General

Gallup Poll: 71% of Republicans still support Israel’s Genocide in Gaza

/2 Comments/in /by

32% in U.S. Back Israel’s Military Action in Gaza, a New Low

by Megan Brenan

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Americans’ approval of Israel’s military action in Gaza has fallen 10 percentage points since the prior measurement in September, and it is now at 32%, the lowest reading since Gallup first asked the question in November 2023. Disapproval of the military action has now reached 60%.

These findings are from a July 7-21, 2025, Gallup poll, as Israel’s campaign against Hamas stretched into its 21st month. Americans supported Israel’s actions in Gaza in its initial reading in 2023, taken several weeks after the Oct. 7 Hamas attack. Since then, disapproval has outpaced approval in each survey, peaking at 55% in March 2024 before dipping to 48% in two readings later in the year.

Americans Sharply Divided by Party Over Israel’s Actions

The decline in approval is driven by 16-point drops among both Democrats and independents. As has been the case since the start of the conflict, independents (25%) express higher approval than Democrats (8%), but both groups currently register their lowest readings to date. In contrast, 71% of Republicans say they approve of Israel’s action in Gaza, up from 66% in September.

Approval of Israel’s Military Action in Iran Slightly Higher Than in Gaza

The July survey also asked about support for Israel’s military action targeting suspected nuclear enrichment and military sites in Iran. Currently, 38% of Americans express approval of this military action; 54% disapprove. Seventy-eight percent of Republicans, 31% of independents and 12% of Democrats approve.

While estimates differ on how much the attack set back Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon, concerns that the action, which included a military assist from the U.S., could spark a wider war have not materialized.

Netanyahu Rated Unfavorably by Majority of Americans for First Time

Fifty-two percent of Americans now view Benjamin Netanyahu unfavorably, his highest unfavorable rating since 1997. His favorable rating stands at 29%, while 19% of U.S. adults have no opinion of him.

Until December 2023, Americans viewed Netanyahu more positively than negatively, except in 1997, when he was less well known. In the December 2023 poll, Netanyahu’s unfavorable rating far outpaced his 33% favorable rating, with the current poll showing a continued deterioration in his image.

Netanyahu’s unfavorable rating has roughly doubled since 2019, the last reading before the start of the current conflict. The increase in unfavorability has been accompanied by roughly equal decreases in his favorable rating (down 11 points) and the percentage with no opinion of the Israeli leader (down 14 points).

During the poll’s field period, Netanyahu visited the U.S. to meet with President Donald Trump and other political leaders. Although the Trump administration continued its efforts to broker a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, Netanyahu left Washington without such a deal.

Republicans continue to have a broadly positive opinion of the conservative Israeli prime minister. Two-thirds of Republicans, 67%, now have a favorable opinion of Netanyahu, compared with 19% of independents and 9% of Democrats. While Republicans have held a consistently more favorable opinion of Netanyahu than Democrats and independents throughout the trend, the current 58-point party gap is the largest.

Republicans’ opinions of Netanyahu are similar to their views in 2019, which was Gallup’s last reading prior to the Oct. 7 attacks, while Democrats’ and independents’ ratings of him are sharply worse.

Demographic Differences in Views of Netanyahu, Israel’s Military Action

Partisans’ differences in support for Netanyahu and Israel’s military action in both Gaza and Iran are reflected in significant differences by gender, age, race and ethnicity. Men, White adults, and those aged 55 and older are more likely than their counterparts to view Netanyahu favorably and approve of Israel’s military action in Gaza and Iran.

Bottom Line

Americans’ support for Israel’s military operation in Gaza and their positive views of Netanyahu have both reached new lows, reflecting sharp declines in Democrats’ and independents’ support. At the same time, Republicans’ backing of Israel’s military action and its prime minister is holding firm, resulting in record partisan gaps on both. The increasingly skeptical and divided American public poses a challenge for Israeli leadership and U.S. policymakers who are seeking to navigate the conflict.

