East

Mainstream US media continues to celebrate the supposed strength of the US economy. Almost daily, headlines speak of hopeful numbers, sustainable growth, positive trends and constant gains. The reality on the ground, however, tells of something entirely different, which raises the questions: Are Americans being lied to? And for what purpose?

“US Economy Grew 1.7% in Fourth Quarter, Capping a Strong Year,” the New York Times reported. “US Economy Grew 5.7% in 2021, Fastest Full-Year Clip,” the Washington Post added. Reuters, Voice of America, the Financial Times, CNN, Market Watch and many others all concurred. But if that is the case, why then is US President Joe Biden’s approval rating at an all time low? And why are many Americans literally going hungry?

In a national opinion poll conducted by Reuters/Ipsos and published on 3 February, only 41 per cent of US adults approved of Biden’s performance in office. A whopping 56 per cent disapproved. The numbers were not a complete shock as the downward trajectory of the Biden presidency has been in effect since soon after he moved to the White House over a year ago.

The truth is, Biden was not the Democrats’ top choice nominee for president. Judging by various opinion polls and the early results of the Democratic primaries in 2020, it was Bernie Sanders who represented the Democratic hope for real, substantive change. Party politics, liberal media insistence that Sanders was not ‘electable’ and fear-mongering regarding a second Trump term in office pushed Biden through the ranks of nominees to be presented as America’s only hope for salvation.

READ: Taliban calls on Biden to reverse move to halve frozen Afghan funds

While Republicans remain committed to the Donald Trump legacy and are still largely politically and ideologically united, Democrats are growingly unconfident in their leadership and uncertain regarding the future of their democracy, governance and economy. Of course, they are blameless in holding such views.

While the Democratic leadership continues to obsess with its fear of Trump, and while liberal media insists that the US economy is as healthy as it can be, the average American continues to struggle against encroaching poverty, inflation and lack of future prospects.

Here are some sobering numbers: 56 per cent of all Americans cannot produce a meager $1,000 as an emergency expense from their existing savings, CNBC reported; one in 10 US adults went hungry last December as a result of poverty, Forbes.com reported; Columbia University Center on Poverty and Social Policy revealed that child poverty rate in the US stands at 17 per ent, “one of the highest among developed countries”.

If American workers are studied separately from the larger population, the numbers are even more grim: three quarters of American workers said that “it was very or somewhat difficult to make end’s meet,” according to a study conducted by Shift Project, and reported in NBC News online. Forty per ent of the polled workers said that they are not able to come up with $400 in emergency money. But the most shocking of all, according to the same study, is that “around 20% said that they went hungry because they couldn’t afford enough to eat”.

Homeless on the street in front of a Police Station in Los Angeles, California on 16 February 2022. [FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP via Getty Images]

Aside from occasional government handouts, which were provided by both the Trump and Biden administrations, little has been done by way of structural changes to the US economy that would ensure greater equality among all sectors of society. Instead, the administration’s priorities seem to be allocated to something else entirely.

Writing in Politico, David Siders describes the current political discourse within Democratic Party circles, where “Democrats are losing their minds over 2024”. Since the Democratic President’s public approval ratings are “dismal”, Democrats fear the return of Trump. “All anyone can talk about is Trump —donors, policy folks, party insiders, the media,” Siders quoted a Democratic adviser as saying. The same adviser described “a weird cycle” where the “conversation keeps coming back to Trump”.

Whether conscious of this obsession or not, the Biden administration seems to operate entirely according to a political strategy that is predicated on tarnishing Trump and his supporters, retelling, over and over again, the story of the January 6 insurrection, hoping for a Republican split or any other miracle that would bolster their chances of maintaining their Congressional majority in the next November mid-term elections.

While doing so, the Democratic leadership seems oblivious to the harsh reality on the ground, where food prices are skyrocketing and where inflation has reached unbearable levels. According to new data, released on 10 February by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the US consumer price index (CPI) rose by 7.5 per cent in January compared to the same month a year ago, making it the “fastest annual pace since 1982,” the Financial Times reported.

READ: Putin wants to turn the clock back and must be reined in

The rise in inflation is not a one time off event, as CPI has been rising at a sustainable level of 0.6 per cent on a monthly basis. Ordinary people can feel this increase almost every time they go shopping. Small business owners, especially restaurants, bakeries and grocery stores, are left with one out of two options: either increasing their prices or shutting down completely. Consequently, large segments of the already vulnerable US population are growing more desperate than ever.

To avoid providing real answers to difficult questions about the welfare of millions of Americans, about the real function of their democratic institutions and about existing corruption within the US political system – regardless of who controls the Congress or resides in the White House – Democrats and their media are either blaming their Republican rivals or creating foreign policy distractions. They continue to speak of a ‘China threat’ and an ‘imminent’ Russian invasion of Ukraine and such, while the real threat is that of detached politicians who are amassing wealth, fighting for power and prestige while their countrymen and women continue to go hungry.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

Nov. 26 (UPI) — The IAAPA will host its first expo in the Middle East at Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, this spring after breaking records for attendance at the recent Orlando expo.

