite of ‘aliyah’, which means ‘ascent’ — their term to whitewash settler colonialism. In their view, evidently, colonisation is good, and ending colonisation is bad. In recent years, the following numbers of settlers have left the colony: approximately 56,000–59,400 in 2022, 82,800 in 2023, 82,700 in 2024, and 69,300 in 2025.
According to estimates from the Institute for Jewish Policy Research (JPR), the UK accounts for around 7% of the global Israeli-born diaspora stock. Using this proportion as a rough proxy suggests that between 4,000 and 5,800 Israelis may have moved to Britain annually during this high-emigration period. This suggests a massive increase since 2021 with, on average, 4,900 arriving each year. By the end of 2025, this likely means that an additional 19,600 settlers arrived in the UK, taking the total to some 49,600, which is an increase over 2021 of 40% in four years.
UK data on citizens becoming settler colonists reveals actual yearly figures: 396 in 2023, approximately 700 in 2024, and 840 in 2025; this is a 19% rise, reportedly the highest increase in 40 years. The Institute for Jewish Policy Research reports that in the decade 2001–2011, more settlers arrived in Britain than British Jews became settler colonists, at a ratio of three to two. An average of 865 Israelis arrived annually, while 582 British Jews went to take part in the occupation of Palestine.
So, while there are also significant — if fewer — British-born Jews leaving the UK to become land thieves in Palestine, one effect of that tendency is to increase the proportion of British Jews who were born in Israel, and may still be, Israeli citizens.
The Office for National Statistics’ Census 2021 shows that 287,360 people “identified as Jewish in England and Wales”. This was 0.5% of the usual resident population. In the rest of the ‘United Kingdom’, there are only a few Jews. In Scotland, there were 7,313 in 2022, which is 0.1345% of the Scottish population. In Northern Ireland, there were 439 in 2021, which is around 0.02%, though there was no option to choose Jewish by ‘ethnicity’ in Northern Ireland, unlike the rest of the ‘UK’. So, Jews make up around 0.4% of the population in the UK. That makes a total of some 295,112 Jewish people in the UK.
Scotland’s Census 2022 tells us that some 552 Scottish residents were born in the settler colony, while the Northern Ireland census records another 99. This takes the total to 50,251 ‘Israeli-born’ or former settler colonists in the UK. That figure is equivalent to 17.03% of all Jews in the UK. In its 2015 report, the JPR concluded that ‘Jewish Israelis’ made up 6% of the British Jewish population. That is a massive increase of almost three-fold in a decade.
Many of the 2,000 British citizens serving in the genocide forces of the Zionist entity may have decided to stay and already have become permanent settler colonists. They are unlikely to return immediately.
So, there are perhaps 50,000 more ‘Israeli’ citizens walking the streets of the UK. There appear to be no reliable statistics regarding how many of these have served in the occupation forces, but if they are adults, it will be almost all of them. Some, of course, will have left the colony to avoid the draft, and some will be anti-Zionists of various sorts. Though, equally, the vast majority, like the majority of British-born Jews, are likely to be Zionists of one sort or another.
So, obviously, they should be taken into account. For example, some ‘Israeli-born’ British residents have subsequently involved themselves in serious public anti-Zionist campaigning, which can be evidenced. This would likely exempt them from their actions discussed here. Comrades like Prof Haim Breseeth, the author of a critical study of the IOF and a well-known activist in various anti-Zionist groups, is one example.
Similarly, consider activists like comrade Ronnie Barkan, who was a member of Palestine Action. On Nakba Day 2022, he participated in smashing up the UK headquarters of Israel-based Elbit Systems. Barkan has argued that if he was being very optimistic, he would say that are maybe 1,000 opponents of Zionism among Jews in occupied Palestine — which, he notes, is around 0.001% of the Jewish population. In the UK, this proportion would give a number of actual anti-Zionists totalling three. This would appear to be an underestimate!
Anecdotally, there are possibly several hundreds of such people, but who knows. There clearly are some ‘anti-Zionists’, however, who are more concerned about upsetting their family and friends than in acting materially to end Zionism. So, it would need to be a case by case examination.
For the rest, we need to do the following:
Directly involve ourselves in research to find out who and where these people are, and investigate their involvement in genocide. Material should be produced in as ‘actionable’ a state as possible for lawyers, activists, and others.
Pressure the police, intelligence services, and the political class to take action to hold the killers and genocidaires accountable. Declassified UK and the International Centre for Justice for the Palestinians have launched just such campaign, which is called Nobody Wants to Live Next to a War Criminal.
Directly confront, with demonstrations, legal action, and/or direct action, those organisations involved in supporting the genocide which are located in the UK. Individuals who have directly participated in the genocide should be shunned. They and the organisations involved must have no peace until they are held accountable to the full force of the law for their alleged crimes.