Stay up to date with the latest insights by following @Gallup on X and on Instagram.

Learn more about how the Gallup Poll Social Series works.

View complete question responses and trends (PDF download).

Matt Taibbi: Report: European Censorship Accelerates

/6 Comments/in /by

Report: European Censorship Accelerates

While the United States continues to deal with its own domestic speech controversies, including around a Trump administration order sanctioning anyone who’s “materially assisted” the International Criminal Court (ICC), the European Commission is trying to use its own draconian speech laws to impact countries beyond its borders, including the U.S., according to an alarming new House Judiciary Committee report.

The Committee chaired by Ohio’s Jim Jordan began investigating Europe’s primary speech-control law, the Digital Services Act, after a bizarre incident last August. Europe’s Commissioner for Internal Markets, Thierry Breton, sent a letter to X CEO Elon Musk threatening an “extremely vigilant” response for “any negative effect of illegal content on X in the EU,” ahead of a planned live interview of Donald Trump by Musk. Though the interview was to be held in Washington — speech between two Americans in America, distributed by an American company — Breton was upset it would be “accessible to users in the EU,” and “spillovers” of “illegal content” might ensue. Though Breton resigned shortly after in a clash with President Ursula von der Leyen, questions about how serious Europe might or might not be about asserting jurisdiction over American speech remained.

Nearly a year later, Jordan’s Committee has come back with unpleasant answers. On May 7th, European authorities held a “DSA MultiStakeholder Workshop” in Brussels, intended to help major platforms like Meta, X, and Google understand their obligations under the DSA. As Jordan notes, the seminar was closed to the public, unlike previous seminars about laws like the Digital Markets Act. Participants of the new event were specifically warned not to describe the seminar’s “exercise scenarios,” but Jordan’s committee got hold of key documents.

Europe already has a broad definition of “illegal content,” but the “MultiStakeholder Workshop” participants were additionally asked to come up with intervention plans for content that isn’t “illegal,” even according to Europe’s loony standards. Moreover, European authorities made it clear that platforms were expected to prepare changes to their “global” policies, meaning “European censorship may affect what Americans can say and see online,” as Jordan’s report put it.

“On paper, the DSA is bad,” the report concluded. “In practice, it is even worse.”

The Trump administration’s most controversial speech policies have involved using AI to screen social media accounts of would-be “pro-Hamas” visitors and the withholding of subsidies from universities like Columbia for allegedly failing to stop antisemitism. The most consistent themes in Trump’s First Amendment controversies are the removal of subsidies for ideologically charged policies or speech (from NPR to VOA to DEI to universities) and using immigration and anti-terror laws like the PATRIOT Act to try to expel immigrants over “beliefs, statements, or associations.” Courts have delivered varying rulings on these matters, and even some of Trump’s erstwhile supporters have expressed unease with some his policies.

Europe’s pattern is the inverse of Trump’s. It keeps trying to expand its subsidy of ideologically charged speech, and it’s using even broader and more powerful tools than Trump’s executive orders to try to eliminate criticism of its immigration policies. The recent workshop also clearly shows the EU expanding both the scope and the methodology of its censorship practices, going after humor, satire, anodyne political opinions, memes that “may” spread “discriminatory ideologies,” and other content its army of “trusted flaggers” might not have noted even a few years ago. Some of the most upsetting examples:

The Workshop presented attendees like Google, Meta, and X with hypothetical scenarios, then asked participants to “outline” what “interventions” it would employ. In one example, a “16-year-old Muslim girl who has a history of feeling self-conscious about her identity” is exposed to content on a hypothetical platform by a user named “@Patriot90” who shares a meme of a “woman in a hijab” over the caption, “Terrorist in disguise.” She then reads comments like “We need to take back our country” and “I’m not racist, but…” that makes her feel a “surge of anxiety.” This is described as an encounter with “illegal content” that platforms would need to address:

Ursula von der Leyen’s government views “take back our country” to be “illegal content.”