The International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions will host the event in the Abu Dhabi National Exhibition Centre March 30 to April 2.

In April, the association announced that it has already had to expand the expo space to accommodate demand from exhibitioners.

The organization just finished its most recent Expo Nov. 17-21 at the Orange County Convention Center in Orlando, Fla., with record-breaking numbers. The event saw 38,520 attendees, a press release said. The trade show floor featured 28,598 qualified buyers representing 20,316 buying companies across 102 countries. This year’s expo showcased cutting-edge innovations from more than 1,100 exhibitors representing the full spectrum of the global attractions community, including amusement and theme parks, water parks, family entertainment centers, zoos, aquariums, museums, resorts and cruise lines.

Some of the highlights included SeaWorld Orlando unveiling a new Vekoma coaster; Dollywood debuting a new attraction in partnership with Mack Rides; Six Flags Over Texas revealing the Tormenta coaster, manufactured by Bolliger & Mabillard; Rocky Mountain Construction announcing new single-rail coaster coming to Family Kingdom Amusement Park; and Zamperla partnering with Morgan’s Wonderland on The WingZ, an accessibility-friendly ride.

Next year’s Middle East expo was created in response to demand from members and local organizations within the theme park industry, a press release said. The event allows people in the attractions industry to connect, build diverse perspectives and engage across the industry.

“After years of preparation, we are thrilled to bring IAAPA Expo to the Middle East,” said Peter van der Schans, executive director and vice president of IAAPA EMEA, in a statement. “Beyond organizing this Expo, we’ve been actively shaping our presence in the region by hosting multiday summits and institutes, building strong partnerships with organizations like the Abu Dhabi Department of Culture and Tourism and investing in local talent with our regional office. This event is a milestone in that journey.”

Abu Dhabi is a leading destination for attractions and tourism. It’s already home to Seaworld Yas Island and will soon be the home of Guggenheim Abu Dhabi and Disneyland Abu Dhabi. The Natural History Museum Abu Dhabi opened on Nov. 22.

“The Middle East is experiencing tremendous growth and innovation, and IAAPA is eager to support and elevate the industry here,” said IAAPA President and CEO Jakob Wahl in a statement. “IAAPA Expo Middle East will provide a powerful platform for networking, learning, and discovering new opportunities. We are proud to host the very first edition of this annual event in Abu Dhabi.”

Registration is open for visitors and exhibitioners.

After recently announcing major cuts to its youth orchestra, the L.A. Phil has secured additional donor funding to ensure the East L.A. branch of the Youth Orchestra Los Angeles (YOLA) program will continue at full capacity until the end of the school year.

In an email to the students’ parents last week, the nonprofit organization announced that it would need to “significantly modify” the programming at the Esteban E. Torres High School site “due to unanticipated financial and funding challenges for the organization.” With these proposed changes, the site’s teaching artists were laid off, the younger students’ programming was gutted and practices for the older students were reduced.

The students’ parents and the local community rallied together in response to the cuts, creating a campaign on Instagram and organizing at town hall meetings. After hearing this outcry and receiving additional funds, the L.A. Phil has been able to temporarily preserve the Torres site.

In a statement to The Times on Wednesday, LA Phil President and CEO Kim Noltemy says, “We are thrilled our donors recognized that this funding provides vital access to music education for the East LA community.”

“Joining together, we have and will continue working tirelessly over the coming months to ensure we remain in a position to support this program, because it is more important than ever,” said Noltemy.

Conductor Gustavo Dudamel rehearses with young musicians from around the country participating in the L.A. Phil’s annual YOLA National Program at Walt Disney Concert Hall in 2023.

(Dania Maxwell / Los Angeles Times)

YOLA has offered a free musical education to students ages 5 through 18 since 2007. Run by the L.A. Phil, the program gives students access to free instruments and the firsthand experience of being in a musical ensemble. YOLA currently operates out of Inglewood, East L.A., Rampart District and Westlake/MacArthur Park. The Torres site, specifically, serves 165 students.

This program has been championed by star conductor Gustavo Dudamel since he first came to L.A. in 2009. Its teaching format is heavily inspired by El Sistema, the publicly funded program where he first learned music in Venezuela. After his 17-year tenure with the L.A. Phil, the conductor will be leaving the orchestra in June to work with the New York Philharmonic.

An L.A. Phil spokesperson told The Times that their ongoing funding challenges come from “fundraising limitations and rising operating costs,” while also maintaining their day-to-day operations, including free/low-cost community programs.

These cuts were originally set to go into effect after Dec. 12, months before Dudamel’s departure. But with these new funds, the instruction and rehearsal time will stay fully operational, and the previously laid-off staff will be reinstated for the remainder of the program.

These tentative revisions were also announced days before the teaching artists voted to unionize, under the American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada. There has been some speculation about whether this unionization played a role in these cuts.

