monitor

Eighty years ago, on August 6 1945, the sky over Hiroshima lit up with the cataclysmic explosion of the atomic bomb Little Boy; a light that was not a sunrise of hope, but a shadow of death and destruction, reducing over 140,000 people to ashes in an instant. This tragedy became a lasting symbol of nuclear horror, a permanent warning to humanity: the power of nuclear weapons can obliterate civilisation entirely.

Now, on the anniversary of that catastrophe, the United States, through attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities and escalating confrontations with Russia, is steering the world toward the precipice of a “Hiroshima II.” These actions, which threaten the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and raise the risk of nuclear war to unprecedented levels, endanger global peace and reveal a dangerous shift in Washington’s foreign policy; one that could imperil the very future of humanity.

Attack on Iran: A blow to diplomacy and a spark for nuclear proliferation

On June 22, 2025, the skies over Iran thundered with Tomahawk missiles and stealth B-2 bombers targeting the Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan nuclear facilities in an operation dubbed “Midnight Hammer.” Occurring amid the short-lived Iran-Israel conflict from 13 to 24 June 2025, this strike was described by US President Donald Trump as a “decisive victory” to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Yet reports tell a different story: the attack only delayed Iran’s nuclear program by a few months, as the country had already secured enriched uranium in safe locations.

The roots of this aggression trace back to the controversial US withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) in 2018. Subsequent reports by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 2025 indicated that Iran had enriched uranium to 60 per cent, still below the 90 percent threshold needed for weapons-grade material. Pressure from Israel, especially information presented by Benjamin Netanyahu in February 2025, pushed Washington toward this military strike. But this first direct military assault on another nation’s nuclear program since World War II had profound consequences: Iran suspended cooperation with the IAEA and announced it would no longer adhere to NPT restrictions.

The US attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities didn’t just torch years of diplomatic efforts; it’s pushed the world to the edge of a nuclear abyss. Since 1968, the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has stood on three shaky legs: stopping the spread of nukes, disarming those who have them, and ensuring nuclear energy stays peaceful. Now, Washington’s unilateral move threatens to kick those legs out from under it. Rafael Grossi, head of the IAEA, didn’t mince words: the strike could “bring the entire non-proliferation system crashing down.” Iran, now more determined than ever, might follow North Korea’s playbook, chasing nuclear weapons with renewed vigor. That could set off a domino effect, with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, or even Egypt eyeing their own nuclear arsenals to keep the regional balance from tipping.

From the collapse of nuclear order to human catastrophe

The fallout from America’s strike stretches far beyond the Middle East. By undermining the NPT, it’s fanned the flames of global nuclear ambition. Allies like South Korea, Japan, and Poland, long sheltered under the US nuclear umbrella, might start questioning their reliance on Washington and consider going their own way. In the Gulf, Saudi Arabia and the UAE could hit the gas on their own nuclear programs, risking a full-blown arms race across the region.

At the 2025 Hiroshima memorial, Mayor Kazumi Matsui sounded the alarm, warning that “nuclear weapons are becoming normalized” amid crises in Ukraine and the Middle East. The Hiroshima Survivors’ Association, known as Nihon Hidankyo and honored with a Nobel Peace Prize, slammed the US for ignoring the scars of Hiroshima’s past. Pope Leo XIV and UN chief António Guterres issued a rare joint plea, urging a return to diplomacy and warning that nukes are once again tools of intimidation, not deterrence.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) reports that 2025 has ushered in a new arms race, with defense budgets ballooning and nuclear stockpiles getting modern makeovers. In this tinderbox, one misstep, whether a rash decision or a simple miscalculation, could spark a disaster that wipes out millions and leaves the planet’s ecosystems in ruins for centuries.

The urgent need for multilateral diplomacy

History proves that nuclear stability hinges on global cooperation, not cowboy bravado. Treaties like the NPT and the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) only worked when big players respected each other’s red lines. The US strike on Iran, coupled with escalating tensions with Russia, spits in the face of that principle, shoving the world toward chaos. The only way out is to swap bombs for talks. Urgent negotiations, pulling in Iran, Russia, China, Europe, and others, are the last hope for shoring up the non-proliferation system and cooling global tempers.

Eighty years after Hiroshima, the world faces a gut-check moment. The US, which unleashed the first nuclear horror, is now steering humanity toward another with its reckless policies. Hiroshima taught us that nuclear weapons don’t bring security or triumph, only devastation. If this path continues, the next Hiroshima won’t be one city but the entire globe, with no one left to bear witness.

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

A left-wing Greek opposition party denounced the sale Tuesday of a major domestic defense company to the Israeli SK Group, whose portfolio includes Israeli Military Industries (IMI) and Israeli Shipyards, Anadolu reports.

“It is not a simple sell-out, but another act of complicity of the (Kyriakos) Mitsotakis regime with the genocide in Palestine,” the New Left party said in a statement.

“At the time of the genocide, the Mitsotakis government, is tying the country to Israel’s chariot, proceeding with a nationally detrimental choice that gives away critical sectors on terms of servitude,” is said.

The party underlined that the sale of ELVO to the Israeli holding company is another episode in the selling out of critical public infrastructure and strategic industries.

“The loss of the most important Greek defense industry to foreign hands undermines the country’s national security and technological self-sufficiency,” it said.

Thessaloniki-based ELVO (Hellenic Vehicle Industry) has, for around five decades, produced buses, heavy utility trucks, military jeeps, armored vehicles and tanks, mostly under licenses from third parties, for the Greek Armed Forces.

In 2020, the sale of ELVO to an Israeli-interest consortium that comprises Plasan Sasa, Naska Industries — SK Group and Greek businessman Aristidis Glinis, was concluded for around $3.4 million.

SK Group announced Tuesday that it completed the 100% takeover of ELVO.

Israeli authorities froze all bank accounts of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate in Jerusalem over a long-standing property tax dispute, escalating tensions with Christian institutions in the occupied city, local media said on Thursday, Anadolu reports.

A statement by Protecting Holy Land Christians, a group founded by Theophilos III, the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, said the freeze has left the Patriarchate unable to pay salaries to clergy, teachers, and staff.

The Times of Israel news outlet said the freeze, enacted on Aug. 6, stems from the Jerusalem Municipality’s push to collect Arnona, a property tax, on church-owned properties used for non-religious purposes, such as guesthouses and coffee shops.

The municipality claimed that the measure followed “efforts at dialogue and engagement” that failed because the Patriarchate “ignored letters from the municipality demanding payment.”

“Administrative enforcement measures were taken against the Greek Patriarchate because it failed to settle its property tax debts for assets not used as houses of worship,” its spokesperson office said.

“This was done despite efforts at dialogue and engagement with them, and in light of their ignoring letters from the municipality demanding payment.”