The Jordan report shows European authorities essentially criminalizing criticism of immigration policies, barring even sarcastic comments about alleged offenses by immigrants. In one example, a user who read a news article about a Syrian immigrant family reported to have committed “110 criminal offences” responded by writing, “Deport the lot of them.” German authorities called this illegal “incitement to hatred” and indicative of “attacks on human dignity.” In another example, French officials targeted a cheeky X post after an infamous episode in which a Syrian refugee attacked parents and children in the French town of Annecy:

People of course have different opinions about immigration, and content that’s offensive or harmful to some might seem justified to others. In the Twitter Files it was obvious that constant ideological pressure led companies to impose changes to algorithmic content moderation policies, which inevitably lead to certain kinds of news becoming increasingly difficult to share and eventually, invisible. The EU is now trying to accelerate that effect, taking the position that otherwise legal discussions existing downstream from “illegal content” are also offenses. They’re targeting the platforms’ recommendation and amplification mechanisms as well, encouraging private firms to make sure they’re not boosting any harm-adjacent content.

Maybe the most interesting exhibits in the Jordan report are the letters between Jordan’s Committee and European officials. Breton last August humorously told Jordan “the DSA does not regulate content” and instead merely “require[s] online platforms to act responsibly.” Henna Virkkunnen, Europe’s Vice-President for Tech Sovereignty, doubled down on the claim earlier this year, writing to Jordan:

I want to be very clear: the DSA does not regulate speech. The DSA is content-agnostic, and so is the European Commission and Member States as regulators, which have no power to moderate content…

Virkkunnen went on to say that the DSA merely asks platforms to “assess and mitigate” certain risks, like those “related to the dissemination of illegal goods and the protection of children,” a baldly disingenuous claim that almost had to be intended as an insult. The DSA’s face page reads, “The DSA regulates online intermediaries and platforms such as marketplaces, social networks, content-sharing platforms, app stores, and online travel and accommodation platforms.” In other words: we don’t regulate speech, just all forms of digital communication.

In the United States we punish civil and criminal offenses like threats, fraud, incitement, libel, and defamation, so even Jefferson or Madison spoke with an implied asterisk when touting our absolute right to free speech. Still, it’s a different level of self-contradiction when Virkkunnen writes that “it is our belief that it should not be up to politicians, executives or private companies to take decisions on what citizens have the right to see or say online,” while Europe is implementing “strict rules” and “more stringent obligations” via the most expansive speech regulation ever deployed in a democracy. America has its own internal battles to fight on this front, but it’s worth remembering from time to time what’s on the other side of the fence, and it’s not pretty.

Gaza Monday. Haaretz: Netanyahu is “planning to annex parts of the Gaza Strip, with the backing of the Trump administration”

/in /by

On Monday in Gaza the IDF stepped up the killing.The latest AP report, archive.is/sTfcA updated about 11 PM Gaza time, says “killed at least 78 Palestinians” including “dozens” seeking food. Contrary to Israeli assertions yesterday a
“U.N. official said nothing on the ground has changed and no alternative routes were allowed.”
Various US MSM outlets such as The Los Angeles Times carriedhttps://archive.is/FlEoI different versions of the AP report.
The last Aljazeera update archive.is/7uOBJ, at 12-30 AM Gaza time Tuesday said
“At least 92 people have been killed across Gaza by Israeli fire…,medical sources say.
Among the dead, 41 were aid seekers.”
NPR reports archive.is/DMt6K that President Trump has split from the Israeli line on the famine
Trump said “Israel has a lot of responsibility” for the limited food aid in Gaza, and said he wanted Netanyahu to “make sure they get the food.”
Less encouragingly, Haaretz reports archive.is/TAYlU Netanyahu is
“planning to annex parts of the Gaza Strip, with the backing of the Trump administration”
Meantime, the US Democratic Establishment seems to be responding to its Left. The Guardian reports archive.is/LNhEQ
“In letter, 21 senators say funding to GHF resulted in killings of more than 700 civilians seeking food and violated the law… independent senator Angus King from Maine who caucuses with Democrats, “I am through supporting the actions of the current Israeli government and will advocate – and vote – for an end to any United States support whatsoever”
The New York Times a remarkably outspoken critique archive.is/n8yWl#selection-519.0-519.87
‘Total Failure’: Israel’s Return to War Heaped Ruin on Gaza and Did Little for Israelis
“The Times They Are A-Changin’!”
H/T Pic CNN Trucks carrying humanitarian aid in Egypt wait to be allowed to cross into Gaza on Monday