In a statement to the Times, the L.A. Phil says it has a long history of “working constructively with unions” and that the cuts were based “solely [on] financial and organizational needs.”

At the end of the 2025-2026 school year, the L.A. Phil Board will evaluate the Torres site to see if it is the “best and most sustainable location for YOLA programming after this school year.” The Philharmonic says in the release that its board “is committed to sustaining a long-term YOLA program in the East LA community.”

In an effort to build a transparent, collaborative community, the Phil has also announced that it will work to create a parent advisory committee where YOLA families will be heard as future decisions are made.

In November 2025 a public disagreement between Beijing and Tokyo over Taiwan exposed how the island’s fate now reaches far beyond Taipei, shaping trade, military planning and regional alliances across East Asia and further beyond.

The Taiwan question has recently re-emerged as a tension point between China and Japan. This raises broader questions about East Asian security. Beijing affirms its “One China policy”, treating Taiwan as a breakaway province to be “reunified” by force if necessary and reacts sharply to any foreign involvement. Avoiding rhetoric that might provoke its eastern neighbor until now, the consensus in Tokyo is shifting as many senior Japanese officials say a Chinese assault on Taiwan that threatens Japan’s survival could justify a military response. None of this is new, but the tone is.

China’s Firm Position on Taipei

Beijing’s stance remains absolute: it is Chinese territory, and any formal push or support from foreign actors for its independence is intolerable. Officials frame reunification as inevitable and non-negotiable, part of what state discourse calls the “national rejuvenation” of China. In recent months this posture has been accompanied by more visible coercion: maritime patrols in the South China Sea, large-scale exercises around the island and targeted economic measures against partners perceived to have crossed this line.

Any country that appears to undercut China’s claim through military cooperation with Taipei, public statements of support, or strengthened security ties risks a Chinese response. From Beijing’s point of view, fully controlling the region would extend China’s reach beyond its coast by securing sea lanes and projection space for the People’s Liberation Army. Politically, it would close a chapter Beijing sees as a Cold War remnant after a century of perceived humiliation.

Japan’s Stakes in Taiwan

Tokyo’s formal policy remains rooted in the One China framework as it does not recognise Taiwan as a sovereign state and officially supports a peaceful cross-Strait resolution. Security considerations and proximity to Taiwan have forced Japanese leaders into increasing their attention to the island in recent years. Hard-line conservative Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s public remarks this month, that a Chinese assault on Taiwan which threatens Japanese survival could trigger a full military response, marked a break with decades of deliberate ambiguity.

It is likely that pending targets have been moved forward and planning for collective self-defence has become more explicit, while defence cooperation with partners particularly the United States under U.S. President Donald Trump has grown more visible. Taipei sits near Japan’s western islands; Yonaguni, the closest island of the Okinawa prefecture is roughly 100 km from Taiwan’s eastern coast and the sea lanes that run here carry a large share of Japan’s energy imports. The presence of substantial U.S. forces in Japan ties Tokyo’s security to Washington’s responses, making it politically and militarily difficult for Tokyo to ignore developments in the Strait.

Reactions, Responses and Confrontation

Responding with strong diplomatic protests and a suite of retaliatory measures to Prime Minister Takaichi’s parliamentary remarks on November 7, Chinese commerce authorities re-imposed bans on Japanese seafood and warned consumers against Japanese products urging its citizens to avoid travel to Japan. Diplomatically, China demanded a retraction and summoned Japan’s ambassador in Beijing to issue a formal protest. This was widely seen as an unusually public move given the recent history of cautious diplomacy in the area.

Japan has issued strong protests over the consul’s remarks and dispatched a senior envoy to Beijing to calm the situation but the talks produced little immediate de-escalation. Japanese fighters were set on high alert after a surveillance drone was detected between Taiwan and Yonaguni, underlining how geographically close this theatre is to Japanese territory. Such moves are not isolated acts but are part of a larger pattern meant to act as a “show of strength” while stopping short of starting a full-scale war.

Why This Small Island is Significant to Both Countries

For Beijing, the island is a core territorial claim bolstered by narratives about sovereignty and historical rectification. Losing the island, or allowing it to consolidate international backing as a separate political entity, would be depicted by Chinese leaders as an unacceptable erosion of national integrity. Its location is also a matter of strategy: full control over the island would make it harder for outside powers to operate in China’s seas.

For Tokyo, the calculus is concrete and immediate. Taiwan’s proximity means that military operations in the straits could quickly affect Japanese airspace and waters. Japanese industry is also deeply integrated with Taiwanese firms notably in fields such as semiconductors and electronics, so instability would hit the stock markets and raise costs for manufacturers.

Possible Future Scenarios and Regional Impact

The stand-off could begin a prolonged period of low-level confrontation. Both Beijing and Tokyo could double down: China sustaining pressure through patrols and economic sanctions, Japan strengthening its military capabilities and aligning more tightly with the United States and other western partners.