A decades-long agreement had historically exempted churches from such taxes, but in 2018, the city narrowed the exemption to properties used solely for prayer, religious teaching, or related needs, seeking tens of millions of shekels in back taxes.

The dispute echoes a 2018 clash when then-mayor Nir Barkat froze church accounts, prompting a three-day closure of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in protest. The municipality relented after intervention by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Tensions have since flared periodically over specific properties and activities.

Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich announced that he will move forward with the construction of 3,401 new settlement units in Area E1, located between Jerusalem and the Ma’ale Adumim settlement.

The decision comes despite international pressure against construction in the area beyond the Green Line and after a 20-year pause.

Smotrich’s plan aims to link Ma’ale Adumim with Jerusalem, cutting off Palestinian movement between Ramallah and Bethlehem. The area is considered strategic and could undermine any future political settlement.

Smotrich said: “Construction plans in the E1 area cancel the idea of a Palestinian state and continue the many steps we are taking on the ground as part of the de facto sovereignty plan we started with the formation of the government.”

He added: “After decades of international pressure and freezes, we are breaking agreements and linking Ma’ale Adumim with Jerusalem.”

READ: US House Speaker claims West Bank “rightful property of Jewish People”

The Israeli occupation army is grappling with a crisis in morale, which has been described as a “ticking time bomb” by local media, following the decision to extend compulsory military service by four months. This comes amidst ongoing operations in Gaza and rising tensions with Lebanon.

According to media reports, the order has sparked widespread discontent among soldiers who have been engaged in combat for over a year and a half. Many express feelings of exhaustion, exploitation and a loss of trust in both the state and military leadership. “Morale is at rock bottom… fighters are trying to escape combat positions for other roles,” an officer stated.

Soldiers reported being taken by surprise when informed of the extension of their service without prior notice. Sergeant Major Rishon A. from the Nahal Brigade, who was scheduled to be discharged last week, said he was notified the day before his discharge about an additional four-month service extension. He added: “The state is exploiting us mercilessly… I feel my personal life means nothing to them.”

Rishon noted that the new salary of 8,000 shekels ($2,205) does not compensate for the frustration: “I could earn this amount as a waiter, but I would prefer to wake up every morning free, not conscripted by force.”

Other soldiers highlighted a severe shortage of combat troops within the army, leading them to undertake non-combat tasks such as working in kitchens, which they view as evidence of the military’s inability to perform its core duties.

Sergeant S., a 14-month veteran in an armoured unit, expressed feelings of frustration, stating: “If I leave, who will fill my place? No one. We’re stuck.”

Additionally, soldiers expressed dissatisfaction with the continued full exemption of Haredim (ultra-Orthodox Jews) from military service, considering it “a grave injustice”, which has intensified feelings of discrimination and eroded trust in the state.

Senior officers confirmed that the decision to extend service has caused significant harm to the army’s combat spirit and willingness to continue serving, particularly in combat units. One officer explained that the directive was implemented unfairly across units, leading to deep frustration among soldiers.

Report: Majority of Israel’s ultra-Orthodox Jews refuse army service

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.

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.

Israel’s Defense Minister Israel Katz threatened on Monday to unleash “the gates of hell” on the Gaza Strip if the Palestinian group Hamas fails to release Israeli hostages, Anadolu reports.

“If Hamas does not release the hostages, the gates of hell will open in Gaza,” Katz said in a ceremony marking the demolitions of buildings damaged in Israeli missile strikes last month in the city of Holon near Tel Aviv.

“This is a complex war, it goes beyond what was done in the past. We are approaching stages where decisions need to be made. This is leadership and we are responsible, not the prosecutor and not anyone else.”

Hamas has repeatedly offered to release all Israeli captives in exchange for ending the war, Israeli troop withdrawal, and the release of Palestinian prisoners.

However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has resisted such terms, instead calling for the disarmament of the Palestinian resistance factions and signaling plans to reoccupy Gaza.

READ: Israeli defence minister threatens to assassinate Iran’s supreme leader, attacks Tehran

Israel estimates that 58 hostages remain in Gaza, including 20 believed to be alive. Meanwhile, over 10,100 Palestinians are held in Israeli prisons under harsh conditions, including reports of torture, starvation, and medical neglect, according to Palestinian and Israeli rights groups.

The Israeli opposition and hostages’ families have accused Netanyahu of prolonging the war to appease his far-right coalition partners and maintain power.

Rejecting international calls for a ceasefire, the Israeli army has pursued a brutal offensive on Gaza since Oct. 7, 2023, killing nearly 60,000 Palestinians, most of them women and children. The relentless bombardment has destroyed the enclave and led to food shortages.

Last November, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and his former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.

Israel also faces a genocide case at the International Court of Justice for its war on the enclave.

READ: Hamas official says Israel’s truce “claim” aims to deceive international public

Turkiye is waiting for a price proposal for the possible acquisition of Eurofighter jets after submitting a list outlining its technical needs to Britain’s Defence Ministry, a Turkish Defence Ministry source said today according to Reuters.

The Eurofighter Typhoon jets are built by a consortium of Germany, Britain, Italy and Spain, represented by companies Airbus AIR.PA, BAE Systems BAES.L and Leonardo LDOF.MI.

Ankara has been in talks with Britain and Spain to purchase 40 Typhoons and Germany took a step toward clearing the deal after initially being opposed to it.

“The […] document, prepared within the scope of the procurement of 40 Eurofighter Typhoon Aircraft, was sent to the British Ministry of Defence and the relevant company,” the source told a briefing in Ankara.

“We expect the price offer to reach us in the coming days.”

READ: Germany reconsiders Turkiye’s request to purchase Eurofighter

There are moments in world affairs so brazen, so jaw-droppingly cynical, that satire simply gives up and goes home. One such moment has arrived: the unlikeliest of duos—Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and Pakistan’s General Asim Munir—have found common cause in nominating Donald J. Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. That’s right. A warmonger-in-chief being heralded by a military autocrat and a genocidal demagogue as the global symbol of peace. George Orwell, meet your latest footnote.

But let’s not be misled by the absurdity. This is not a comedy of errors. It’s a political ritual of allegiance, where power is flattered, imperialism is decorated, and peace is contorted into a mockery of itself. That Netanyahu and Munir are Trump’s cheerleaders for this grotesque honor tells us everything we need to know about the rotting soul of contemporary global politics.

Netanyahu’s blood-soaked nomination

Let’s begin with the easier case: Benjamin Netanyahu. This is a man who has overseen the sustained, merciless and genocidal bombardment of Gaza; the violent settlement expansion in the West Bank; and the systematic erosion of Palestinian life, liberty, and land. Under his leadership, Israel has dropped any pretense of coexistence and charged headlong into what can only be described as concentration and death camps bolstered by high-tech siege craft.