From KM: Just in time to change the subject from the Gaza genocide, NPR has a long segment on a life-long friendship between an Iraqi Jew and an Iraqi Muslim, as told by the Jewish daughter. She emphasizes the diversity of her neighborhood and that the Jews got along with everyone until the 1967 war. Then it’s a tale of persecution… Jews as victims.

A personal tale of an Iraqi friendship that has defied religion and conflict : NPR

Five Crucial Facts From The House Intel Report On 2016 Russian Interference.

/2 Comments/in /by
 
Five Crucial Facts From The House Intel Report On 2016 Russian Interference. Zero Hedge, July 26, 2025.
(Authored by Fred Fleitz via American Greatness,) Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard did an excellent service to our nation this week when she released a declassified version of a critical September 2020 House Intelligence Committee staff report on a major January 2017 intelligence report, known as an Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), titled “Russia’s Influence Campaign Targeting the 2016 US Presidential Election.” Gabbard’s decision came after a years-long tug-of-war over the release of this report between Republican members of Congress who believe it provides critical information about the Russia collusion hoax and the involvement of Obama officials and the U.S. Intelligence Community versus Democratic congressmen and deep state intelligence officials who have desperately tried to hide this report from the American public. >Press accounts have reported most of the essential details of the House report, such as how it was rushed out on President Obama’s orders to be published just before Trump’s first inauguration in January 2017. Media stories have also detailed how substandard intelligence was used to justify the ICA’s finding that Russia meddled in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win and that this bad intelligence was included on the orders of CIA Director John Brennan over the objections of senior CIA analysts. The media has also reported the House Intelligence report’s finding that a hand-picked group of five analysts wrote the ICA and that it was not adequately vetted by U.S. intelligence agencies and analysts. It is also clear in the House report that, despite numerous statements by Brennan denying it, the fraudulent Steele dossier was heavily used in the ICA. I am very familiar with the House Intelligence Committee report. I was permitted to read a classified version of the report when I served as Chief of Staff of the National Security Council in August 2018. I also discussed efforts by the White House to pressure the CIA to release the report a month before the 2020 presidential election with the late Lou Dobbs. This reportedly included President Trump visiting the CIA to retrieve the report personally. >Based on my understanding of this issue, here are five key points about the House Intelligence Committee report that most Americans may not be aware of.

(1) The House Intelligence Committee report is a credible and carefully drafted paper. 

Although the House report was written by the House Intelligence Committee’s Republican staff, its fairness and balance are a credit to its authors and then-Chairman Devin Nunes. The report says on page 1 that committee investigators spent over 2,300 hours reviewing the ICA and its source reports and interviewed 20 intelligence and FBI officers. Its conclusions reflect objectivity and would not be found in a biased, partisan report. For example, the House report concedes at the beginning that the ICA’s finding that Russia meddled in the 2016 election to undermine faith in the U.S. democratic process and to weaken an inevitable Clinton presidency used proper intelligence tradecraft. However, the House report took issue with the ICA’s distortions of intelligence tradecraft standards to assess that Putin had a clear preference for Trump to win and “aspired to help his chances of victory.” The House Intelligence report also includes strong, nonpartisan recommendations, including a call for political appointees of outgoing administrations to recuse themselves from any involvement in intelligence reports drafted in the future under similar circumstances. I spoke with the two principal authors of the House report after I read it in August 2018. I found them to be professional and knowledgeable. They answered all my questions and provided me with additional information that was not in the report. A CIA official told me earlier this month that one of the authors had been retained by the Agency to prepare the report for release. 

