Israel's colonization of south Lebanon is already under way

Paul Khalifeh

27 May 2026

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/israels-colonisation-south-lebanon-already-under-way

Despite official Israeli denials and the refusal of some Lebanese to acknowledge the reality, the colonization of south Lebanon is neither a myth nor a fantasy. It is a concrete and structured project.

On 14 May, Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir revealed that Israel had a "settlement plan for Lebanon". The far-right minister made the statement on the very day Lebanon and Israel were due to resume direct negotiations in Washington under US auspices aimed at normalizing relations and reaching a comprehensive agreement.

Several weeks earlier, on 26 March, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich declared that "the Litani must be our new border with the state of Lebanon, just like the 'Yellow Line' in Gaza and like the buffer zone and peak of the Hermon in Syria".

These statements are not merely rhetorical provocations. They accompany and support actions already taking place on the ground by Israeli civilians inside Lebanese territory.

On 12 February, weeks before the latest war broke out, dozens of settlers, including women and children, attempted to plant trees inside Lebanese territory in what appeared to be a staged demonstration promoting Israeli settlement expansion. Participants called for the alleged "resumption" of settlement activity in Lebanon, presenting it as a "historical correction".

Not isolated

The Yaroun incident is not an isolated case, despite attempts by Israeli authorities to portray it as such. It fits into a broader and carefully orchestrated campaign designed to acclimatise Israeli public opinion to the idea of colonising south Lebanon, a territory regarded by some extremists as an integral part of "Greater Israel".

On 5 December 2024, only days after the end of the "66-Day War", a group of Israelis entered the border village of Maroun el-Ras and erected tents before being evacuated by soldiers.

At the height of the fighting, on 20 November, another major incident exposed Israeli ambitions more clearly.

Controversial Israeli archaeologist Zeev Erlich, aged 71, was killed during clashes between the Israeli army and Hezbollah fighters in the village of Chamaa, located 25km from the border.

Originally from the settlement of Ofra in the occupied West Bank - of which he was one of the founders - Erlich was wearing a military uniform and carrying a weapon when he died. He authored several books on Jewish history in Israel and the broader region.

The Israeli army stated that Erlich had been invited to "assess a fortress" intended to be transformed into an observation post.

Lebanese sources told Middle East Eye that the archaeologist's true mission was to inspect the shrine of Saint Peter in Chamaa - also known as Maqam Chamoun as-Safa - a rare pilgrimage site revered by both Shia Muslims and Christians alike.

The religious site, along with the citadel, later suffered extensive destruction in subsequent Israeli air strikes.

Zionist roots

The colonisation of south Lebanon is not a fabrication or a paranoid fantasy. It is a tangible project deeply rooted in the history of Zionist ideology.

Lebanese statesman Raymond Edde (1913-2000), whose father Emile Edde was one of the founders of Greater Lebanon, spent much of his political career warning against Israeli territorial ambitions in Lebanon.

In a statement issued on 22 April 1998, Raymond Edde recalled historical episodes relayed to him by his father:

It is necessary to remember that as early as 1904, Theodor Herzl described the territory Zionism sought to obtain, extending from the 'Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.' It was also to include Lebanon. In July 1947, during his testimony before the UN Special Committee of Inquiry, Rabbi Fischman, official representative of the Jewish Agency, echoed Herzl's words, declaring: 'The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates. It will include part of Syria and Lebanon.' On 14 May 1948, the State of Israel was created. Ben-Gurion presented a military report to the Supreme Command: 'We must prepare to launch the offensive. Our objective is to crush Lebanon. We shall establish a Christian state there.' In May 1954, Ben-Gurion and Dayan devised a military plan for the absorption of Lebanon. According to Dayan, the key would be to find a Lebanese officer, even a mere major. We should buy him so that he agrees to proclaim himself saviour of the Maronite people. The Israeli army would then enter Lebanon, occupy the necessary territories, and create a Christian regime allied with Israel. The territory south of the Litani would be fully annexed to Israel, and everything would be perfect.