This doesn’t mean that there is no time for pragmatic de-escalation from both sides.  Recognising the mutual costs of prolonged hostility, Tokyo could clarify that its statements were contextual and not a call to aggressive action, while Beijing could temper sanctions once its political point has been made. Diplomacy behind closed doors might restore exchanges and trade, though the underlying policy differences between the two countries would remain unresolved. Therefore, such an outcome would buy more time but not resolve the underlying causes of these issues.

A third way would be one where a deeper realignment could take place. Japan might accelerate defence modernisation and legal reforms to make collective defence more actionable. On its part, China could respond by heavily investing and intensifying military presence in its south or seeking closer security ties with partners that counterbalance U.S. influence.

In the worst case, simple miscalculations could lead to direct clashes for example between Chinese forces operating near Taiwan and Japanese ships or aircraft which could rapidly draw in the United States given treaty commitments and strategic interests.

While full-scale war remains unlikely for now, we can never be 100% sure as the simple probability increases more and more with these incidents that have developed recently.

Implications for the Rest of The World

No matter if the situation escalates further or not, the United States will undoubtebly remain a central factor to any such issue. Washington’s alliance with Tokyo and its historically ambiguous but substantial support for Taipei mean that any serious incident will have trans-Pacific repercussions.

Neighbouring states like South Korea, ASEAN members, Australia, India, etc. would be forced into a difficult diplomatic calculation, by balancing economic ties with Beijing against security concerns and relations with Washington and Tokyo. Economically, prolonged instability would disrupt semiconductor production, shipping routes and regional investment, with global consequences.

Most analysts agree that this issue has shifted from a regional diplomatic concern to a great security risk for the larger world. In the near term, careful diplomacy from both sides may limit the damage, but the issues at hand suggest this will most likely be a long term gap in East Asian security. How both sides manage politics and deterrence will determine whether the next phase is a steady containment or a dangerous step toward direct military confrontation.

With information from Reuters.

Former Israeli military spokesperson Daniel Hagari said Israel has “lost the war on social media,” describing the online space as the most dangerous and complex arena shaping global public opinion, especially among younger generations.

Speaking at the annual conference of the Jewish Federations of North America in Washington, DC, Hagari urged the creation of a powerful new propaganda apparatus modelled on the capabilities and structure of Unit 8200, Israel’s elite cyber intelligence division. He argued that Israel must now fight “a battle of images, videos, and statistics—not lengthy texts.”

Hagari proposed establishing a unit capable of monitoring anti-Israel content across platforms, in real time and in multiple languages, supplying rapid-response messaging and data to government and media outlets. His plan also calls for the systematic creation of fake online identities, automated bot networks, and the use of unofficial bloggers—“preferably mostly young women”—to shape global perceptions.

He warned that the decisive phase of this battle will unfold a decade from now, when students using artificial intelligence tools search for information on the events of October 7 and encounter “two completely contradictory narratives.”

Hagari, a former navy officer who served in sensitive military roles, became Israel’s top military spokesperson in 2023 before being dismissed from the position earlier this year.

READ: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait condemn Israeli prime minister’s tour in occupied Syrian territory

Germany announced Monday it will lift restrictions on arms exports to Israel, citing a “stabilized ceasefire” in Gaza and recent diplomatic progress in the region, Anadolu reports.

The decision takes effect on Nov. 24 and returns the country to case-by-case review of arms export applications to Israel, government spokesman Stefan Kornelius told the German press agency DPA.

Kornelius said the government based its decision on the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas that has held since Oct. 10 and has stabilized in recent weeks. He also pointed to efforts toward a sustainable peace and increased humanitarian aid in Gaza.

Chancellor Friedrich Merz ordered the restrictions on Aug. 8, halting approval of arms exports that could be used in the Gaza war. The decision came in response to Israel’s announcement of a full-scale ground offensive and the stopping of aid deliveries into Gaza.

Germany’s arms exports to Israel have long been contentious and the subject of legal challenges by rights groups and Gaza residents. The European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), which supported plaintiffs in their legal action, has repeatedly said that Berlin’s authorization of weapons exports to Israel violated international agreements Germany signed, including the Geneva Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide.

READ: Activists climb iconic Brandenburg Gate to protest Germany’s ‘complicity’ in Gaza genocide

Last week, a prominent Saudi Sheikh, Mohammed Al-Issa, visited the Auschwitz concentration camp in Poland to commemorate the 75th anniversary of its liberation, which signalled the end of the Nazi Holocaust. Although dozens of Muslim scholars have visited the site, where about one million Jews were killed during World War Two, according to the Auschwitz Memorial Centre’s press office, Al-Issa is the most senior Muslim religious leader to do so.

Visiting Auschwitz is not a problem for a Muslim; Islam orders Muslims to reject unjustified killing of any human being, no matter what their faith is. Al-Issa is a senior ally of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MBS), who apparently cares little for the sanctity of human life, though, and the visit to Auschwitz has very definite political connotations beyond any Islamic context.