(2) The Republican House report is more credible than a similar bipartisan Senate report. 

The authors of the House Intelligence Committee report told me they believed their report, written by the committee’s Republican staff, was more credible than a bipartisan report would be because many of the CIA officers they interviewed would not have spoken to a bipartisan investigation team. The reason was that Democratic staff and members of a bipartisan investigation might inform agency management about which agency officers had spoken to committee investigators, potentially leading to retaliation. I agree and believe this is why recent attempts by liberal reporters and Democratic congressmembers to use a similar bipartisan report by the Senate Intelligence Committee issued in April 2020 to discredit the House Intelligence Committee report are not credible.

(3) The ICA omitted intelligence that Putin may have wanted Clinton to win the 2016 election. 

Many press reports about the House Intelligence Committee report focused on how weak and fragmentary intelligence was used to support the ICA’s assessment that Russia wanted Trump to win the 2016 election. However, the House report also notes that the ICA ignored two significant alternative hypotheses suggested by the intelligence and Russian behavior: that Putin either did not care who won the 2016 election or wanted Hillary Clinton to win. The House report said some of the omitted intelligence analysis indicated that Putin did not have a preference in the election outcome because both Trump and Clinton would be bad for Russia and unlikely to improve relations. Also notable was the omitted analysis that Putin may have wanted Clinton to win the 2016 election because she would be a more vulnerable president than Trump and Russia had a reserve of compromising materials to use against Clinton but not Trump. Similarly, the House report also noted that the ICA did not address that Moscow viewed Clinton as a weaker candidate due to Russian intelligence reporting on her psychological health. In addition, the House report said the timing and content of Russian operational orders “indicated that Moscow assumed they had unique leverage over Secretary Clinton that would be more useful if she won the election.” On the other hand, the House report said some senior Russian officials worried that a Trump administration would have a hardline national security team hostile to Russia. The report also quoted a redacted Russian source who “cautioned about the risks to Russia of a Republican administration, noting that ‘those who would hold positions in a Trump administration should he win will likely adhere to conservative anti-Russia positions.’”

(4) The House Intelligence Committee report was stuck for years in the “turducken safe” at the CIA for political reasons and due to CIA Director Gina Haspel’s inept and partisan leadership. 

Although the House report was completed by the summer of 2018 and considered an important and damning indictment of the Obama administration and U.S. intelligence agencies for politicizing intelligence to promote the Russia collusion hoax, House Republicans and the Trump White House were unable to convince CIA Director Gina Haspel to declassify and clear the report for release to the public. Then-House Intelligence Committee Chairman Nunes sent the report to the CIA for clearance in the summer of 2018. The CIA dragged its feet in clearing the report and failed to do so before Nunes lost the committee chairmanship in January 2019, due to the Democrats winning control of the House in the 2018 election. After Congressman Adam Schiff succeeded Nunes as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, the CIA refused to clear the report because Nunes was no longer the chairman and Schiff would not sign off on Nunes’s release request. Because of the confusing politics and competing jurisdictions over the House report, it was kept at the CIA in a safe within a safe, leading the New York Times to call this the “turducken safe”—a gun box-like container controlled by the House Intelligence Committee’s Republican members and located inside a CIA vault. The House Intelligence Committee’s Republican members refused to grant Democratic committee members access to their safe or allow them to review the report. Haspel and NSA Director Paul Nakasone also objected to releasing the report, claiming it would reveal sensitive intelligence. In addition, Haspel and Nakasone reportedly opposed releasing the House report because they asserted it contained unverified information and “cherry-picked” intelligence. Democratic congressmembers also strongly opposed the release of the House Republican report. In opposing the report’s release in late 2020, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Schiff charged that the report sought to whitewash Russia’s election interference in the 2016 presidential election. Regardless of how ardently Haspel and Nakasone held their positions opposing the release of the House report, because the president is ultimately in charge of all U.S. intelligence and classification decisions, their refusal to cooperate with White House orders to release the report was, in my opinion, insubordination to a U.S. president. Moreover, DNI Gabbard’s action this week proved there were no valid national security reasons not to release a declassified version of this report.