Today, the project of colonising south Lebanon is primarily championed in Israel by an organisation known as Uri Tzafon, named after a biblical verse, literally meaning "Awaken, O North".

The movement was founded in late March 2024 to advocate for the reoccupation of south Lebanon and the establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the region.

The organisation, which has gathered several thousand supporters, argues that settling Lebanon is both a security necessity for northern Israel and part of a legitimate messianic mission to "reclaim" territories believed to fall within the biblical Land of Israel.

Growing momentum

Uri Tzafon was founded in memory of Yisrael Socol, a 24-year-old Israeli soldier killed in Gaza in January 2024. According to his family, Socol dreamed not only of Israeli settlements in Gaza, but also of settling in Lebanon himself.

"In addition to building a digital community, Uri Tzafon has also organised actions attempting to grow its presence on the ground," wrote Maya Razan on 19 August 2024. "It has led postering campaigns in towns across northern Israel, where public spaces including playgrounds and bomb shelters are now adorned with signs calling for the settlement of Lebanon."

The operations carried out in Maroun el-Ras in December 2024 and in Yaroun in February 2026 were reportedly organised by members of Uri Tzafon.

One can understand why official Israeli leaders continue to deny territorial ambitions in Lebanon, as Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar reiterated on 25 April. Israel remains engaged in direct negotiations with Lebanon while facing growing criticism from international public opinion.

What is more difficult to understand is why certain Lebanese continue to deny Israeli intentions towards their country.

Many still remember the controversial remarks made in January by Lebanese Foreign Minister Joe Rajji, who effectively justified Israeli attacks against Lebanon by stating that "Israel retains the right to launch attacks while Hezbollah is still armed".

The normalisation of Israel's expansionism has extended beyond politics into intellectual and media circles.

A lengthy article published on 31 March by the French-language daily L'Orient-Le Jour proposed a highly particular interpretation of history. Israel was portrayed as a victim of its neighbours, while the notion of a structural and absolute antagonism between Israel and Lebanon was dismissed as a "myth".

"Never, during the 22 years in which this region (south Lebanon) was under the control of the South Lebanon Army (SLA, a militia allied with the Hebrew state), did any Israeli come to plant a tent there," the article asserted.

The author appears to overlook the case of William Robinson, who had operated a children's home since 1985. Living in Lebanon for seven years, the fundamentalist Christian layman was assassinated in 1990, with the killing claimed by the Lebanese National Resistance Front.

Residents of villages in the region suspected Robinson of attempting to purchase large tracts of land in south Lebanon in order to establish a Jewish settlement there.

Congress quietly moves to integrate US and Israeli militaries

In the first step towards shifting aid further into the shadows, the House's 2027 NDAA would all but fuse the two countries' armed forces together

Ben Freeman

May 29, 2026

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/israel-us-military/

At a time when the American public is expressing unprecedented levels of distrust in the Israeli government, Congress just proposed tying the U.S. to the Israeli military more than ever before.

Buried in the House's version of the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) released on Tuesday, is section 224, entitled “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative.” The provision would arguably do more to intertwine the U.S. military with the Israeli military than the more than $200 billion (inflation adjusted) in military assistance Israel has received from the U.S. since its founding in 1948.

Section 224 lays the groundwork for bilateral research and development, co-production of weapons, joint ventures, licensing agreements, and seemingly every manner of U.S.-Israeli military-industrial complex cooperation. The U.S. and Israel already work together heavily on missile defense, but this provision would greatly expand coordination to seemingly every area of defense tech, including AI, quantum, autonomous systems, directed energy, cyber, biotech, and many more. It also proposes “network integration” and “data fusion.” In other words, the U.S. military’s data could soon be the Israeli military’s data.