By sending Al-Issa to the camp, Bin Salman wanted to show his support for Israel, which exploits the Holocaust for geopolitical colonial purposes. “The Israeli government decided that it alone was permitted to mark the 75th anniversary of the Allied liberation of Auschwitz [in modern day Poland] in 1945,” wrote journalist Richard Silverstein recently when he commented on the gathering of world leaders in Jerusalem for Benjamin Netanyahu’s Holocaust event.

READ: Next up, a Saudi embassy in Jerusalem 

Bin Salman uses Al Issa for such purposes, as if to demonstrate his own Zionist credentials. For example, the head of the Makkah-based Muslim World League is leading rapprochement efforts with Evangelical Christians who are, in the US at least, firm Zionists in their backing for the state of Israel. Al-Issa has called for a Muslim-Christian-Jewish interfaith delegation to travel to Jerusalem in what would, in effect, be a Zionist troika.

Zionism is not a religion, and there are many non-Jewish Zionists who desire or support the establishment of a Jewish state in occupied Palestine. The definition of Zionism does not mention the religion of its supporters, and Israeli writer Sheri Oz, is just one author who insists that non-Jews can be Zionists.

Mohammad Bin Salman and Netanyahu – Cartoon [Tasnimnews.com/Wikipedia]

We should not be shocked, therefore, to see a Zionist Muslim leader in these trying times. It is reasonable to say that Bin Salman’s grandfather and father were Zionists, as close friends of Zionist leaders. Logic suggests that Bin Salman comes from a Zionist dynasty.

This has been evident from his close relationship with Zionists and positive approaches to the Israeli occupation and establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, calling it “[the Jews’] ancestral homeland”. This means that he has no issue with the ethnic cleansing of almost 800,000 Palestinians in 1948, during which thousands were killed and their homes demolished in order to establish the Zionist state of Israel.

“The ‘Jewish state’ claim is how Zionism has tried to mask its intrinsic Apartheid, under the veil of a supposed ‘self-determination of the Jewish people’,” wrote Israeli blogger Jonathan Ofir in Mondoweiss in 2018, “and for the Palestinians it has meant their dispossession.”

As the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, Crown Prince Bin Salman has imprisoned dozens of Palestinians, including representatives of Hamas. In doing so he is serving Israel’s interests. Moreover, he has blamed the Palestinians for not making peace with the occupation state. Bin Salman “excoriated the Palestinians for missing key opportunities,” wrote Danial Benjamin in Moment magazine. He pointed out that the prince’s father, King Salman, has played the role of counterweight by saying that Saudi Arabia “permanently stands by Palestine and its people’s right to an independent state with occupied East Jerusalem as its capital.”

UN expert: Saudi crown prince behind hack on Amazon CEO 

Israeli journalist Barak Ravid of Israel’s Channel 13 News reported Bin Salman as saying: “In the last several decades the Palestinian leadership has missed one opportunity after the other and rejected all the peace proposals it was given. It is about time the Palestinians take the proposals and agree to come to the negotiations table or shut up and stop complaining.” This is reminiscent of the words of the late Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban, one of the Zionist founders of Israel, that the Palestinians “never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.”

Bin Salman’s Zionism is also very clear in his bold support for US President Donald Trump’s deal of the century, which achieves Zionist goals in Palestine at the expense of Palestinian rights. He participated in the Bahrain conference, the forum where the economic side of the US deal was announced, where he gave “cover to several other Arab countries to attend the event and infuriated the Palestinians.”

US President Donald Trump looks over at Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia Mohammad bin Salman al-Saud as they line up for the family photo during the opening day of Argentina G20 Leaders’ Summit 2018 at Costa Salguero on 30 November 2018 in Buenos Aires, Argentina [Daniel Jayo/Getty Images]

While discussing the issue of the current Saudi support for Israeli policies and practices in Palestine with a credible Palestinian official last week, he told me that the Palestinians had contacted the Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro to ask him not to relocate his country’s embassy to Jerusalem. “The Saudis have been putting pressure on us in order to relocate our embassy to Jerusalem,” replied the Brazilian leader. What more evidence of Mohammad Bin Salman’s Zionism do we need?

The founder of Friends of Zion Museum is American Evangelical Christian Mike Evans. He said, after visiting a number of the Gulf States, that, “The leaders [there] are more pro-Israel than a lot of Jews.” This was a specific reference to Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince, and his counterpart in the UAE, Mohammed Bin Zayed.

“All versions of Zionism lead to the same reactionary end of unbridled expansionism and continued settler colonial genocide of [the] Palestinian people,” Israeli-American writer and photographer Yoav Litvin wrote for Al Jazeera. We may well see an Israeli Embassy opened in Riyadh in the near future, and a Saudi Embassy in Tel Aviv or, more likely, Jerusalem. Is Mohammad Bin Salman a Zionist? There’s no doubt about it.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

US President Donald Trump’s proposal to relocate Palestinians from Gaza to other countries and to place the Palestinian enclave under the US control is “unlawful, immoral and completely irresponsible,” said the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territory on Wednesday.

