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 prospect of a Democratic takeover of Congress in January 2027 is raising the possibility of a sweeping investigation into the Trump administration’s decision to wage war on Iran, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu potentially facing scrutiny over reports that he pushed US President Donald Trump into the war.
As Republican lawmakers question War Secretary Pete Hegseth’s handling of the war amid rising impeachment calls, Israeli website Zman Yisrael has warned that the political fallout could put “Israel” in the dock, as it faces congressional scrutiny.
Republican divisions deepen
Republican Representative Thomas Massie, who lost his party’s primary election and whose term in Congress is expected to end in January 2027, submitted articles of impeachment to remove Hegseth last Monday.
The impeachment resolution contains eight articles, centered on the Trump administration’s waging of war on Iran without the approval of Congress, as the Constitution requires.
It also notes that the administration continued the war even after the expiry of the sixty days, after which obtaining the approval of both the House of Representatives and the Senate becomes mandatory in order to continue the fighting.
But the proceedings alone are not what threatens Hegseth. The fundamental problem facing him and other senior Trump administration officials lies in the House committees, which will begin investigating the decision-making process during the months that preceded the war on Iran.
US intelligence assessments under scrutiny ahead of public hearings
The Israeli website acknowledged that “the United States and Israel did not achieve their unofficial goal, which was toppling the Iranian regime.” Instead, the battle plunged Washington into a series of crises: a sharp rise in energy prices, a jump in consumer goods prices, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz (which had been open until the outbreak of the war), and fatal damage to US infrastructure and bases in the region, in addition to harm to US allies in the Gulf.
It said, “It is true that US President Donald Trump, as well as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have repeated in public statements the claim that they triumphed, defeated, eliminated, and destroyed, but it is likely that, with the exception of Hegseth, no one in the world believed it.”
It warned that the repercussions of the deliberations in Congress could be grave for “Israel”. In the first phase, which is taking place this week against the backdrop of Massie’s proposal, no hearings or committee deliberations will be held, and no investigation of Hegseth is expected. But starting in January, with the majority changing hands in both chambers, “Israel may find itself in the dock,” according to the website.
‘Netanyahu dragged Trump into war’
Although members of the House of Representatives, and possibly senators later on, do not have the authority to compel officials of the Israeli administration to testify, they are expected to question US officials about the intelligence that their Israeli counterparts provided to them.
Democratic Representative Gregory Meeks, who is expected to assume the chairmanship of the Foreign Affairs Committee, has already pledged to launch an in-depth investigation into the Trump administration’s decision-making process before going to war.
Where could all of this drag “Israel”? An extensive New York Times investigation revealed what transpired behind closed doors between Netanyahu and Trump during the private meeting held on February 11, 2026, a little more than two weeks before the war began.
The investigation described Netanyahu as the person who dragged Trump into the war, despite several public statements by the president in which he said he had made the decision himself and that no one had pushed him to do so.
Later, the newspaper’s two White House correspondents, Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan, published the book “Regime Change,” in which they detailed that US intelligence had been highly skeptical of the presentation Netanyahu delivered at the White House and that CIA Director John Ratcliffe described some of the ideas concerning toppling the Iranian regime as “a farce”.
When the going gets tough, Rubio flips
These issues are expected to be put on the table in public hearings before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Senior Trump administration officials will be asked to answer pointed questions: Why did Washington assess that the Iranian system would collapse? What was the intelligence that led to the war based on? And other questions. Such proceedings are expected to be wholly uncomfortable for the Israeli side.
And if that were not enough, Trump himself has joined, in recent days, the voices saying that the war on Iran inflicted one of the Republican Party’s biggest political defeats.
In addition, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a politician known for his clearly pro-“Israel” positions, addressed the day before yesterday the halting of security aid to “Israel”.
He said, “Israel is a rich enough country, and they can buy weapons from us, but we will not fund that.”
The prospect of a congressional investigation into the Trump administration’s decision to wage war on Iran adds to the growing political pressure on the White House, as divisions within the Republican Party deepen and opposition to renewed military action gains ground.