And yet, here he is, nominating Trump for a peace prize.

Why? Because Trump gave Netanyahu exactly what he wanted: recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, the erasure of Palestinian claims to sovereignty, carte blanche for Israeli aggression, and a diplomatic coup in the form of the Abraham Accords—normalization deals signed not in the interest of peace, but in the currency of arms sales, surveillance tech, and shared contempt for popular resistance.

Trump’s presidency was a golden age for Israeli impunity. For Netanyahu, nominating Trump is not an act of admiration—it’s a political thank-you note written in the language of strategic reward. You gave us what we wanted, especially and most importantly now with supporting war and terror against Iran. Now we give you this nomination. A ceremonial trinket, perhaps, but one that helps sanctify violence under the banner of “diplomatic achievement.”

Munir’s machinations in khaki

But Netanyahu’s motives, however odious, are at least straightforward. General Asim Munir’s are a little murkier—and no less disturbing.

As Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff, Munir has proven himself less a guardian of national defence and more a loyal executor of imperial interests, both foreign and domestic. Having presided over a brutal crackdown on dissent, the forced disappearance of political activists, and the wholesale dismantling of civilian democratic forces, Munir now fancies himself not just a general, but a statesman—a khaki kingmaker courting Washington.

So, when Munir praises Trump’s “role” in easing tensions between Pakistan and India, he’s not being sincere—he’s being strategic. He knows Trump couldn’t care less about South Asian peace. This nomination is a calculated overture to Trump’s ego, an attempt to ingratiate himself with a man who may once again hold the keys to American patronage.

In nominating Trump, Munir isn’t rewarding peace. He’s buying leverage. He wants to be seen as Washington’s man in Islamabad, a reliable custodian of regional “stability”—that is, a suppressor of democratic uprisings and an enabler of foreign agendas. And Trump, who has always admired a good strongman, is exactly the kind of figure Munir wants to impress. After all, what better way to ensure the longevity of your tenure than to align yourself with the most powerful demagogue on the world stage?

Trump: Mascot of manufactured peace

The man at the center of this surreal circus is, of course, Donald Trump—a figure whose relationship with peace is about as authentic as his tan.

Here is a man who tore up the Iran nuclear deal, brought the world to the brink of war with Tehran, cozied up to autocrats in the Gulf, fanned the flames of Hindu nationalism by celebrating Modi’s aggression in Kashmir, and normalized apartheid and genocide in Palestine. This is the man whom Netanyahu and Munir, in their infinite moral flexibility, have chosen to rebrand as a modern-day peacemaker.

Trump’s foreign policy was never about peace—it was about transaction. Peace, for him, was a product for sale: to be exchanged for oil, weapons contracts, or political favors. The Abraham Accords, often touted as his crowning foreign policy achievement, were nothing more than a regional alliance of autocracies built on the graves of Palestinian aspirations. It was diplomacy for despots, a backroom deal between monarchies and militaries, dressed up as progress.

That Trump now stands poised to be lauded by two of the most repressive figures in modern geopolitics is not just ironic—it’s obscene. The Nobel Peace Prize, already sullied by past embarrassments, would collapse entirely into farce if it ever landed in his tiny, clammy hands.

READ: Netanyahu nominates Trump for Nobel Peace Prize

The prize as political currency

It’s worth asking: why the Nobel Peace Prize? Why this prize, of all things, when none of these men has the faintest interest in actual peace?

Because in this world, the prize has become political currency. A symbolic tool to confer legitimacy, to rebrand tyranny as leadership, and to whitewash war crimes with the bleach of diplomacy.

Netanyahu wants Trump’s continued favor, perhaps even cover for Israel’s next phase of ethnic cleansing. Munir wants Trump’s blessing to secure his own position at home and elevate his stature abroad. And Trump wants a trophy—any trophy—that proves he’s not just a loser with multiple indictments and a failed coup on his résumé.

So, they trade endorsements like mob bosses exchanging favors. You nominate me, I protect you. You praise me, I ignore your crimes. You flatter me, and I’ll look the other way when you crush your people.

This is not geopolitics. It’s gangsterism with better suits. 

Collateral damage: Democracy and dignity

And what of those caught in the crossfire of this grotesque performance?

In Pakistan, the democratic process lies in shambles. Civilian leaders, other than the generals’ kleptocratic sycophants, have been sidelined, exiled, or imprisoned. Imran Khan, the country’s most popular politician, remains behind bars while the military consolidates its grip under the guise of national security. His crime? Challenging the authority of the uniformed elite and trying to build a just and sovereign Pakistan. Munir’s message to Washington is clear: I’ll keep the chaos contained—just keep the aid flowing and the praise coming.

In Palestine, resistance is bombed, starved, and erased from diplomatic memory. The very people who most deserve global solidarity have been airbrushed out of “peace deals” that trade their rights for regional arms partnerships. Netanyahu’s peace is paved with rubble and barbed wire.

In both cases, the real casualties of this Nobel nomination charade are truth, justice, and any genuine hope for self-determination. The spectacle distracts from the suffering. The prize, in this case, is a mask for the violence

The final insult

At its best, the Nobel Peace Prize has been a flawed but meaningful recognition of efforts to resolve conflict and advance human dignity. At its worst, it has been handed to war criminals in tuxedos. What Netanyahu and Munir propose is something beyond the pale. They are not simply nominating a man unworthy of peace—they are redefining peace itself to mean its opposite.

This is not just hypocrisy. This is humiliation. It is the ritual humiliation of oppressed peoples everywhere—Palestinians, Kashmiris, Pakistanis—who are told that their suffering is not only invisible, but irrelevant to the charade playing out on the global stage.

A reckoning is due

What does all this mean for the rest of us—those who still believe peace is more than a marketing slogan?

It means we must reject the pageantry of power and return to the substance of justice. It means we must see through the performance and recognize who truly pays the price when tyrants give each other medals. It means building solidarity between those fighting military rule in Pakistan, apartheid and genocide in Palestine, and demagoguery in America. Because these struggles are not isolated—they are interconnected.

When the generals and the occupiers and the aspiring emperors unite to award each other, it’s a sign not of strength but of desperation. They know the people are watching. They know legitimacy can’t be manufactured forever. And they know that no peace prize can silence the thunder of an awakened people demanding their dignity back.

So let them nominate whom they wish. Let them applaud each other in gilded rooms. Let them mistake flattery for immortality. History will remember not the ceremonies—but the crimes.

And one day, when peace is reclaimed from the hands of tyrants and returned to the people, we’ll look back at this moment for what it was: the last gasp of a dying order trying to sanctify its sins with a golden plaque.