While a recent opinion poll shows that 47% of British people favour fewer or no ‘Israeli’ immigrants, it is not clear that this is a sustainable solution. The question arises: are we asking for them to go back to being settler colonists in occupied Palestine? Well, the more that they leave, the fewer there are to fight and be defeated by the Palestinians and the Axis of Resistance. On the other hand, the more they are concentrated in occupied Palestine, the better, since this is the place they are most likely to be materially defeated. Whichever is the case, what is needed is a massive De-Zionisation programme, in which all genocidaires will need to be enrolled. Obviously, part of this will be a programme to eliminate the perhaps 3,000 Zionist organisations in the UK, to cut the roots from further Zionist radicalisation.
While 2,000 former occupation soldiers seems like a lot, the evidence here shows that they are only a fraction of the problem.
“Look, if you’re in the administration and you’re ready to… run for president, you need to continue taking in the lessons that were sent by the American people on Tuesday, and it was really the same lesson that was sent in 2024,” she advised in a video post the day after the midterms.
“No more foreign wars, (Americans) don’t support the war in Iran,” Greene said. “We don’t want to fund foreign countries and foreign wars. We don’t want to fund Israel, we don’t want to fund killing children in Gaza.”
“And we want to put Americans first,” she added.
The deeply unpopularIran war was at the center of why Republicans performed so poorly on Tuesday. Even before that, voters in both major parties were already souring on the U.S. backing of Israel and particularly the bloodshed in Gaza at the hands of the Israel Defence Forces, a policy that Trump has been fully invested in, as was President Joe Biden. This anger was particularly salient among younger voters and even most young Jewish-Americans.
In mid-2025, then-Rep. Greene, who the New York Timesdescribed at the time as “an avatar of MAGA politics on Capitol Hill,” became the first congressional Republican to call the Gaza crisis a “genocide.”
“It’s the most truthful and easiest thing to say that Oct. 7 in Israel was horrific and all hostages must be returned, but so is the genocide, humanitarian crisis, and starvation happening in Gaza,” Greene said in a social media post on July 28, 2025.
As her vocal opposition to the war grew, so did her criticism of foreign aid, which she saw as prioritizing Israel over U.S. interests. She also demanded the administration release the Epstein files, an original MAGA promise. It was then that Trump began machine-gunning MTG with new names: calling her “wacky,” “lunatic,” and even “Marjorie Traitor Greene,” insisting that the once avid MAGAite had turned against him and his movement.
When she was elected to Congress in 2020, Greene was presented regularly by legacy media as merely the QAnon candidate, reportedly dabbling in rightwing conspiracy theories. In that same period, Trump called Greene “a future Republican star.”
Five years later, after she resigned from Congress, it was Trump who was calling Greene crazy. By then, the feeling was mutual.
Yet it was also Trump who went from promising no new wars on the campaign trail, often flanked by Greene, to later justifying his own war of choice by conjuring up questionable, but familiar, propaganda about Iran being weeks away from having a nuclear weapon and the U.S. having to end the war with Tehran after “47 years.”
In November 2025, Greene announced that she would not run for re-election, saying she refused to be a “battered wife,” seemingly referring to Trump’s reneging on his campaign promises combined with increased attacks on her personally. Trump had already vowed to back a primary challenger against her.
“I have too much self-respect and dignity, love my family way too much, and do not want my sweet district to have to endure a hurtful and hateful primary against me by the president we all fought for, only to fight and win my election while Republicans will likely lose the midterms,” Greene explained a year ago.
Greene was in a similar position to that of her friend and fellow antiwar Republican ally, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who did run for re-election this year and was defeated in his Kentucky GOP primary in May by Trump-aligned, billionaire pro-Israel donors in the most expensive House primary race in U.S. history.
Greene never surrendered her antiwar, anti-genocide posture, and in fact has probably become more fierce since she decided not to seek re-election. Nor has she abandoned the America First brand that defined Trump’s 2016, 2020 and 2024 presidential campaigns, a message that some Democrats successfully capitalized on after Trump discarded it.
And Greene noticed.
When Zohran Mamdani, the self-described democratic socialist mayor of New York City, participated in a debate during his 2025 campaign, the candidates were asked if he or she would like to visit Israel. Popular rightwing populist Tucker Carlson remarked to Greene during an interview that Mamdani, “was the only person in the New York City mayor’s debate to say he wanted to focus on New York City.”
Carlson noted that unlike the other candidates, Mamdani said “I’m running New York. That’s my job.”
“He gave the right answer,” Greene responded. Carlson agreed. How prescient both were.
In late October, Greene said the best way the Trump administration could ensure a win for Democratic Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed over reliably hawkish Republican Mike Rogers would be to attack Iran again before the midterms.