(5) President Trump and his senior White House staff regarded the House intelligence report as so crucial that Trump reportedly considered going to the CIA before the 2020 election to retrieve and release the report himself. 

According to my sources at the White House and the House Intelligence Committee, the White House believed in the fall of 2020 that it was crucial for the American people to read this House report before the November 2020 presidential election. The White House ordered CIA Director Haspel to release the report before the election. She refused. I received a phone call about this matter in late October 2020 from Lou Dobbs, the host of the Fox Business Network show “Lou Dobbs Tonight” and a close friend of President Trump. I often appeared on Dobbs’ show as a former CIA analyst. He called to consult with me about a possible trip by President Trump to CIA headquarters to retrieve the House Intelligence Committee report so he could release it. I told Dobbs that I feared this would not work because CIA Director Haspel would learn about the president’s visit in advance and hide the inner safe containing the report before he arrived. Dobbs agreed with me and said he would convey this to President Trump. Trump’s alleged visit to the CIA to seize the House report never took place.

I would like to again thank Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard for finally releasing the House Intelligence Committee’s critical report on how President Obama, senior Obama officials, and intelligence officials were responsible for issuing a rigged and politicized intelligence assessment just before Donald Trump’s first inauguration to destroy his presidency. This fraudulent intelligence report hounded Trump throughout his first term and contributed to his first sham impeachment in 2019. This perversion of U.S. intelligence also did grave damage to the objectivity and trustworthiness of America’s intelligence agencies, from which they still have not recovered. It is my sincere hope that the declassified House Intelligence Committee report and other documents on the Russia collusion hoax released by DNI Gabbard and CIA Director Ratcliffe will lead to prosecutions of those involved and congressional hearings that ensure accountability and to send a strong message to future administration officials and intelligence officers that if they participate in another scheme to weaponize American intelligence to meddle in U.S. politics or to destroy a presidency, there will be severe consequences.

Gaza Sunday: “As the day wore on, rising numbers of killings appeared, usually buried.”

/1 Comment/in /by

News from Gaza on Sunday was dominated by the flamboyant Israeli action of allowing aid airdrops and announcing 10-hour truces in 3 areas “until further notice”. The entry of more important relief truck convoys got some attention.

As the day wore on, rising numbers of killings appeared, usually buried. CNN‘s very informative daily medley archive.is/3nIa8 reported
Al-Awda Hospital said it received 12 bodies… and treated more than 100 people who had been injured after Israeli forces opened fire near an aid point
.*A later **CBS* summary archive.is/zb3Nd#selection-1755.130-1755.229 said
Palestinian health officials in Gaza said at least 27 Palestinians were killed in separate attacks.
AlJazeera‘s ending wrap archive.is/kCy6B states
At least 63 Palestinians were killed in Israeli attacks across Gaza, including 34 who were killed while waiting for aid.
The CNN medley cited above has a perceptive piece Netanyahu is ensnared in a crisis of his own creation in Gaza and another Far-right security minister says Israel should “blow up” Gaza, not allow more humanitarian aid quoting National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir:
“what should have been sent to Gaza is one thing: bombs to blow up, to conquer, to encourage emigration, and to win the war.”
The New York Times has published archive.is/Yn9AL#selection-4553.31-4553.72 and associated itself with News Organizations Urge Israel to Let Reporters and Aid Into Gaza
“…the International News Safety Institute…issued a statement calling on Israel to allow journalists in Gaza who are facing starvation to leave the enclave, and for international reporters to be allowed entry.”
“As local reporters are killed, face the threat of starvation, or try to flee, the world will be systematically cut off from witnessing what is happening.”
Gaza is doing huge damage to the reputations of Israel, and, far worse, the US.
H/T Pic CNN: The legs of ten-year old Noor Ashraf Abu Selaa, who died of malnutrition on Sunday.