OPINION: The BRICS declaration may be a breakthrough on Palestine — but action must follow

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

July 18 (UPI) — Former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro was ordered by his country’s supreme court to wear an ankle monitor, stay home most hours and to stay away from foreign embassies.

He is considered a flight risk after he and his son lobbied President Donald Trump to help him with his legal troubles.

Bolsonaro faces prison time for charges that he attempted a coup after he lost the 2022 election.

Brazilian police now accuse Bolsonaro of working with his son, Brazilian lawmaker Eduardo, to lobby the Trump administration in Washington, D.C., and ask the president to impose sanctions on Brazil. The court told Bolsonaro to cease all communication with Eduardo and stay off social media.

Trump has threatened a 50% tariff on Brazilian exports starting Aug. 1, if they don’t end what he calls a “which hunt” against Bolsonaro.

Brazil president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said Brazil will not cede to an American president, whom he says wants to be an “emperor.”

Thursday night, Trump posted online that police should drop the charges against Bolsonaro. This morning, police raided Bolsonaro’s home and office.

In a statement, Bolsonaro’s legal team said it was “surprised and outraged” by the new precautionary measures “despite the fact that he has always complied with all the orders of the judiciary.”

Bolsonaro’s lawyers expressed “surprise and indignation” at what they called “severe precautionary measures imposed against him.”

The court didn’t agree.

“An attempt to subject the functioning of the federal Supreme Court to the scrutiny of another state constitutes an attack on national sovereignty,” Justice Alexandre de Moraes said in his order.

Speaking to reporters on Friday, Bolsonaro called the ankle monitor the “ultimate humiliation.” He said he “never thought of fleeing” Brazil. He repeated that the case against him is a politically motivated effort to remove him from the 2026 election. The New York Times reports that some polls suggest he could narrowly win if eligible.

Last week on Truth Social, Trump said that Brazilian authorities have “done nothing but come after [Bolsonaro], day after day, night after night, month after month, year after year!”

“He is not guilty of anything, except having fought for THE PEOPLE,” he wrote.

Brazilian Prosecutor-General Paulo Gonet released a 517-page document on Monday that called for Bolsonaro to be convicted for his alleged crimes. Bolsonaro could spend decades in prison.

“The evidence is clear: the defendant acted systematically, throughout his mandate and after his defeat at the polls, to incite insurrection and the destabilisation of the democratic rule of law,” Gonet said in the document.

While Trump has maintained a close friendship with Bolsonaro, Brazil and the Lula administration don’t speak highly of Trump.

On Thursday Lula said Trump’s tariff threat lacked logic.

“We cannot have President Trump forgetting that he was elected to govern the U.S., not to be the emperor of the world,” he said.

George Orwell’s dystopian foresight could easily find new expressions in the ongoing Israeli wars of genocide in Gaza and Lebanon. Much like “war is peace”, the Biden administration and the European Union have contributed to creating phrases such as “aggression is self-defence,” “murder is collateral damage”, “safe areas are death traps” and “humanitarian aid is a starvation diet.”

After enduring a full year of Israeli terror, extreme torment and military occupation, fear never conquered Gazans. Despite the complete Israeli blockade – abetted with the help of the Egyptian regime – and the stark imbalance in military power, Gaza’s collective resistance, by all means necessary, remained steadfast and resilient.

Notwithstanding the above, Benjamin Netanyahu has not succeeded in achieving any of his declared objectives. For instance, less than seven per cent of the freed Israeli captives were recovered by force. Perhaps because the Israeli prime minister’s undeclared Zionist objectives, such as land grabs in the West Bank under the shadow of the Gaza genocide, took precedence over pursuing a proven venue for the release of Israeli prisoners.

Netanyahu’s war success can be only measured by Israel’s scale of vengeance, as the toll of the murdered and injured has reached 150,000. Gaza has been turned into a living hell. A war that pervasively and systematically diminished Gaza’s economic capacity, following an 18-year blockade that crippled the economy and forced upon it an ever-increasing sense of dependency.

Yet, Israel failed to bring any part of Gaza into submission. As a result, several Israeli generals, led by former national security adviser Israeli Maj-General Giora Eiland, contrived a new approach, the “General’s Plan”, to ethnically cleanse northern Gaza.

The General’s Plan is not exclusively a military strategy but rather an orchestrated noncombatant action, euphemistically termed to mask its true intention: genocide and ethnic cleansing through starvation. It calls first for the complete isolation of northern Gaza from the rest of the Gaza Strip. Second: compartmentalise northern Gaza into separate quarters and declare each section a war zone, forcing civilians to leave or become legitimate military targets.

The initial phase, which began in early October, blocked aid trucks from reaching the north and then segregated the Jabalia camp from its surroundings. In other words, genocide by attrition, one quarter at a time, in a slow motion.

READ: Israel is playing even more dirty to force people out of Jabalia

As part of the General’s Starvation Plan, Israel bombed the only UN distribution center in Jabalia camp on Monday, murdering ten civilians queuing to receive food aid. Since last October, around 400,000 civilians remain in northern Gaza out of the original 1.2 million. Many refuse to evacuate despite the unbearable conditions. They know from historical experience that evacuation is an Israeli alias for ethnic cleansing. Once they leave, they may never return, as happened in 1948. They also saw what happened to those who evacuated, many were killed as they “moved south”, while others were murdered in the Israeli death traps, otherwise known as designated “safe areas.”

The Biden administration has been whitewashing Israeli use of starvation as a method of warfare since 9 October, 2023 when the Israeli minister of war declared “no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed.” However, on Tuesday, a little over a year after the minister’s declaration, the American secretaries of state and defence sent Israeli officials a letter giving them another grace period of 30 days to allow food aid into north Gaza or risk a restriction of US military assistance to Israel.

The new warning feels like a classic case of a déjà vu. In April 2024, the Biden administration issued a similar warning to Israel ahead of a report that was being prepared by American officials examining Israel’s violation of the Leahy Law, particularly subsection 6201(a). The law stipulates that the US should not provide assistance to any country that “prohibits or otherwise restricts, directly or indirectly, the transport or delivery of United States humanitarian assistance.”

Following that warning, US government agencies and officials concluded that Israel was blocking American humanitarian aid to Gaza. The US Agency for International Development (USAID) notified the State Department of Israel’s “arbitrary denial, restriction and impediments” of American aid to Gaza residents. In addition, the State Department’s refugee bureau issued a similar opinion stating that “facts on the ground indicate US humanitarian assistance is being restricted.”

Even after those palpable reports from the two US agencies, the Israeli Sayanim and American Secretary of State, told Congress on 10 May that Israel does not restrict “the transport or delivery of US humanitarian assistance” in Gaza.