Against this backdrop, Haaretz has reported that Trump’s room for maneuver has narrowed considerably, leaving Netanyahu increasingly isolated in his push to resume the war.
Trump’s post-election retreat leaves Netanyahu increasingly isolated on Iran
Trump’s options for renewed military action against Iran have narrowed significantly following the Republican Party’s loss of its majorities in both chambers of Congress in the midterm elections, Harretz reported.
The Israeli newspaper said, “While Netanyahu is returning to his vision of launching a new war, the White House appears to have lost interest in the matter.”
It assessed that “the chances now clearly favor ending the war on Iran amid Trump’s continued shifts in position,” noting that he has been wavering on the issue for more than six months, after effectively halting the momentum of the war last April.
Netanyahu pushes for renewed war
Trump said early yesterday that there appeared to be no need to resume the war and that a return to fighting would be “a highly unlikely scenario.”
He added that the war was “effectively over” militarily, making a relatively definitive statement that he had avoided making in recent months.
The Israeli newspaper noted that “three main options have long been under consideration: resuming the offensive, potentially in coordination with “Israel”, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been pushing for; reaching an agreement with Iran that includes restrictions on its nuclear program; or maintaining economic pressure.”
In recent days, the Trump administration announced the launch of “Operation Iron Gate” to shut down Iran’s land trade routes, as a measure complementing the naval blockade.
According to the newspaper, Trump’s latest statements indicate that he has chosen, at this stage, to continue the policy of “economic strangulation” against Iran, hoping to force it into an agreement on terms more favorable to the United States.
Trump’s war options narrow
Haaretz added that this comes despite the absence of any current signs that Iran’s leadership is retreating or yielding to pressure.
These developments come amid ongoing mediation efforts by Qatar and several other Gulf countries, which are seeking to prevent the war from resuming.
“Israel currently appears to be the only country in the region whose leadership — the current leadership, whose continued hold on power has been called into question by the results of the Knesset elections — still supports resuming the war,” Haaretz added.
The newspaper also noted that the Trump administration includes an influential group of senior officials opposed to resuming the war, led by Vice President JD Vance. This group has stepped up its criticism of efforts to continue the war since the Republicans’ defeat in the elections.
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.
US Congressman Ro Khanna on Monday urged Democrats to make removing a provision in the defense bill aimed at integrating the US and Israeli militaries a “top priority” during Congress’s post-election lame-duck session.
“As an American, I am outraged by Section 219 that integrates our military with Israel’s. Who do they think they are?” Khanna said in a video message posted on the US social media platform X.
“This needs to be the top priority in the lame duck session,” he added.
“I am pushing every Democrat and our leadership to get Section 219 out of our defense bill,” said the California Democrat.
Section 219, titled the “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative,” is part of the House version of the fiscal 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). It would require the secretary of defense to designate an “executive agent” to expand and accelerate bilateral defense technology research, development, testing, evaluation and industrial cooperation with Israel.
The House Armed Services Committee rejected an amendment from Khanna to strike the provision in June, when it was numbered Section 224. The House Rules Committee later blocked a floor vote on a bipartisan amendment from Khanna and Republican Congressman Thomas Massie to remove it.
The House passed the $1.15 trillion bill on July 22 by a 216-212 vote, with 205 Democrats voting against it.
The Senate version, which includes a similar provision, has not passed.
Khanna’s push came after President Donald Trump said last week that the US would stop providing about $4 billion in annual military aid to Israel by the end of this year, saying the aid had become a “talking point” Democrats used against Republicans.
It also came as a Gallup poll showed this year that, for the first time in its tracking, more Americans sympathize with Palestinians than Israelis following Israel’s two-year genocidal war on Gaza, which killed more than 74,000 Palestinians and injured more than 175,000, according to Palestinian figures.
Rabia Iclal Turan is a Washington-based senior correspondent for Anadolu Agency, covering U.S. politics, foreign policy, and international affairs, with over a decade of reporting experience in Turkish and English-language media
Iran recently designated Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, as a “hostile group” and declared the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force “terrorist organizations” in a decisive retaliatory measure against London’s relentless hostile actions against the Islamic Republic.