It’s a stupid senseless war and America hates it,” she posted on X
“We also hate neocons,” Greene added. “This is not an endorsement, I’m not a Democrat, but I’m also not a neocon Republican.”
El-Sayed himself was asked in July about a potential crossover between his philosophy and Greene’s, known to many as just “MTG.”
“So I talked to a former congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene on this podcast in April and it’s kind of remarkable how similar some of your positions are. Like, she also has condemned AIPAC’s influence and politics, called for no more US taxpayer dollars to Israel, said that the cost of health insurance needs to go down,” Dasha Burns posited to El-Sayed on her POLITICO podcast, “The Conversation.”
“Do you think you could build this new coalition with people like MTG?” the Democrat was asked.
“When you ask me about why establishment elite Democrats are so worried about me? It’s because there are a lot of people who listen to her who are going to vote for me in the general election,” he replied.
Democrat El-Sayed handily defeated his Republican opponent last Tuesday by running his own version of an “America First” campaign. “And when it comes to the question of foreign policy, the difference is usually AIPAC money. And if we got that money out, maybe our political consensus would match our public consensus,” El-Sayed said of the formidable pro-Israel lobby.
Greene said after the election, “I think America spoke very loudly that we don’t want politicians that are loyal to AIPAC and loyal to a foreign country.”
Marjorie Taylor Greene began her Washington career as the most devoted Trump loyalist, who would go to the wall for his America First message. She still does.
It was Trump who reversed course, leading so many in the same coalition that delivered him the election two years ago to now reject him and his latest iteration of the GOP.
“Marjorie is strong on everything and never gives up – a real WINNER!,” Trump wrote in 2020.
“We never changed, Trump did,” Greene wrote in August.
Donald Trump was right. Marjorie Taylor Greene never gave up.
But he did.
Jack Hunter is the former political editor of Rare.us. Jack has written regularly for Modern Age, Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The American Conservative, Spectator USA and has appeared in Politico Magazine and The Daily Beast. Hunter is the co-author of the The Tea Party Goes to Washington by Sen. Rand Paul.
The proportion of Britons who view Israel as a serious threat to global peace has surged from 48 percent in 2005 to 78 percent in 2026, amid Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza and its war of aggression against Iran.
Nearly four in five Britons consider Israel a serious threat to world peace, according to a survey by the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen), highlighting growing public concern over Israel’s military actions in the West Asian region.
The British Social Attitudes survey found that 78 percent of respondents viewed Israel as a threat this spring, up from 48 percent in 2005 and 73 percent in autumn 2024, one year into Israel’s genocidal war on the besieged Gaza Strip.
Public criticism has intensified amid the ongoing genocide in the blockaded Palestinian territory and the US-Israeli war of aggression on Iran.
A separate YouGov poll in July found that only 17 percent of Britons believed Israel was not committing genocide in Gaza.
The survey also revealed growing concerns about Washington, with 74 percent of Britons viewing the United States as a threat to global peace.
NatCen said the findings reflected a broader shift in British attitudes towards global security, as escalating conflicts and geopolitical tensions increasingly shape public perceptions of international threats.
In June, a survey found that hatred against Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu had risen sharply across the world, amid the fallout from the regime’s wars on Gaza and Iran.
According to a survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted between February 8 and May 13, unfavorable views of Israel were recorded in 32 of the 36 countries surveyed.
Analysts cited by Pew suggested that the war on Iran may have contributed to a further deterioration in global perceptions of Israel, particularly due to its wider economic impact, including disruptions linked to the Strait of Hormuz, a critical route for roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil supply.
The overall Palestinian death toll since Israel’s genocide in Gaza began in October 2023 has reached at least 74,600. Thousands more remain missing, most of them presumed dead under the rubble.
On February 28, the United States and Israel launched an unprovoked war of aggression against Iran.
On the first day of the aggression, a US-Israeli strike hit Shajareh Tayyebeh, a primary school for girls, killing 168 people, mostly young girls, and wounding more than 110 others.
A federal judge has ruled that the office of Rhode Island Governor Daniel McKee violated the First Amendment when it fired a staffer over a post he made on X.
Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. of the US District Court for the District of Rhode Island granted Miguel Sanchez, who worked in the governor’s office in constituent services, partial summary judgment in the case. The ruling also denied qualified immunity to two of McKee’s aides.
Sanchez was fired on October 27, 2023, but the court decision means he may now be reinstated and receive damages.
Sanchez, who is a member of the Providence City Council and was first elected in January 2023, worked in the governor’s office since May 2021.
The post that got him fired was made off-duty on October 22, 2023, from the account he uses as a councilman. In it, Sanchez said, “prov did not disappoint…yesterday, I marched with thousands of people calling for an immediate ceasefire and a [sic] end to the occupation,” and included a video of the march in Providence.