Speaking at a news conference in Copenhagen, the capital of Denmark, Francesca Albanese condemned the proposal and warned that it would worsen the regional crisis, Anadolu Agency reports.

“It’s unlawful, immoral and completely irresponsible … what he proposes is nonsense,” Albanese said.

“It’s incitement to commit forced displacement, which is an international crime,” she added.

Albanese urged the international community to take a stronger stance, saying:

The international community consists of 193 states, and this is the time to give the US what it has been looking for – isolation

she said.

Albanese dismissed the notion that economic incentives could resolve the long-standing conflict in the Middle East.

READ: QUOTES – Global reaction to Trump’s Gaza Strip takeover plan

For too long, the international community has treated the issue of Palestine as something that can be managed through development, economic incentives and humanitarian aid,” she said. “Frankly, it doesn’t work

While acknowledging the importance of economic growth, she insisted that it cannot come at the expense of fundamental rights. “Peace through economic development is an expectation of surrender, and it will not work.”

“The only way to stop the violence is to give peace a chance through freedom,” Albanese stressed.

President Donald Trump, earlier on Tuesday night in a press conference with Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, announced that the “US will take over the Gaza Strip”, shortly after suggesting a permanent resettlement of Palestinians outside Gaza.

“We’ll own it and be responsible for dismantling all of the dangerous unexploded bombs and other weapons on the site, level the site and get rid of the destroyed buildings, level it out, (and) create an economic development that will supply unlimited numbers of jobs and housing for the people of the area,” Trump said.

During a news conference with Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, in Washington on Tuesday, Trump said that the US “will take over” Gaza after relocating Palestinians elsewhere under a redevelopment plan that he claimed could turn the enclave into “the Riviera of the Middle East.”

Turkiye, Jordan and Egypt as well as other regional and European countries, including the UK, France and Germany, have rejected Trump’s relocation proposal.

READ: Gaza wastewater pool at risk of flooding, municipality warns

A resurfaced video of BBC News Online’s Middle East editor Raffi Berg, who has launched legal action against journalist Owen Jones over allegations of pro-Israel bias, is seen expressing deep admiration for Mossad. Speaking about the Israeli spy agency, Berg said it makes him “tremendously proud.” The comments have drawn fresh scrutiny as Berg faces allegations of pro-Israel bias, first detailed in a widely shared article by Jones titled The BBC’s Civil War Over Gaza.

Jones’ article, published in December 2024 on DropSite News, accused the BBC, and Berg in particular, of downplaying Israeli actions in Gaza and sidelining critical voices. Now, nearly a year later, Berg has initiated legal proceedings, claiming reputational damage. He is reported to have hired the former director of the notorious UK Lawyers for Israel to sue Jones.

BBC editor hires former director of UK Lawyers for Israel to sue Owen Jones for alleging his pro-Israel bias. You couldn’t make it up! pic.twitter.com/6LGBVwL3dr

— Rivkah Brown (@rivkahbrown) January 14, 2025

Jones detailed accusations from 13 current and former BBC staffers who alleged that coverage of Israel and Palestine was being distorted under Berg’s editorial direction. Sources accused him of “aggressively pushing” pro-Israel framing, marginalising Palestinian perspectives, and undermining colleagues who tried to challenge editorial lines. The article suggested Berg exerted “wild” control over headlines and content related to Gaza.

The BBC’s surrender to pro-Israel lobbying: a history of censorship and bias

Claims of Berg’s pro-Israel bias was further compounded by revelations in Mint Press News, which uncovered Berg’s close ties to Israeli intelligence institutions. Berg is reported to have previously worked with the Foreign Broadcast Information Service — an entity long linked to the CIA — and authored a book (Red Sea Spies) about a Mossad operation, written in collaboration with senior Mossad operatives, including Dani Limor. The book has been praised by Mossad leadership and has been promoted as a success story of Israeli intelligence.

BBC’s online Middle East editor, Raffi Berg, seems to have a framed letter from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and a framed picture with former Israeli ambassador to the UK, Mark Regev, proudly displayed on his wall at home.

Here is the editor behind THOSE headlines. pic.twitter.com/eXbfImwbNA

— Lowkey (@Lowkey0nline) December 31, 2024

In the MintPress report, investigative journalist Alan MacLeod outlines how Berg has received support from top Israeli officials and prominently displayed memorabilia tied to Mossad and Israel in his BBC office. MacLeod argues this undermines any claim of neutrality, especially in the context of the BBC’s coverage of the Israeli genocide in Gaza.

Despite mounting questions about conflicts of interest, the BBC has remained largely silent on Berg’s affiliations. Meanwhile, the legal case against Jones is viewed by many observers as an attempt to silence journalistic scrutiny of the broadcaster’s internal dynamics.