The Iranian Foreign Ministry announced the measures on November 1, 2026, citing Britain’s participation in the US-Israeli war of aggression against Iran and its decision to place the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) under the country’s so-called “State Threats Act 2026.”
The decisions were made under a resolution of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council and in response to Britain’s actions over the past year.
Under the first measure, MI6—formally the Secret Intelligence Service—has been designated a hostile group under Note 2 of Article 1 of Iran’s Law on Intensifying Punishment for Espionage and Cooperation with the Zionist regime and Hostile Countries against National Security and National Interests.
The designation took effect upon publication of the ministry’s statement, and the provisions of the law now apply to the British spy agency.
Under the second measure, the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force have been brought under Iran’s Law on Countermeasures against the United States’ Designation of the IRGC as a Terrorist Organization.
Both British military branches are consequently designated as terrorist organizations under Iranian legislation.
The Foreign Ministry cited Britain’s provision of military and logistical facilities and bases within territories under its jurisdiction to support the US-Israeli war of aggression against Iran as one of the grounds for the measures.
It also pointed to London’s July 13, 2026 decision to place the IRGC under the State Threats Act 2026, describing the move as part of Britain’s hostile policies against the Islamic Republic.
The ministry condemned Britain’s policies as contrary to the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law, particularly the principles of respect for national sovereignty and the prohibition of unlawful actions against other countries.
It reaffirmed Iran’s determination to take the necessary measures to protect its national security and interests.
“The measures have evidently been adopted in accordance with the principles of international law and within the framework of the principle of reciprocity,” the statement said, adding that the British government would bear responsibility for their consequences.
A century of British hostility
The November 1 designations are not an isolated response but the culmination of a century of British intervention, espionage and military aggression against Iran. The record is long, documented and central to Iranian national memory.
Britain’s hostile role predates MI6 itself. During the nineteenth century, London competed with Tsarist Russia for influence over Persia in the Great Game, pressuring the Qajar government and intervening in the country’s affairs to control strategic decisions in Tehran.
On August 25, 1941, British and Soviet forces invaded Iran despite its declared neutrality in the Second World War. British forces advanced from Iraq and the Persian Gulf, while British naval forces operated in southern Iranian waters.
The Royal Air Force participated in the campaign, bombing Ahvaz and attacking ports and naval facilities at Bandar Imam Khomeini and Khorramshahr. The invasion forced the Pahlavi monarch to abdicate.
This was not covert interference but open military aggression against a neutral nation—and it remains a foundational reference point in Iranian accounts of British military power.
The 1953 coup against Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh became the most enduring symbol of British intelligence hostility.
After Iran nationalized its oil industry, Britain—through MI6, working with the American CIA—participated in the operation that removed Mosaddegh and restored the Shah’s political position. MI6 was one of the coup’s principal organizers, and declassified British and American documents have confirmed MI6’s central role in “Operation Boot.”
The coup is among the clearest cases in which British intelligence involvement is established by substantial historical documentation.
Espionage against Iranian diplomatic missions
In May 1994, then-President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani announced that British intelligence had placed listening devices in the Iranian embassy in London. Embassy staff discovered a microphone, and further investigations revealed additional devices.
Rafsanjani identified MI6 as responsible for the surveillance and noted that British allegations about Iranian links with the Irish Republican Army were intended to divert attention from the eavesdropping operation.
The Foreign Ministry confirmed that the first microphone had been discovered weeks earlier and that the embassy had delayed publicizing the matter while investigating the possibility of additional devices.
The episode was a direct charge, attributed to the Iranian president, that MI6 had conducted technical surveillance against an Iranian diplomatic mission on British territory.
Support for terrorist groups in Khuzestan
A major escalation occurred during the bombings in Khuzestan in 2005 and 2006. In August 2005, Iran’s Intelligence Ministry announced that British intelligence services were involved in the unrest and bombings in the border Iranian province.