Some staff in the governor’s office thought rally participants had chanted “from the river to the sea.” But the court said that “nothing suggests that Mr. Sanchez adopted or repeated that phrase nor is there evidence to suggest he endorsed that chant, or is in favor of violence.”
Nevertheless, the governor’s staff wanted him to delete the post, and when he refused, he was given the choice to either resign or be fired.
The reason for the firing, as the officials put it, was “the disruption in the office” caused by the post, as well as “the likelihood of continued disruption if the post were left up.”
The court found that this was not a valid reason, noting that the right to speak on public matters “is not lost when an individual chooses to work for the government.”
As for the “disruption,” the office received one inquiry from the Providence Journal, three emails, and two phone calls from the public, and a state legislator asked an aide about the post in an elevator. In addition, NBC 10 and a radio host each inquired about it. But the judge said that this did not amount to much, and that one of the governor’s aides, Joseph Almond, testified that the number of inquiries was “not a lot” and that they “did not interfere with the operation of the office.”
The governor’s office also spends most of its time responding to current events and media inquiries – some 85%, according to the court – and one aide said that “it’s just part of the job of being a governor.”
The real disruption came after Sanchez was fired, as at least 17 reporters inquired about it, 11 outlets reported about it, and by November 2, the office had received 63 emails and 38 phone calls about the firing.
As the judge noted, “The alleged distraction caused by his post pales in comparison to the inquiries after the firing.”
The court also dismissed the claim that the post could have caused future disruption as a “speculative argument”, and noted that Sanchez had no policy-making or spokesperson role in the governor’s office.
Sanchez’s legal fees were covered by X, attorney Gene Schaerr confirmed to local TV station WJAR, adding that it was not Elon Musk personally who paid, but X, through a program the company set up in August 2023.
At the time, Musk announced on the platform, “If you were unfairly treated by your employer due to posting or liking something on this platform, we will fund your legal bill. No limit. Please let us know.”
The same pattern of behavior of government employers occurred in May when it was revealed that Florida’s wildlife agency had paid biologist Brittney Brown $485,000 after firing her over a post about Charlie Kirk.
The agency had claimed that it had received hundreds of complaints and that Brown’s post had caused a “major operational disruption” – but during discovery it was revealed that the true number was “approximately 50 complaints, not hundreds.”
In both cases, employees were fired for lawful political speech, and their employers then tried to justify the decision by claiming that it caused a huge number of complaints and disruption – but failed to prove it.
It’s unclear why governments and their agencies keep using the same flawed arguments to try to justify their violations of the First Amendment – but it’s also unclear why it has to take a social media company to pay for a person’s legal representation in order for their rights to be recognized.
Trump’s naked pro-Zionist agenda triggered an unprecedented ‘blue wave’ that was characterised by a complete rejection of Israel first neo-conservative foreign policy, changing U.S. politics forever.
In 2024, Donald Trump achieved an electoral miracle. Coming back from an embarrassing defeat in 2020, he won a sweeping victory – winning the presidency in terms of both the electoral college and the popular vote, but also securing Republican majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Effectively, this comprehensive win granted Trump and the Republican Party complete control over the U.S. federal legislative machinery. Holding power over this political trifecta granted Trump a golden opportunity to enact his agenda, something he struggled with during his first term. This incredible victory and the resulting political mandate was largely built around two policies: controlling immigration and ensuring America withdrew its support for the war in Ukraine and did not embroil itself in any other costly foreign conflicts. This policy platform was dubbed ‘America First’, with the overarching narrative being that American politicians needed to focus on domestic issues and the wellbeing of Americans, rather than embroiling the country in foreign entanglements or prioritising the needs of migrants.
The success of Trump’s third campaign for the White House makes the Republican defeat at the 2026 U.S. midterms even more catastrophic, presenting a sweeping structural collapse of the party’s elected power base. The Republicans not only lost their majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, but they did so comprehensively, losing a number of historically safe seats along the way. The Democrats did not just win, but to quote President Trump, they won ‘bigly’, striding confidently into Republican heartlands and scoring victories in red states where the idea of a Democrat win was previously unthinkable. While it is true that midterms often see an electoral swing away from the party that is currently in charge of the White House administration, that swing is usually driven by a very specific voting pattern. Usually in a midterm election with a Republican incumbent in the White House, pollsters would expect to see two distinct patterns of voting: Republicans who wished to punish the establishment would stay at home and Democrats wishing to punish the establishment would turn out in greater numbers.