5 replies

Write a comment…
 

Aaron Mate: As Gaza starves, Trump tells Israel to ‘finish the job’

/2 Comments/in /by

“The US-Israeli starvation siege and dismantlement of the United Nations aid system serves the guiding Israeli goal of making Gaza unlivable and pushing its surviving residents into permanent expulsion.”

(86) As Gaza starves, Trump tells Israel to ‘finish the job’

As global outcry mounted this week over the Israeli siege of Gaza, President Trump and his Special Envoy, Steve Witkoff, announced that they are abandoning ceasefire talks with Hamas, and with it any pretense of concern for the territory’s two million Palestinians.

“Hamas didn’t really want to make a deal. I think they want to die and it’s very, very bad,” Trump told reporters. “It got to a point where you’re going to have to finish the job… They’re going to have to clean it up.” Witkoff likewise accused Hamas of failing to act in “good faith,” and said the US would “now consider alternative options” to “try to create a more stable environment for the people of Gaza.”

In the current environment, the people of Gaza are enduring Trump-backed, Israeli-imposed “mass starvation,” as a joint statement from 115 aid organizations warned. The Israeli siege, the groups said, is leading to “record rates of acute malnutrition,” particularly among children and the elderly. According to the United Nations, over a third of Gaza’s population is going without food for several days and 90% lack access to clean water.

The aid groups’ warning comes more than two months after Trump acknowledged that “a lot of people are starving” in Gaza, and promised to “take care” of it. Yet Trump has done nothing but support the Israeli blockade. Right before Trump promised to “take care” of starving Palestinians, an Israeli official expressed gratitude that when it comes to pressuring Israel “to allow more humanitarian aid into Gaza, Trump [has] made no such requests.”

Instead of pushing Israel to allow in aid, Trump has partnered with Israel to destroy the United Nations system for delivering it. As Trump took office in January, Israel enacted a ban on the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees in Gaza, UNRWA, the culmination of a campaign that began under Joe Biden. In the months since, Israel has blocked UN groups from delivering aid, denied visas to senior UN officials, and replaced them with the so-called “Gaza Humanitarian Foundation,” a US-funded Israeli front group run by veteran intelligence operatives and private mercenaries. Even some GHF executives and board members have been unable to go through with the ruse. This includes founding CEO Jake Wood, who resigned upon the group’s inception and accused it of failing to uphold “humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality.”

The GHF has reduced the number of aid sites in Gaza from around 400 to just four – all but one in the south of Gaza, forcing desperate people to make dangerous, lengthy marches by foot. The GHF’s “aid” sites, run by armed US contractors operating under Israeli military control, have doubled as death traps. Israeli forces have repeatedly opened fire on hungry crowds, killing over 1,100 Palestinians since the GHF began operations. This means that more Palestinians have been murdered lining up for food under the GHF’s watch than Israeli civilians– including by Israeli military fire under the “Hannibal Directive” – were killed on Oct. 7th 2023.

Israel and the US have waged their siege of Gaza and deployment of the GHF on the pretext that Hamas has stolen UN food deliveries, a transparent lie newly exposed by Israeli and US insiders. According to Israeli sources, including two senior military officials, “the Israeli military never found proof that the Palestinian militant group had systematically stolen aid from the United Nations,” the New York Times reports. In fact, the military officials conceded, the UN “was largely effective in providing food to Gaza’s desperate and hungry population.” An internal US government analysis reached the same conclusion, finding “no reports alleging Hamas” stole aid from US-funded humanitarian deliveries.