Empowered by Washington, the General’s Starvation Plan aims to block the delivery of medical aid, food, fuel and water to the besieged quarter, currently Jabalia camp where more than 20,000 people live. This is part of what appears to be a gradual genocide, while creating the illusion of allowing aid trucks into the northern area, as the US ambassador informed the UN Security Council on Wednesday.

The entry of aid trucks does not guarantee the delivery of food to the starving population. It means that Israel retains complete control over what section is fed and who is left to starve. It also confirms that American officials continue to be Israel’s willing enablers to carry on with its General’s Starvation Plan in a systematic and phased mini-genocide.

READ: UN: 345,000 Palestinians in Gaza face ‘catastrophic’ hunger levels this winter

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

The 12-day war between Israel and Iran ended with a fragile ceasefire. A review of the war’s economic toll suggests that a prolonged conflict would have been economically unsustainable for both sides. For Iran, this was anticipated given the country’s decades-long exposure to sanctions, but for Israel, the war marked a test of its economic strength and resilience and exposed deeper vulnerabilities. As recently as last year, the Israeli Finance Minister had stated with striking confidence that ‘the Israeli economy is strong by all measures, capable of sustaining all war efforts, on the front line and home front, until, with God’s help, victory is achieved.’  

Israel’s direct military costs averaged USD 725 million per day – more than eight times its estimated daily defence expenditure, considering the annual allocation of approximately USD 33 billion (NIS 109.8 billion) for the Ministry of Defence in the 2025 state budget. Airstrikes on Iranian targets cost around USD 590 million in the first two days alone, while interceptions are estimated to have cost at least USD 200 million daily. Even at this tremendous cost, missile defence operations could not prevent Tehran’s retaliatory strikes following the attacks on military and civilian infrastructure across the country from causing direct damage to Israel exceeding USD 1.5 billion, including to key financial and economic centres of activity. 

The nerve centre of Israel’s financial market – the Tel Aviv stock exchange building – was directly hit. While stocks quickly erased early losses during the war, leading the Israeli Finance Minister to hail it as ‘proof of Israel’s economic resilience–even under fire,’ attacks on Research and Development (R&D) centres, considered the most dynamic part of Israel’s economic core, that is the high-tech sector, represented a loss of decades of research, development, trial and error, and investment. Particularly consequential was the strike on the Weizmann Institute, known for its links to military projects and targeted in retaliation for the assassination of several Iranian nuclear scientists, which led to the destruction of 45 laboratories. One of the labs struck, for instance, had material from 22 years’ worth of research. Any future war could push the boundaries further, with even more vital sites likely to be targeted. 

Israel’s economic growth this year is projected to decline by at least 0.2 per cent, with the government’s budget deficit likely to reach 6 per cent of GDP, surpassing the 4.9 per cent cap set by the Finance Ministry. Last month, an Israeli official had hinted at the possibility of Tel Aviv seeking additional financial support from the United States to offset the war’s costs and address urgent defence needs. 

READ: Germany’s Merz says he has ‘no doubt’ about legality of Israel’s attacks on Iran

A 12-day war causing such significant economic consequences reveals how brittle and vulnerable the Israeli economy is. 

For Iran, the financial cost has been equally significant. The missiles alone cost Iran around USD 800 million, more than its estimated 12-day defence budget, based on the USD 23.1 billion annual allocation for March 2025-26. Tehran has now reportedly planned to triple its budget in 2025, reflecting the need to replenish resources. 

Iran’s economic core – the oil and gas sector – was also severely impacted. The drop in oil exports during the war reportedly cost Iran USD 1.4 billion in lost revenue. Some of Iran’s vital oil and gas facilities, including the major South Pars gas field, were directly hit. Unlike Israel, Iran’s defence systems were not as advanced, making it less capable of preventing strikes on vital sectors of the economy. However, analysts opine that Iran demonstrated more resilience than initially thought by avoiding a total collapse, and reportedly, maintained some of its oil exports during the war through a ‘shadow fleet’ of tankers. 

The primary lesson that emerges from this is not one of ‘strengthening resilience’ to mitigate the economic consequences of future wars, but that there are limits to technological and economic strength in the face of war. In fact, states with advanced economies and sophisticated defence systems, such as Israel, can overestimate their capacity to absorb and manage the consequences of war, thereby lowering their threshold for initiating a conflict. Even if enough resilience is built that vital infrastructure and sectors remain immune during a war, military expenditures can reach levels so high that their opportunity costs (the loss of potential gain from other alternatives when one alternative is chosen) can last for decades. 

It now falls upon Israeli and Jewish voices to ask the hard questions boldly and without fear. At what cost does Israel pursue its military adventurism? How long will taxpayers’ money be poured into the bloodshed of innocent civilians? The same questions ought to be raised by the American voices, given the United States’ direct support to and complicity in Israel’s military campaigns. The actions of political leaders arguably become unsustainable once the domestic population (in large numbers) begins to understand and categorically question the price of wars that their governments fight in their name and take pride in. 

BLOG: The UK refused to support plans to overthrow Khomeini’s revolutionary rule, one year after the outbreak of the Iraq-Iran war

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

Houthis strikes on Israel prove without a shadow of a doubt that America’s air strikes on Yemen are a failure, Nasr Al-Din Amer, deputy head of the Houthi group’s media office, said yesterday.

In statements to Al Jazeera, Amer added: “As much as the destruction of our infrastructure pains us, it does not affect our military operations, and we will respond.”

He stressed that “the blockade on Umm Al-Rashrash [Eilat] Port will not be lifted, nor will it resume operations. It will remain closed, and navigation will not return to normal at the Israeli enemy’s airports. They will remain closed until the aggression against Gaza stops.”

“We tell them that the operations will not end, and we are in a long battle, not an exchange of strikes. Our strikes are coming, even if you don’t attack Sana’a airport or Hudaydah Port. We will attack you because you are killing the Palestinian people,” he continued.

READ: US-Houthi ceasefire deal does not include Israel, says Houthi spokesperson

Amer asserted that the group’s operations intend to support the Palestinian people, vowing to intensify them with other advanced methods “if Israel continues to threaten ground operations in Gaza.”

He ended by saying: “We are responding within the framework of a battle with the Israeli enemy entity. As long as the aggression against Gaza continues, along with the siege and the violation of a number of Arab countries continues, we remain in a state of engagement with the enemy. We will respond with full force, we will say no, and we are confident that we will achieve victory in the battle.”

Yesterday, the Israeli occupation army announced it bombed Sanaa airport and central power stations used by the Houthis in the capital, as a response to the attack on Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv on Sunday.