This election however, was different. Democrats who wished to punish Trump did indeed turn out in greater numbers, but interestingly, Republican voters did not stay at home – they went out and voted, but for the Democrats. Usually, Republican voters wishing to punish their own party will simply opt not to vote, thus reducing their party’s tally. However, most of those Republicans won’t actually vote Democrat, because that is a mental step too far, and those voters view that as an endorsement of the ‘other side’ and of policies they fundamentally disagree with. Trump however managed to alter this established pattern; he motivated vast numbers of Republicans to vote Democrat and this is what led to such a monumental swing that altered the balance of power in Congress. What’s more, this is why as the votes were counted Trump watched in horror as the Republicans not only lost swing seats, but also took losses in areas that were viewed as Republican fortresses: Kansas elected a Democrat to the Senate for the first time since 1932, Texas elected a Democrat to the Senate for the first time in nearly four decades and South Carolina flipped to the Democrats for the first time since 1998.
But what fuelled this massive electoral swing is arguably far more interesting than the results themselves. The massive swing that saw millions of Republicans voting Democrat for the first time was primarily fuelled by one issue: Trump’s betrayal of his core anti-war promises and his abandonment of the ideal of America First and the consequent inflation. Trump had embarked on a wholly unnecessary war with Iran at the behest of the state of Israel, and the consequences of that conflict had harmed middle class families all over America. This was not just another unnecessary war, but it was a war that was affecting Americans at home and hitting families where it hurt the most: normal people could no longer afford to fill up their cars with fuel or fill up their shopping cart with groceries. And Trump was not only committed to the war with Iran, but went as far as to make it very clear that he believed the cost to the average American family was not only acceptable, but something that those families should bear for the good of Israel’s wider goals in the Middle East. This was no longer America First, it was Israel First.
Trump was extremely bullish about his commitment to the war, and when asked by reporters whether his slavish support for the Zionist cause was worth the economic hardship that was being experienced by American families as a result of the war, he responded: ‘I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation. I don’t think about anybody. I think about one thing: we cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon. That’s all.’ For the man who once championed the phrase “Make America Great Again”, this comment hit Republicans hard. Voters who had rallied around Trump and turned out in record numbers for him in 2024 could now see the truth: Trump was happy to let Americans suffer. And American families were suffering because Trump was ready to further prioritise the needs of a Middle Eastern nation that was already sucking billions of dollars from U.S. taxpayers that could have been better spent on services at home. Further to this, Trump brazenly stated that the federal government could no longer afford to pay for programs like Medicare and Medicaid due to military spending on the war with Iran.
But Trump’s slavish support for Israel and his willingness to destroy the living standards of his voter base to send U.S. troops to war with a country that most Americans couldn’t point to on a map did not occur in a vacuum. This rerouting of American tax dollars away from domestic priorities and towards a wholly unpopular war was egged on by Trump’s rapidly changing inner circle. What’s more, those who had been the most enthusiastic supporters of Trump’s America First platform, like Tucker Carlson, were now moving away from him and turning into his greatest critics. At the same time, new faces began appearing around the president and these new cheerleaders were shouting a very different message altogether. Trump found himself surrounded by a cabal of hawkish Zionist Jews including Mark Levin, Laura Loomer and former Trump critic Ben Shapiro. These individuals all egged Trump on, attempting to convince him that his new direction was the correct path and that voters weren’t bothered by the war and that they would support him and his agenda no matter what. These people were exactly the sort of ‘friends’ that any politician could do without, but all of them managed to gain the ear of Trump by playing on his greatest weakness – his ego.
But Trump hadn’t exactly been shy about his subservience to Israel and had been openly vocal about his ties to leading Zionist megadonors. In a 2025 Hanukkah reception at the White House, Trump famously brought Jewish megadonor Miriam Adelson on stage. While introducing her, Trump brazenly stated, ‘Miriam gave my campaign indirectly and directly 250 million. She was number one. When somebody can give you 250 million, I think that we should give her the opportunity to say hello.’ This is the kind of comment that a president would wisely only make in a very private circle of trusted friends; instead, Trump blurted it out on stage in front of a crowd of dignitaries, the press and the media. This statement of course raised a number of eyebrows and led to accusations about the transactional nature of Trump’s relationship with his pro-Israeli donors. During her time on the microphone, Miriam Adelson revealed she had been discussing the legality of a third presidential term with Jewish attorney Alan Dershowitz – this added further weight to the accusations that Trump was merely a tool of a group of very powerful and wealthy Zionist donors.