The US-Israeli starvation siege and dismantlement of the United Nations aid system serves the guiding Israeli goal of making Gaza unlivable and pushing its surviving residents into permanent expulsion. In a visit to Washington this month, Netanyahu referred to his vision as “free choice… if people want to stay, they can stay, but if they want to leave, they should be able to leave.” He added that the US and Israel are working “very closely” to find countries that will “give the Palestinians a better future.” This future denies Palestinians the right of return to their ancestral, stolen homes in Israel or to an independent state of their own. The latter possibility was once nominally supported by US presidents like George W. Bush, but is now dismissed with open contempt. After French President Emmanuel Macron announced this week that his government will recognize Palestinian statehood, Trump responded: “What he says doesn’t matter. That statement doesn’t carry any weight.”

As a practical observation, Trump is correct. The only international actor that matters in the Israel-Palestine crisis is the United States, which has long used its weight to block a diplomatic settlement and support Israeli aggression, including the overlooked land theft and terror in the occupied West Bank.

As a senior administration official recently told the Wall Street Journal, “the White House coordinates closely with Israel and has considerable influence over Netanyahu because the prime minister knows that ‘the United States literally is the sole reason the state of Israel exists.’” Accordingly, the US is the sole reason why Israel is getting away with denying the starving Palestinians of Gaza that same right.

Netherlands Lists Israel as a National Security Threat: A Diplomatic Turning Point?

/5 Comments/in /by

Netherlands Lists Israel as a National Security Threat: A Diplomatic Turning Point?

A stunning shift in European diplomacy has emerged. For the first time, the Netherlands has officially designated Israel as a foreign state actor that poses a potential threat to its national security. The revelation comes from a recent intelligence report released by the Dutch National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism (NCTV), the agency tasked with safeguarding the country from foreign interference and internal threats. The report, titled “Threat Assessment from State Actors,” is far from routine. It marks a bold and explicit accusation that Israel has engaged in coordinated disinformation campaigns aimed at manipulating Dutch public opinion and influencing domestic political decisions. This move by The Hague signals a serious concern over foreign efforts to disrupt the country’s informational and political sovereignty.

When Facts Are No Longer Clear: The Leaked Document Incident

One of the key triggers behind this bold stance was an incident last year involving the alleged distribution of sensitive documents by Israel to Dutch journalists and politicians through unofficial channels. According to NCTV, the documents contained “unusual and unwelcome personal details” about Dutch citizens. Imagine your private data being used to advance a foreign political agenda. The incident occurred amidst growing tensions surrounding demonstrations in support of Israeli football club Maccabi Tel Aviv in Amsterdam. While full details of the documents remain classified, the breach was significant enough to activate security alerts across multiple Dutch agencies.

ICC Under Pressure: Israel and the U.S. Accused of Intimidation

The report also raises deep concerns about mounting threats and pressure—allegedly from Israel and the United States—towards the International Criminal Court (ICC), which is headquartered in The Hague. The ICC, tasked with prosecuting crimes of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, has frequently faced criticism from states under potential investigation. NCTV warns that such threats—ranging from sanctions to diplomatic intimidation—could jeopardize the court’s independence and credibility. As host to numerous international legal institutions, the Netherlands considers itself to have a “special responsibility” to protect these entities from external interference. Israel’s alleged role in applying such pressure has added a new layer of diplomatic tension, shaking the long-standing trust between the two nations.

A Paradigm Shift in Bilateral Relations?

Interestingly, while previous reports from Dutch intelligence mentioned concerns about Israeli spyware, this latest assessment does not focus on espionage. Instead, it shifts the spotlight entirely onto disinformation and political manipulation. The Netherlands’ assertive move sends a powerful message to the global stage: interference in sovereign affairs will not be tolerated—no matter the ally. It also reflects growing global unease over foreign influence operations and underscores the Dutch commitment to defending the integrity of international institutions based on its soil, especially amid ongoing geopolitical conflicts in the Middle East. Israel has yet to issue an official response to the report. However, the publication is already stirring intense debate in the Dutch parliament and may mark the beginning of a more strained chapter in Dutch-Israeli relations. Is this the dawn of a new diplomatic reality between the two nations? Time will tell.