READ: Airlines halt all flights to Israel after Houthi missile lands near airport

UN inspectors have left Iran after Tehran cut ties with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

This means inspectors will no longer be able to monitor the country’s nuclear activities.

That’s led to many people questioning the future of Iran’s nuclear programme, and fearing another round of tensions.

Israel launched its attacks on Iran last month, claiming Tehran was weeks from producing a nuclear weapon.

The United States backed its ally, striking key Iranian nuclear facilities.

But Tehran has struck a defiant note – suspending co-operation with the UN’s nuclear watchdog.

So what does all this mean, and what might the future hold?

Presenter: Adrian Finighan

Guests:

Abas Aslani – Senior research fellow at the Center for Middle East Strategic Studies

Tariq Rauf – Former head of verification and security policy at the International Atomic Energy Agency

Harlan Ullman – Senior adviser at the Atlantic Council and chairman of the Killowen Group

In 1948, as the foundations of the Israeli state were being laid upon the ruins of hundreds of Palestinian villages, Albert Einstein wrote a letter to the American Friends of the Fighters for the Freedom of Israel (AFFFI), condemning the growing Zionist militancy within the settler Jewish community. “When a real and final catastrophe should befall us in Palestine the first responsible for it would be the British and the second responsible for it the terrorist organisations built up from our own ranks. I am not willing to see anybody associated with those misled and criminal people.”

Einstein — perhaps the most celebrated Jewish intellectual of the 20th century — refused to conflate his Jewish identity with the violence of Zionism. He turned down the offer to become Israel’s president, rejecting the notion that Jewish survival and self-determination should come at the cost of another people’s displacement and suffering. And yet, if Einstein were alive today, his words would likely be condemned under the current definitions of anti-Semitism adopted by many Western governments and institutions, including the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition, now endorsed by most Australian universities.

Under the IHRA definition, Einstein’s outspoken criticism of Israel — he called its founding actors “terrorists” and denounced their betrayal of Jewish ethics — would render him suspect. He would be accused not only of delegitimising Israel, but also of anti-Semitism. His moral clarity, once visionary, would today be vilified.

That is why we must untangle the threads of Zionism, colonialism and human rights.

Einstein’s resistance to Zionism was not about denying Jewish belonging or rights; it was about refusing to build those rights on ethno-nationalist violence. He understood what too many people fail to grasp today: that Zionism and Judaism are not synonymous.

Zionism is a political ideology rooted in European colonial logics, one that enforces Jewish supremacy in a land shared historically by Palestinian and other Levantine peoples. To criticise this ideology is not anti-Semitic; it is, rather, a necessary act of justice and a moral act of bearing witness. The religious symbolism that Israel uses is irrelevant in this respect. And yet, in today’s political climate, any critique of Israel — no matter how grounded it might be in international law, historical fact or humanitarian concern — is increasingly branded as anti-Semitism. This conflation shields from accountability a settler-colonial state, and it silences Palestinians and their allies from speaking out on the reality of their oppression. Billions in arms sales, stolen resources and apartheid infrastructure don’t just happen; they’re the reason that legitimate “criticism” gets rebranded as “hate”.

READ: Ex-Israel PM accuses Netanyahu of waging war on Israel

To understand Einstein’s critique, we must confront the truth about Zionism itself. While often framed as a movement for Jewish liberation, Zionism in practice has operated as a colonial project of erasure and domination. The Nakba was not a tragic consequence of war, it was a deliberate blueprint for dispossession and disappearance. Israeli historian Ilan Pappé has detailed how David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first Prime Minister, approved “Plan Dalet” on 10 March, 1948. This included the mass expulsion and execution of Palestinians to create a Jewish-majority state. As Ben-Gurion himself declared chillingly: “Every attack has to end with occupation, destruction and expulsion.”

This is the basis of the Zionist state that we are told not to critique.

Einstein saw this unfolding and recoiled. In another 1948 open letter to the New York Times, he and other Jewish intellectuals described Israel’s newly formed political parties — like Herut (the precursor to Likud) — as “closely akin in… organisation, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties.”

Einstein’s words were not hyperbole, they were a warning. Having fled Nazi Germany, he had direct experience with the defining traits of Nazi fascism. “From Israel’s past actions,” he wrote, “we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future.”

Today, we are living in the very future that Einstein feared, a reality marked by massacres in Gaza, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, and the denial of basic essentials such as water, electricity and medical aid. This is not about “self-defence”; it is the logic of colonial domination whereby the land theft continues and the violence escalates.

Einstein warned about what many still refuse to see: a state established on principles of ethnic supremacy and expulsion could never transcend its foundation ethos. Israel’s creation in occupied Palestine is Zionism in practice; it cannot endure without employing repression until resistance is erased entirely. Hence, the Nakba wasn’t a one-off event in 1948; it evolved, funded by Washington, armed by Berlin and enabled by every government that trades Palestinian blood for political favours.

Zionism cannot be separated from the broader history of European settler-colonialism. As Patrick Wolfe explains, the ideology hijacked the rhetoric of Jewish liberation to mask its colonial reality of re-nativism, with the settlers recasting themselves as “indigenous” while painting resistance as terrorism.

READ: Illegal Israeli settlers attack Palestinian school in occupied West Bank

The father of political Zionism, Theodor Herzl, stated in his manifesto-novel Altneuland, “To build anew, I must demolish before I construct.” To him, Palestine was not seen as a shared homeland, but as a house to be razed to the ground and rebuilt by and for Jews alone. His ideology was made possible by British imperial interests to divide and dominate post-Ottoman territories. Through ethnic partition and military alliances embellished under the 1917 Balfour Declaration to the ironic Zionist-Nazi 1933 Haavara Agreement, the Zionist project aligned perfectly with the West’s goal, as per the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement.

Israel is thus criticised because of its political ideology rooted in ethnonationalism and settler colonialism. Equating anti-Zionism to anti-Semitism is a disservice not only to Palestinians, but also to Jews, especially those who, like Einstein, refuse to have their identity weaponised in the service of war crimes. Zionism today includes Christian Zionists, military allies and Western politicians who benefit from Israel’s imperial reach through arms deals, surveillance technology and geostrategic partnerships.

Zionism is a global power structure, not a monolithic ethnic identity.

Many Jews around the world — rabbis, scholars, students and Holocaust survivors and their descendants — continue Einstein’s legacy by saying “Not in our name”. They reject the co-option of Holocaust memory to justify genocide in Gaza. They refuse to be complicit in what the Torah forbids: the theft of land and the murder of innocents. They are not “self-hating Jews”. They are the inheritors of a prophetic tradition of justice. And they are being silenced.