The timing of the lawsuit, as global scrutiny of Israel’s actions in Gaza intensifies, has only added to concerns that critical voices are being targeted. Jones has defended his reporting, insisting that it was based on documented testimonies and internal sources, and called the legal action an attack on press freedom.

Last night, in one of the most dramatic elections in recent US history, Zahran Mamdani, a Muslim candidate of Indian African descent, achieved a landslide victory. This triumph came despite facing formidable opposition from the forces of Zionism, capitalism, and racialist religious supremacism, which mobilized significant resources in terms of money, muscle, and power against him.

The victory of Zahran Mamdani, the son of renowned intellectual Mahmood Mamdani and Film maker Mira Nair, as a Democratic candidate in New York mayoral elections is far more than a local electoral victory. It signals a deeper undercurrent—a growing rebellion against the entangled machinery of global capitalism, racialised securitisation, Zionist impunity, and Islamophobic silencing.

In the heart of New York, one of the most securitised and capital-rich spaces on the planet, Mamdani’s emergence stands as a critique of the global order. It is an insurgency within the very citadel of imperial liberalism. His campaign foregrounds anti-austerity politics, solidarity with Palestine, and the dismantling of carceral and corporate logics that have defined American life for decades. It is, in essence, a blow to what The Globalisation of World Politics calls “the disciplining power of capitalism.”

For years, the mere act of criticising Israel—even for its brutal siege of Gaza or its apartheid policies—has been enough to trigger political excommunication. The term “antisemite” has often been deployed not to combat real hate, but to securitize dissent. Any moral critique of Zionist settler colonialism was cast as existential threat and thus silenced. In Mamdani’s case, too, this familiar script was attempted: the labels of “Pro-Hamas,” “Antisemitic,” and “extremist” were hurled. But this time, it didn’t work.

READ: Zohran Mamdani elected New York City’s first Muslim mayor: AP projection

The people of New York—multi-ethnic, young, politically awakened—refused to accept this securitisation. The old rhetorical weapons no longer resonate. Zionism’s carefully curated moral immunity, built upon the tragic weight of the Holocaust, is eroding under the real-time horrors of a genocidal siege in Gaza. The shield of historical victimhood has cracked—not because the Holocaust is forgotten, but because it is being morally manipulated to justify colonial violence.

Even prominent Jewish scholars and intellectuals—such as Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, and Ilan Pappé—have long warned about this moral dissonance. Yet, governments have remained complicit. Streets across the West have mobilised in support of Palestine, but policies have not shifted. The disconnect between public sentiment and the actions of the power elite is glaring. The political representation of this street sympathy has been manipulated through manufactured consent and a false victimhood narrative propagated by large, conglomerate-controlled media outlets. Mamdani’s nomination suggests that the public may finally be finding a way to express their views through electoral channels, despite the entrenched media-industrial Zionist consensus.

Yet in India, the silence is deafening.

Despite Zahran’s cultural and familial linkages with India, the so-called liberal intelligentsia and the Hindutva right have found rare unity: in ignoring him. Why? Because he identifies unapologetically as a Muslim. Because he challenges Hindutva and Zionism with equal clarity. Because he doesn’t perform his identity for liberal comfort. While India was quick to celebrate Kamala Harris and Rishi Sunak—symbols of minority success within dominant systems—it refuses to acknowledge Mamdani, who represents defiance, not assimilation.

This is not just the prejudice of the right-wing. It reveals a deep Islamophobia embedded within India’s secular elite—those who pride themselves on defending the social fabric but look away when a Muslim victory doesn’t align with sanitized, capitalist liberalism. Mamdani is inconvenient. He is too political, too Muslim, too critical.

But he is also the embodiment of a long tradition. The son of Mahmood Mamdani—whose work deconstructs the legacies of colonial violence, racial statecraft, and the “good Muslim/bad Muslim” dichotomy—Zahran is the intellectual and political heir to global decolonial thought. His mother, Mira Nair, whose films have captured migration, racial tension, and identity, adds a cultural dimension to this lineage of resistance.

In a world that feels increasingly bleak, Mamdani’s nomination offers a rare moment of clarity: that cracks have begun to appear in the mirror of empire. The hegemon can still silence, still dominate—but not without resistance, and not without fracture. For those who dream of justice—not just electoral wins—Zahran Mamdani’s nomination is a reminder that history is not yet finished.

READ: Syria, the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Sharaa’s manoeuvring

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

Last week, a prominent Saudi Sheikh, Mohammed Al-Issa, visited the Auschwitz concentration camp in Poland to commemorate the 75th anniversary of its liberation, which signalled the end of the Nazi Holocaust. Although dozens of Muslim scholars have visited the site, where about one million Jews were killed during World War Two, according to the Auschwitz Memorial Centre’s press office, Al-Issa is the most senior Muslim religious leader to do so.

Visiting Auschwitz is not a problem for a Muslim; Islam orders Muslims to reject unjustified killing of any human being, no matter what their faith is. Al-Issa is a senior ally of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MBS), who apparently cares little for the sanctity of human life, though, and the visit to Auschwitz has very definite political connotations beyond any Islamic context.