Those arrested in connection with the incidents confessed to direct links with separatist groups and foreign intelligence networks, particularly those associated with Britain. The British connection extended beyond political encouragement to operational support.
After bombings in Ahvaz in October 2005 and January 2006, Iranian officials pointed to the presence of British troops in southern Iraq, close to the Iranian border, and established that terrorist groups operating in Khuzestan were receiving assistance from British military personnel and facilities.
Parliamentarian Alaeddin Boroujerdi raised concern about British involvement, citing the presence of British forces near the border and information about their previous involvement in unrest in Khuzestan.
In January 2006, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki stated that London had a clear connection with the bombings, that those responsible had links to British officials, and that they enjoyed the cooperation of British army commanders.
He referred to the use of British facilities in Basra. The episode stands as one of the clearest examples of Britain facilitating violence inside Iran through its military presence in Iraq.
Royal Navy and Iranian maritime sovereignty
The Royal Navy became the subject of a direct sovereignty issue in March 2007, when Iranian forces detained 15 British sailors and marines from HMS Cornwall in the northern Persian Gulf.
Iran established that the British personnel had entered Iranian territorial waters illegally while conducting an inspection of a merchant vessel.
The Foreign Ministry condemned the illegal and interventionist entry by British forces, describing the incident as suspicious and contrary to international rules.
The detention lasted 13 days and became a major diplomatic confrontation between the two countries. Iranian officials said the episode was evidence of British disregard for Iran’s maritime sovereignty.
In July 2019, British forces seized the Iranian tanker Grace 1 off Gibraltar, an illegal seizure of an Iranian vessel that Tehran saw as an attempt to restrict its oil exports.
Iranian authorities rejected the legality of the operation and asserted that Britain had no right to prevent Iran from selling oil to its customers.
Later that month, on July 19, the IRGC Navy seized the British-flagged tanker Stena Impero in the Strait of Hormuz after the vessel violated maritime regulations, ignored warnings, followed an incorrect traffic route and switched off its navigation system.
Interference in domestic affairs
Following Iran’s presidential election in June 2009 and the subsequent engineered protests, British institutions worked to support and inflame the unrest and destabilize the Islamic Republic.
The British embassy in Tehran, British diplomats, the BBC’s Persian-language service and intelligence networks operating under diplomatic and journalistic cover were all implicated.
British diplomats were present among those who indulged in violent riots. Embassy-linked contacts helped coordinate political activity. Individuals working under journalistic cover gathered intelligence.
Britain conducted psychological operations through BBC Persian and supported political networks opposed to the Iranian government
These operations reinforced the longstanding reality that British diplomatic and media activity serves intelligence and political objectives—activity that contributed to the deterioration of bilateral relations and culminated in the 2011 protest against the British embassy and the closure of the mission.
Complicity in the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists
From 2010 onward, British intelligence was connected with American and Israeli operations against Iran’s nuclear program.
The assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists became a central part of this record. While the killings were carried out by Israeli Mossad, MI6 and the CIA assisted in intelligence collection, operational planning, training and the identification of targets.
In December 2010, then-Interior Minister Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar announced that individuals arrested in connection with attacks on Iranian scientists had confessed to links with Western intelligence services, including MI6, the CIA and Mossad.
The assassination of nuclear scientist Majid Shahriari in 2020 formed part of a coordinated effort by Israeli intelligence and its Western counterparts, including MI6 and the CIA, to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program.
In November 2013, the head of MI6, John Sawers, discussed the role of British intelligence in the international pressure campaign against Iran, acknowledging that intelligence activity had contributed to the pressure on Tehran and the sanctions regime.
His remarks confirmed hostile British intelligence activity against the Islamic Republic.
In December 2013, the head of the Kerman Revolutionary Court, Dadkhoda Salari, announced the arrest of an individual accused of spying for MI6.
The suspect had maintained contact with four British intelligence officers and had met them 11 times, both inside and outside Iran.
Salari collected information requested by the British officers and received instructions intended to undermine Iranian national interests. He confessed to the allegations, and judicial proceedings were underway.