Perhaps the most dangerous development today is, therefore, Israel’s insistence on linking its crimes to Jewish identity. It frames civilian massacres, apartheid policies and violations of international law as acts done in the name of all Jews and Judaism. By tying the Jewish people to the crimes of a state, Israel risks exposing Jews around the world to collective blame and retaliation.

Einstein warned against this. And if Einstein’s vision teaches us anything, it is this: Justice cannot be compromised for comfort and profit. Truth must outlast repression. And freedom must belong to all. In the end, no amount of Israel’s militarisation of terminology, propaganda or geopolitical alliances can suppress a people’s resistance forever or outlast global condemnation. The only question left is: how much more blood will be spilled before justice prevails?

The struggle for clarity today is not just academic, it is existential. Without the ability to distinguish anti-Semitism from anti-Zionism, we cannot build a future where Jews and Palestinians all live in dignity, safety and peace. Reclaiming the term “Semite” in its full meaning, encompassing both Jews and Arabs, is critical. Further isolation of Arabs from their Semitic identity has enabled the dehumanisation of Palestinians and the erasure of shared Jewish-Arab histories, especially the centuries of coexistence, the Jewish-Muslim golden ages in places like Baghdad, Granada/Andalusia, Istanbul, Damascus and Cairo.

Einstein stood up for the future for us to reclaim it.

The way forward must be rooted in truth, justice and accountability. That means unequivocally opposing anti-Semitism in all its forms, but refusing to allow the term to be manipulated as a shield for apartheid, ethnic cleansing and colonial domination. It means affirming that Jewish safety must never come at the price of Palestinian freedom, and that Palestinian resistance is not hatred; it is survival.

And if Einstein would be silenced today, who will speak tomorrow?

OPINION: Palestinian voices are throttled by the promotion of foreign agendas

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

The armed wing of Hamas, Al-Qassam Brigades, released a video message on Wednesday afternoon showing an Israeli captive currently held in Gaza, the Palestinian Information Centre has reported. The footage shows Omri Miran lighting a candle on what he described as his “second birthday” in captivity.

“This is my second birthday here. I can’t say I’m celebrating; it’s just another day in captivity,” said Miran. “I made this cake for the occasion, but there is no joy. It’s been a year and a half. I miss my daughters and my wife terribly.”

He addressed the Israeli public directly, including his family and friends. “Conditions here are extremely tough. Thank you to everyone demonstrating to bring us home safely.”

The captive also urged Israelis to stage a mass protest outside Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s residence. “Bring my daughters so I can see them on TV. Do everything you can now to get us home. Netanyahu’s supporters don’t care about us, they’d rather see us dead.”

Screengrab from footage shows Israeli captive Omri Miran

He asked captives released in previous prisoner exchange deals to protest and speak to the media. “Let the people know how bad it is for us. We live in constant fear of bombings. A deal must be reached soon before we return home in coffins.

Miran urged demonstrators to appeal to US President Donald Trump to put pressure on Netanyahu: “Do not believe Netanyahu. Military pressure is only killing us. A deal — only a deal — will bring us home. Turn to Trump. He seems to be the only powerful person in the world who could push Netanyahu to agree to a deal.”

He also mentioned the worsening humanitarian situation: “The captors told me the crossings are closed; no food or supplies are coming in. As a result, we’re receiving even less food than before.”

In conclusion, the captive sent a pointed message to the Israeli leadership: “Netanyahu, Dermer, Smotrich, Ben Gvir — you are the reason for 7 October. Because of you, I am here. Because of you, we’re all here. You’re bringing the state to collapse.”

READ: US synagogues close their doors to Israel MK Ben-Gvir

The Rapid Support Forces (RSF) have killed 31 people from the Salha area, including children, in the largest documented mass killing in the area, the Sudanese Doctors Network said yesterday.

The network warned that the mass killing of “unarmed civilians” threatens the lives of thousands of people in Salha, south of Omdurman.

It considered the mass killings a war crime and a crime against humanity, calling on the international community to take urgent action to rescue the remaining civilians and open a safe exit for them to leave the Salha area.

It also calls on the international community to pressure the RSF leaders to stop crimes and violations against civilians under their control.

UN: More than 480 killed in Sudan’s North Darfur state in past two weeks

In 1948, as the foundations of the Israeli state were being laid upon the ruins of hundreds of Palestinian villages, Albert Einstein wrote a letter to the American Friends of the Fighters for the Freedom of Israel (AFFFI), condemning the growing Zionist militancy within the settler Jewish community. “When a real and final catastrophe should befall us in Palestine the first responsible for it would be the British and the second responsible for it the terrorist organisations built up from our own ranks. I am not willing to see anybody associated with those misled and criminal people.”

Einstein — perhaps the most celebrated Jewish intellectual of the 20th century — refused to conflate his Jewish identity with the violence of Zionism. He turned down the offer to become Israel’s president, rejecting the notion that Jewish survival and self-determination should come at the cost of another people’s displacement and suffering. And yet, if Einstein were alive today, his words would likely be condemned under the current definitions of anti-Semitism adopted by many Western governments and institutions, including the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition, now endorsed by most Australian universities.

Under the IHRA definition, Einstein’s outspoken criticism of Israel — he called its founding actors “terrorists” and denounced their betrayal of Jewish ethics — would render him suspect. He would be accused not only of delegitimising Israel, but also of anti-Semitism. His moral clarity, once visionary, would today be vilified.

That is why we must untangle the threads of Zionism, colonialism and human rights.

Einstein’s resistance to Zionism was not about denying Jewish belonging or rights; it was about refusing to build those rights on ethno-nationalist violence. He understood what too many people fail to grasp today: that Zionism and Judaism are not synonymous.

Zionism is a political ideology rooted in European colonial logics, one that enforces Jewish supremacy in a land shared historically by Palestinian and other Levantine peoples. To criticise this ideology is not anti-Semitic; it is, rather, a necessary act of justice and a moral act of bearing witness. The religious symbolism that Israel uses is irrelevant in this respect. And yet, in today’s political climate, any critique of Israel — no matter how grounded it might be in international law, historical fact or humanitarian concern — is increasingly branded as anti-Semitism. This conflation shields from accountability a settler-colonial state, and it silences Palestinians and their allies from speaking out on the reality of their oppression. Billions in arms sales, stolen resources and apartheid infrastructure don’t just happen; they’re the reason that legitimate “criticism” gets rebranded as “hate”.

READ: Ex-Israel PM accuses Netanyahu of waging war on Israel

To understand Einstein’s critique, we must confront the truth about Zionism itself. While often framed as a movement for Jewish liberation, Zionism in practice has operated as a colonial project of erasure and domination. The Nakba was not a tragic consequence of war, it was a deliberate blueprint for dispossession and disappearance. Israeli historian Ilan Pappé has detailed how David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first Prime Minister, approved “Plan Dalet” on 10 March, 1948. This included the mass expulsion and execution of Palestinians to create a Jewish-majority state. As Ben-Gurion himself declared chillingly: “Every attack has to end with occupation, destruction and expulsion.”