By sending Al-Issa to the camp, Bin Salman wanted to show his support for Israel, which exploits the Holocaust for geopolitical colonial purposes. “The Israeli government decided that it alone was permitted to mark the 75th anniversary of the Allied liberation of Auschwitz [in modern day Poland] in 1945,” wrote journalist Richard Silverstein recently when he commented on the gathering of world leaders in Jerusalem for Benjamin Netanyahu’s Holocaust event.

READ: Next up, a Saudi embassy in Jerusalem 

Bin Salman uses Al Issa for such purposes, as if to demonstrate his own Zionist credentials. For example, the head of the Makkah-based Muslim World League is leading rapprochement efforts with Evangelical Christians who are, in the US at least, firm Zionists in their backing for the state of Israel. Al-Issa has called for a Muslim-Christian-Jewish interfaith delegation to travel to Jerusalem in what would, in effect, be a Zionist troika.

Zionism is not a religion, and there are many non-Jewish Zionists who desire or support the establishment of a Jewish state in occupied Palestine. The definition of Zionism does not mention the religion of its supporters, and Israeli writer Sheri Oz, is just one author who insists that non-Jews can be Zionists.

Mohammad Bin Salman and Netanyahu – Cartoon [Tasnimnews.com/Wikipedia]

We should not be shocked, therefore, to see a Zionist Muslim leader in these trying times. It is reasonable to say that Bin Salman’s grandfather and father were Zionists, as close friends of Zionist leaders. Logic suggests that Bin Salman comes from a Zionist dynasty.

This has been evident from his close relationship with Zionists and positive approaches to the Israeli occupation and establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, calling it “[the Jews’] ancestral homeland”. This means that he has no issue with the ethnic cleansing of almost 800,000 Palestinians in 1948, during which thousands were killed and their homes demolished in order to establish the Zionist state of Israel.

“The ‘Jewish state’ claim is how Zionism has tried to mask its intrinsic Apartheid, under the veil of a supposed ‘self-determination of the Jewish people’,” wrote Israeli blogger Jonathan Ofir in Mondoweiss in 2018, “and for the Palestinians it has meant their dispossession.”

As the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, Crown Prince Bin Salman has imprisoned dozens of Palestinians, including representatives of Hamas. In doing so he is serving Israel’s interests. Moreover, he has blamed the Palestinians for not making peace with the occupation state. Bin Salman “excoriated the Palestinians for missing key opportunities,” wrote Danial Benjamin in Moment magazine. He pointed out that the prince’s father, King Salman, has played the role of counterweight by saying that Saudi Arabia “permanently stands by Palestine and its people’s right to an independent state with occupied East Jerusalem as its capital.”

UN expert: Saudi crown prince behind hack on Amazon CEO 

Israeli journalist Barak Ravid of Israel’s Channel 13 News reported Bin Salman as saying: “In the last several decades the Palestinian leadership has missed one opportunity after the other and rejected all the peace proposals it was given. It is about time the Palestinians take the proposals and agree to come to the negotiations table or shut up and stop complaining.” This is reminiscent of the words of the late Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban, one of the Zionist founders of Israel, that the Palestinians “never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.”

Bin Salman’s Zionism is also very clear in his bold support for US President Donald Trump’s deal of the century, which achieves Zionist goals in Palestine at the expense of Palestinian rights. He participated in the Bahrain conference, the forum where the economic side of the US deal was announced, where he gave “cover to several other Arab countries to attend the event and infuriated the Palestinians.”

US President Donald Trump looks over at Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia Mohammad bin Salman al-Saud as they line up for the family photo during the opening day of Argentina G20 Leaders’ Summit 2018 at Costa Salguero on 30 November 2018 in Buenos Aires, Argentina [Daniel Jayo/Getty Images]

While discussing the issue of the current Saudi support for Israeli policies and practices in Palestine with a credible Palestinian official last week, he told me that the Palestinians had contacted the Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro to ask him not to relocate his country’s embassy to Jerusalem. “The Saudis have been putting pressure on us in order to relocate our embassy to Jerusalem,” replied the Brazilian leader. What more evidence of Mohammad Bin Salman’s Zionism do we need?

The founder of Friends of Zion Museum is American Evangelical Christian Mike Evans. He said, after visiting a number of the Gulf States, that, “The leaders [there] are more pro-Israel than a lot of Jews.” This was a specific reference to Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince, and his counterpart in the UAE, Mohammed Bin Zayed.

“All versions of Zionism lead to the same reactionary end of unbridled expansionism and continued settler colonial genocide of [the] Palestinian people,” Israeli-American writer and photographer Yoav Litvin wrote for Al Jazeera. We may well see an Israeli Embassy opened in Riyadh in the near future, and a Saudi Embassy in Tel Aviv or, more likely, Jerusalem. Is Mohammad Bin Salman a Zionist? There’s no doubt about it.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.