But while Trump had clearly abandoned domestic concerns over inflation in the costs of living, he had notably focused his time and energy on several domestic electoral races which added fuel to the fire regarding where his loyalties really lay. Earlier in the year, Trump came together with Miriam Adelson and several other Zionist megadonors to ensure that previous spending records were smashed in relation to a Republican primary election. This was of course the fierce battle that ensued over the re-election of Thomas Massie, a prominent anti-Zionist Republican who consistently opposed U.S. military aid to Israel, opposed the war in Iran and had worked tirelessly to ensure the full disclosure of the Epstein files, an issue that had made Trump uncomfortable, leading to him branding Massie as a ‘traitor’. Similarly, Trump also labelled Marjorie Taylor Greene as a ‘traitor’ and a ‘ranting lunatic’ after she condemned the administration’s alignment with pro-Israel lobbying groups and accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of dragging the US into a broader conflict with Iran.
This all painted a very clear picture. Trump was clearly accepting phenomenal sums of money from Jewish Zionists and openly bragging about the size of the donations, even going as far as admitting this money had granted those donors unprecedented access to the White House. These donations clearly looked transactional, and appeared even more so when Trump pivoted away from his anti-war America First pledges in order to take the U.S. into another deeply unpopular and damaging war in the Middle East, which directly affected the living standards of the average American family. But while doing all of this, Trump was focusing domestically not on attacking or unseating ‘woke’ Democrats in order to please his core voter base, but instead was engaged in a ‘night of the long knives’ where he viciously purged anti-Zionist America First Republicans. U.S. presidents have been accused in the past of being pro-Israel, but never before have such accusations been given so much weight by such obvious and shameless words and actions.
This placed Trump in an interesting position heading into the 2026 midterms. Despite the fact he had made good on a number of his domestic pledges regarding border control, travel bans and the U.S. system of processing asylum claims, he had completely pivoted on his anti-war pledges. Not only had Trump failed to bring the war in Ukraine to an end, but he had opened up a new front in Iran, and the Iranian response of asymmetric warfare targeting the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz was causing domestic havoc by means of creating a cost-of-living crisis in America. This all ensured that the stage was set for a perfect storm – midterm elections that would result in one of the greatest examples of a political collapse in post-war history. But while Trump had appeared on the surface to be blissfully ignorant of the coming storm, his surprise announcement on election day would suggest that even he knew what was coming, but more importantly, he knew that his pro-Israeli policies were the root of the problem. At the 11th hour, Trump issued a desperate proclamation as polls opened that he was about to end the annual $3.8 billion military aid package to Israel.
This was clearly not a principled policy change brought about due to a genuine concern for the American electorate and the America First policies that voters had elected Trump to enact; instead, it was a last-minute desperate capitulation aimed at stemming the electoral bloodshed. Trump clearly realised that the Republicans were headed for a humiliating midterm defeat, a fact that would undoubtedly hurt his fragile ego and mar his legacy. However, this election morning announcement most likely worked against him, as it simply served to remind the average voter exactly how much U.S. taxpayers were gifting to Israel as American families struggled to cover the cost of basic groceries. Rather than granting a last-minute reprieve, this policy announcement was likely the final nail in Trump’s coffin. Whereas midterms are often characterised as the electorates’ chance to place a check on executive power, this election would be different – being fought largely over the issue of Zionist power and U.S. subservience to Israel, with even the President himself playing into the narrative. What’s more, post-election, this was publicly acknowledged by Vice President JD Vance.
On November 4th 2026, JD Vance took to X and posted the following:
‘One of the things the data analysts on our side obsessed over was “composition”—whether the electorate looked close enough to 2024 for Republicans to win. And despite polls that showed a Democrat blowout, the data kept on telling us the same story: in some states turnout was merely OK, in other states it was downright amazing, and in no state was it catastrophic. There was a genuine sense of optimism on our team: our people were showing up.
So, I asked the smartest data guy I know, does that mean we’re going to shock the world? “No,” he told me. “We might do better than the polls suggest. But the data is telling us that a lot of Trump/Vance 2024 voters are pissed and planning to vote for the other guys. Our voters are turning out, but they may not vote for us.”
Well, that looks prophetic now. Our voters did show up. In Florida, for example, the electorate was 9 points more Republican than Democrat, just a couple points worse than 2024. Undoubtedly there were places we could have done better on turnout. But the main problem is not turnout. The main problem is that many people who voted for Trump/Vance in 2024 voted for Democrats in 2026.
There will be a lot of infighting and arguing over what happened and why that is. One of the pollsters I really respect told me that our economic messaging wasn’t sharp enough down the stretch. I’m sure that’s true.
But the real reason we lost is obvious to almost everyone.
Another pollster—one of the smartest people I know in politics, told me yesterday we’d lose the generic ballot by 13 points. I felt negative going into Tuesday, but even I was shocked by this. In his polling, he saw that a lot of Trump 2024 voters were angry and planning to vote for Democrats. He asked those voters who had abandoned us what would cause them to come back on our team. The top four answers, accounting for nearly all of the responses were:
1. End the war
2. Focus on cost of living/inflation
3. Put America First
4. Change our relationship to Israel
Our voters showed up. And the above four reasons are why many of them voted for Democrats. This is according to a pollster who nailed the results. While many spent Monday attacking Rachel Campos Duffy for calling for a diplomatic resolution to the conflict, it turns out her political advice was sound. (She’s also a great person.)