Intelligence penetration and the Akbari case
In July 2022, the IRGC Intelligence Organization announced that several foreign diplomats had been detained after collecting soil samples in Iran’s central desert.
Giles Whitaker, then the British deputy ambassador, was specifically identified, and the activity was connected with intelligence gathering.
The area was near a military and missile-related site. The British diplomat was expelled from the area, and the case became part of the established record that British diplomatic personnel collect sensitive information under civilian and scientific cover.
The most prominent recent case involving an MI6 agent was that of Alireza Akbari, a former Iranian deputy defense minister holding Iranian and British citizenship.
In January 2023, Iran announced that Akbari had been executed after being convicted of spying for MI6. Iranian judicial and intelligence authorities established that he had provided MI6 with sensitive information about Iranian officials and strategic institutions over an extended period.
The Intelligence Ministry described him as an infiltrating agent who had obtained access to sensitive centers and transferred information to British intelligence officers.
Akbari met MI6 officers during trips to Europe and was recruited through contacts associated with research and business institutions.
The information he supplied included details about 178 Iranian figures, among them top nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, who was assassinated near Tehran in November 2020.
The case demonstrated the consequences of MI6 penetration of Iran’s state institutions.
Latest turn of events
The November 1, 2026 designations respond to Britain’s most recent hostile acts. The British government initially declined to authorize the use of its bases for American attacks, but subsequently permitted US forces to use RAF Fairford in England and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean for operations against Iranian missile facilities.
Tehran regards the provision of bases, facilities and logistical support as participation in hostile military operations against Iran.
On July 13, 2026, London placed the IRGC under the State Threats Act 2026, a hostile measure against a central institution of the Islamic Republic. The Foreign Ministry’s statement cited both actions as grounds for the designations.
The November 2026 designations mark a formal escalation in Iran’s treatment of Britain’s armed forces.
MI6 has been designated a hostile group—a status reflecting its record of espionage, surveillance, recruitment of Iranian informants, support for armed groups, interference in domestic politics and cooperation in operations against the nuclear program.
The Royal Navy and Royal Air Force have been designated terrorist organizations—a status reflecting the Royal Navy’s violations of Iranian maritime sovereignty and Britain’s use of its military bases and facilities for operations against Iran.
The Royal Navy’s record includes the 2007 violation of Iranian territorial waters, the illegal 2019 seizure of the Grace 1, and Britain’s broader military presence in the Persian Gulf.
The RAF’s record includes the 1941 bombing of Ahvaz and, most recently, the provision of British bases for US operations against Iranian missile facilities.
These designations are adopted in accordance with the principles of international law and within the framework of reciprocity. The British government bears responsibility for their consequences.
The message from Tehran is clear: Britain’s century of hostility against Iran—from the 1941 invasion and the 1953 coup to espionage, support for armed groups, interference in domestic affairs, complicity in the assassination of Iranian scientists and the provision of bases for attacks on Iranian territory—will no longer go unanswered.
Iran has acted to protect its national security and interests, and it will continue to do so against any hostile power that violates its sovereignty.
Yousef Ramazani is a military affairs analyst based in Tehran.
Lt. Col. Daniel Davis is a 4x combat veteran, the recipient of the Ridenhour Prize for Truth-Telling, and is the host of the Daniel Davis Deep Dive YouTube channel. Daniel Davis Deep Dive: https://www.youtube.com/@DanielDavisDeepDive/videos
00:00 The West’s “1992” mindset and a changing balance of power
03:59 Unattainable objectives, morality, and the rules-based order
09:38 Operation Iron Gate: Can Iran’s land borders be sealed?
13:12 Why Davis calls the proposed blockade a fantasy
17:26 Show of strength, negotiation, or a path back to war?
21:02 Two possible exits from the Iran conflict
25:28 Why the Strait of Hormuz changes the stakes
28:59 Russia and Ukraine: the same strategic miscalculation
33:40 Closing thoughts on Western policy toward Russia
“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.
By David Miller | Tracking Power | November 12, 2026
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. … 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.