This is the basis of the Zionist state that we are told not to critique.

Einstein saw this unfolding and recoiled. In another 1948 open letter to the New York Times, he and other Jewish intellectuals described Israel’s newly formed political parties — like Herut (the precursor to Likud) — as “closely akin in… organisation, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties.”

Einstein’s words were not hyperbole, they were a warning. Having fled Nazi Germany, he had direct experience with the defining traits of Nazi fascism. “From Israel’s past actions,” he wrote, “we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future.”

Today, we are living in the very future that Einstein feared, a reality marked by massacres in Gaza, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, and the denial of basic essentials such as water, electricity and medical aid. This is not about “self-defence”; it is the logic of colonial domination whereby the land theft continues and the violence escalates.

Einstein warned about what many still refuse to see: a state established on principles of ethnic supremacy and expulsion could never transcend its foundation ethos. Israel’s creation in occupied Palestine is Zionism in practice; it cannot endure without employing repression until resistance is erased entirely. Hence, the Nakba wasn’t a one-off event in 1948; it evolved, funded by Washington, armed by Berlin and enabled by every government that trades Palestinian blood for political favours.

Zionism cannot be separated from the broader history of European settler-colonialism. As Patrick Wolfe explains, the ideology hijacked the rhetoric of Jewish liberation to mask its colonial reality of re-nativism, with the settlers recasting themselves as “indigenous” while painting resistance as terrorism.

READ: Illegal Israeli settlers attack Palestinian school in occupied West Bank

The father of political Zionism, Theodor Herzl, stated in his manifesto-novel Altneuland, “To build anew, I must demolish before I construct.” To him, Palestine was not seen as a shared homeland, but as a house to be razed to the ground and rebuilt by and for Jews alone. His ideology was made possible by British imperial interests to divide and dominate post-Ottoman territories. Through ethnic partition and military alliances embellished under the 1917 Balfour Declaration to the ironic Zionist-Nazi 1933 Haavara Agreement, the Zionist project aligned perfectly with the West’s goal, as per the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement.

Israel is thus criticised because of its political ideology rooted in ethnonationalism and settler colonialism. Equating anti-Zionism to anti-Semitism is a disservice not only to Palestinians, but also to Jews, especially those who, like Einstein, refuse to have their identity weaponised in the service of war crimes. Zionism today includes Christian Zionists, military allies and Western politicians who benefit from Israel’s imperial reach through arms deals, surveillance technology and geostrategic partnerships.

Zionism is a global power structure, not a monolithic ethnic identity.

Many Jews around the world — rabbis, scholars, students and Holocaust survivors and their descendants — continue Einstein’s legacy by saying “Not in our name”. They reject the co-option of Holocaust memory to justify genocide in Gaza. They refuse to be complicit in what the Torah forbids: the theft of land and the murder of innocents. They are not “self-hating Jews”. They are the inheritors of a prophetic tradition of justice. And they are being silenced.

Perhaps the most dangerous development today is, therefore, Israel’s insistence on linking its crimes to Jewish identity. It frames civilian massacres, apartheid policies and violations of international law as acts done in the name of all Jews and Judaism. By tying the Jewish people to the crimes of a state, Israel risks exposing Jews around the world to collective blame and retaliation.

Einstein warned against this. And if Einstein’s vision teaches us anything, it is this: Justice cannot be compromised for comfort and profit. Truth must outlast repression. And freedom must belong to all. In the end, no amount of Israel’s militarisation of terminology, propaganda or geopolitical alliances can suppress a people’s resistance forever or outlast global condemnation. The only question left is: how much more blood will be spilled before justice prevails?

The struggle for clarity today is not just academic, it is existential. Without the ability to distinguish anti-Semitism from anti-Zionism, we cannot build a future where Jews and Palestinians all live in dignity, safety and peace. Reclaiming the term “Semite” in its full meaning, encompassing both Jews and Arabs, is critical. Further isolation of Arabs from their Semitic identity has enabled the dehumanisation of Palestinians and the erasure of shared Jewish-Arab histories, especially the centuries of coexistence, the Jewish-Muslim golden ages in places like Baghdad, Granada/Andalusia, Istanbul, Damascus and Cairo.

Einstein stood up for the future for us to reclaim it.

The way forward must be rooted in truth, justice and accountability. That means unequivocally opposing anti-Semitism in all its forms, but refusing to allow the term to be manipulated as a shield for apartheid, ethnic cleansing and colonial domination. It means affirming that Jewish safety must never come at the price of Palestinian freedom, and that Palestinian resistance is not hatred; it is survival.

And if Einstein would be silenced today, who will speak tomorrow?

OPINION: Palestinian voices are throttled by the promotion of foreign agendas

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

The armed wing of Hamas, Al-Qassam Brigades, released a video message on Wednesday afternoon showing an Israeli captive currently held in Gaza, the Palestinian Information Centre has reported. The footage shows Omri Miran lighting a candle on what he described as his “second birthday” in captivity.

“This is my second birthday here. I can’t say I’m celebrating; it’s just another day in captivity,” said Miran. “I made this cake for the occasion, but there is no joy. It’s been a year and a half. I miss my daughters and my wife terribly.”

He addressed the Israeli public directly, including his family and friends. “Conditions here are extremely tough. Thank you to everyone demonstrating to bring us home safely.”

The captive also urged Israelis to stage a mass protest outside Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s residence. “Bring my daughters so I can see them on TV. Do everything you can now to get us home. Netanyahu’s supporters don’t care about us, they’d rather see us dead.”

Screengrab from footage shows Israeli captive Omri Miran

He asked captives released in previous prisoner exchange deals to protest and speak to the media. “Let the people know how bad it is for us. We live in constant fear of bombings. A deal must be reached soon before we return home in coffins.

Miran urged demonstrators to appeal to US President Donald Trump to put pressure on Netanyahu: “Do not believe Netanyahu. Military pressure is only killing us. A deal — only a deal — will bring us home. Turn to Trump. He seems to be the only powerful person in the world who could push Netanyahu to agree to a deal.”

He also mentioned the worsening humanitarian situation: “The captors told me the crossings are closed; no food or supplies are coming in. As a result, we’re receiving even less food than before.”

In conclusion, the captive sent a pointed message to the Israeli leadership: “Netanyahu, Dermer, Smotrich, Ben Gvir — you are the reason for 7 October. Because of you, I am here. Because of you, we’re all here. You’re bringing the state to collapse.”

READ: US synagogues close their doors to Israel MK Ben-Gvir