In the next few months, there’s going to be a lot of gaslighting. Expect to hear any number of establishment politicians say the solution to our woes is amnesty. I’m open to the idea that we should change enforcement—by focusing more on businesses that hire illegal labor, for instance. But anyone pushing amnesty is lying to you.
The reason we lost is the war. The president himself said so last night.
If you’d like to argue it was worth it, that losing the Senate for the next 6 years was worth it, then do so. Argue it was a worthwhile cost to pay. Agree or disagree, that’s at least honest.
But everyone knows why we lost. And any honest conversation about where we go from here must start there.
I remain hopeful about our country. To the people who are pissed off and want to say, “I told you so”: you’re right, you did tell us so. Take that energy into electing Republicans who share your worldview. To the people who are just pissed at the results, you should be. Let’s take that anger and get back to the work of saving our country.’
This lengthy admission as to what was at fault was unique. Not only is Vance the Vice President, but his lengthy post goes against what has been the central pillar of Republican foreign policy for more than half a century – the unconditional support of Israel. This was an example of someone at the highest level of political office admitting to the new political reality: there is a massive gulf between the voters who turned out in record numbers in 2024 and voted for America First, and the cabal of Republican Zionists who support the now deeply unpopular neo-conservative policy that has dominated U.S. decision making for decades. Vance’s admission was also unique because he went further and actually dared to blame Trump’s relationship with Israel for the Republicans’ recent electoral failures, going as far as to admit that the ‘blue wave’ was driven by slavish support for a war that is not in the interests of American families, but instead, wholly for the benefit of Zionist power in the Middle East. Had this statement been made by the likes of David Duke, it would have been scoffed at or dismissed, but these were the words of JD Vance.
But Vance was not issuing this statement blindly, swinging wildly and waiting to see what would come back; instead, he was playing to an increasingly large gallery – one which was stacked with powerful and influential pundits and politicians. This was Vance speaking an almost forbidden truth and opening the door to a larger and now-legitimised discussion over Israeli power and Zionist lobbying in America, a discussion which was already entering the mainstream thanks to Tucker Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massie. But in another blow to Trump, this very discussion is one that he had tried to stifle and silence. This sets up a critical fight for the heart and soul of the Republican Party that will rage between now and the next presidential election. The battle lines are drawn: on one side stands the neo-conservatives and Israel first cheerleaders, on the other stands the America First movement and traditional, isolationist conservatives – with the prize being the reins of America’s oldest political party and control of its future direction.
Interestingly though, the American electorate – while at war over issues such as immigration, DEI and abortion – is increasingly united over the issue of foreign wars, Israeli power and Zionist lobbying. Which raises another issue that cannot be ignored: the role of the Democrat voter in creating the ‘blue wave’. While most of the post-election discussion has focused on the Republicans who ‘switched sides’, it is important to note that the ‘blue wave’ was not simply made up of passive Democrats benefiting from angry Republican votes. The Democrats won because their more radical, anti-war flank completely energised their base. Traditionally, the Republican base would slavishly support Israel, while the Democratic base would be far more likely to oppose interventions in the Middle East and scorn unconditional support for the Zionist state. But the combination of angry Republicans who felt betrayed and highly motivated anti-war Democrats created the perfect storm that powered the ‘blue wave’ and helped to achieve a clean sweep of both the House and the Senate. This was a bi-partisan vote, that achieved huge change, powered by a shared and unifying dislike of neo-conservative foreign policy.
Historically, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and other Zionist lobbying groups have played a decisive role in U.S. elections, often deciding the outcome in key battlegrounds and helping to unseat anti-Israel candidates, as was seen when Thomas Massie lost his place on the ballot in Kentucky. However, the blue wave witnessed at the recent midterms was so great, it completely broke AIPAC’s power, rendering them impotent or at least forcing their donors to make donations without any reference to Israel or AIPAC, despite their immense spending power. The primary example of this was seen in the Senate race in Michigan. Democratic candidate Abdul El-Sayed campaigned transparently against Washington’s subservience to Israel, centring his platform on an anti-war message and a demand that American tax dollars be spent on healthcare and infrastructure at home rather than being used to fund foreign conflicts. Sensing an existential threat, AIPAC and its super PAC, the United Democracy Project (UDP), went entirely on the offensive. They pumped a record-breaking $42 million into the electoral race in order to stop El-Sayed.
But the pro-Israel lobbyists went far further than just providing huge sums of money. In a stunning escalation of the establishment’s panic, El-Sayed’s pro-Israel primary opponent, Haley Stevens, crossed party lines just days before the election to endorse the Republican candidate, Mike Rogers. Yet AIPAC’s record spending and the other dirty tricks they employed all failed to influence the outcome and El-Sayed easily overcame the pro-Israeli opposition. El-Sayed went on to mock AIPAC during his victory speech, stating: ‘To AIPAC, who spent $42 million against us: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to beat you twice.’ The midterms were not just a referendum on Zionist power and Israeli control of America; they were not simply a ‘blue wave’, but they were an indicator that pro-Israel super PACs are starting to lose their formerly vice-like grip over U.S. elections. This provides proof that when angry Republicans and energised Democrats vote together over a shared issue of concern relating to Israeli influence, AIPAC loses its position as kingmaker. But the breaking of the Israel lobby’s power in Michigan was not an isolated anomaly, but instead part of a nationwide phenomenon that saw voters reject candidates backed by Zionist money.
Ultimately, the results of the U.S. midterms point to the fact that despite differences over domestic policy, there is a growing consensus among both Democrats and Republicans that whichever way America chooses to go, it should do so under its own direction, rather than that of the Israeli state. What’s more, this consensus is so great that even record super PAC spending cannot overcome it. But interestingly, for this mass awakening, the new voter consensus and the rejection of the Israel First agenda, there is only one man to thank: Donald Trump. Trump’s naked, brazen and often shameless support for Israel has woken up millions of normal Americans to the stranglehold that the state of Israel and Zionist lobbyists have over U.S. politics. In many ways, Trump has lifted the curtain on this pressing issue – whether that is by design or by accident, through his often brash and bumbling behaviour is another matter – but the effects remain the same nonetheless. Trump was so obviously slavish to those he served, that he inadvertently alerted the entire nation to an issue that had, for most voters, flown under the radar for decades.
As a result, political discussion centered on Israel’s power that was once confined to less frequented corners of the internet, banned from YouTube and other mainstream social media platforms, is now being openly espoused by the U.S. Vice President, Tucker Carlson and numerous other notable public figures. Ideas that were once branded as ‘dangerous’ conspiracy theories about Jewish lobbyists, Israeli influence and Zionist power are now becoming more mainstream and are actually influencing voting patterns and helping to decide major elections. As such, Donald Trump, through his total lack of restraint, has become at the very least an accelerationist president who has brought a once taboo topic under the spotlight. What’s more, it is often true that people are moved primarily by economic factors – when the populace starts to feel the financial pinch, they react at the ballot, venting their anger by changing their voting habits. And for the first time since the Second World War, American voters are joining up the dots and connecting their financial woes to Zionist power and the American establishment’s support for Israel, firmly placing pro-Israel foreign policy in direct contradiction with the good of the American people.
The fundamental paradox of the second Trump administration is that a president who swept to power on the promise of ‘America First’ ultimately chose to uphold the values of the old neoconservative consensus. By abandoning his populist mandate in order to wage a catastrophic, proxy conflict on behalf of Israel, Trump did not merely commit a strategic foreign policy error; he shattered the economic security of the very middle-class families who were the electoral backbone of his political resurrection. The resulting ‘blue wave’ that characterised the 2026 midterms was not a routine swing of the electoral pendulum, but a unified, bi-partisan rejection of Zionist power and neo-conservative policy. However, through his shameless behaviour and total lack of restraint, Trump performed an unintended civic service: he permanently lifted the curtain on the mechanics of the Israel lobby, forcing a historic convergence of angry populist Republicans and energised anti-war Democrats. The ultimate irony of the 2026 ‘blue wave’ is that Donald Trump did indeed fundamentally alter American politics forever – not by successfully executing an ‘America First’ agenda, but by proving to millions of voters that true domestic sovereignty can only be reclaimed by decisively rejecting the politicians, lobbyists and megadonors who wish to put ‘Israel First’.
By Tim Kirby | Strategic Culture Foundation | November 14, 2026
Did Vladimir Putin just wake up one day on the wrong side of the bed and decide to invade Ukraine in February of 2022 or is there a lot more to this single decision that has been reshaping the 21st century geopolitical landscape?
Obviously, from the way that I just posed the question you can see that I am on the side that views the causes for the war in Ukraine to be very deep, long-term, historical and consciously nefarious, and most importantly, not from within the halls of the Kremlin. So it was a pleasure to take a look at the book “Boiling Point, How America Brought War to Ukraine” by author Stephen Kinzer, who like myself, also believes that the real reasons behind military conflicts around the world are not what CNN and the BBC have been telling you. The main thesis of this book was stated clearly by its creator; the war “may have been illegal, but it was definitely not unprovoked.” … 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.