If fully enacted, this proposal would provide a higher level of military-industrial integration than the U.S. has with any other country in the world. To be sure, the U.S. has worked closely with its NATO partners on co-production and shared supply chains, most notably via the Defence Production Action Plan. And, as the number one arms dealer in the world, the U.S. provides weapons to militaries across the globe. But that is mostly a one-way street, with the U.S. providing weapons to foreign buyers who only occasionally make parts for those weapons themselves, as in the case of the F-35’s global supply chain.

Section 224 would be a different beast entirely. It would fuse the U.S. and Israeli defense sectors in multiple areas vital to the battlefields of the future, like autonomous systems and cyber. It would also bring extraordinary Israeli influence to the U.S. beyond what it already has through the Israel lobby and its robust network of social media influencers. It would give the Israeli government the opportunity to greatly expand one of the most powerful levers of influence in U.S. politics: jobs in the U.S. By expanding or starting new co-production facilities like it already has in Mississippi and Arkansas, the Israeli government could boast of providing jobs on U.S. soil, thereby securing allies among members of Congress who represent the districts where those jobs lie.

The result could well be a U.S. political system even more susceptible to the whims of an Israeli government that seemingly has no qualms about drawing the U.S. into military conflicts in the Middle East.

This unprecedented level of U.S.-Israeli military integration stands in stark contrast to the traditional aid model of defense cooperation, in which Israel already stood out as the top recipient of U.S. military assistance. As laid out in a recent Quincy Institute brief, authored by Steven Simon, this shift from an aid model to a military integration model has troubling implications, namely:

The shift will strip away the political and diplomatic oversight mechanisms that make the relationship publicly accountable, moving it from a visible annual aid vote into the opaque machinery of defense acquisition, where oversight is limited and political accountability is minimal. The result would be a defense relationship that is simultaneously deeper and less transparent.

This all comes at a time when the Israeli military has repeatedly used U.S. weapons in strikes that have violated international humanitarian laws in Gaza, and as Israel has repeatedly violated ceasefires (as has the U.S. itself) in the Trump administration’s unnecessary war with Iran.

The enormous gulf between what most Americans want and what the president is doing when it comes to Israel and what Congress is proposing here should not be ignored. Just 30% of respondents to a New York Times/Sienna poll from mid-May believe Trump made “the right decision” to go to war with Iran, with 64% saying it was wrong. An Institute for Global Affairs poll released earlier this week dove even deeper into the American psyche when it comes to arming Israel, finding that “Just 16 percent say the United States should keep supplying Israel with weapons without new restrictions. Thirty-eight percent want to stop supplying weapons entirely, and another 24 percent want weapons conditioned on how they’re used.”

Yet, mainstream leadership in both parties remains largely pro-Israel and continues to shape the base legislative text before amendments and broader congressional debate open it to the full body, as is the case with this NDAA provision.

Though slowly, tides within both parties are shifting as more and more members speak out against the growing divide between Israel’s actions and America’s interests. For example, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) wrote in The New York Times on Tuesday that, “The Democratic Party has provided reflexive and unconditional support to Israeli governments, even as their actions have increasingly undermined American interests and values.” On the Republican side of the aisle, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green (R-Ga.) have openly decried the Israel lobby’s corrosive influence — a stance that may have, at least partially, cost both of them their seats in Congress.

What can other members of Congress who are concerned about Israel’s destabilizing actions do right now? Stop the Israeli-U.S. military-industrial merger in its tracks. Lawmakers should reject Section 224 from the NDAA to avoid deep integration with Israel's military at a time when a growing number of Americans oppose Israel's actions in the region.

To reform global governance, nine major directions must be clearly identified: Global Times editorial

By Global Times

Published: May 30, 2026

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202605/1362294.shtml

On May 28 local time, the meeting of the Group of Friends of Global Governance was held at the United Nations (UN) headquarters in New York, with representatives from more than 60 countries participating. Last September, President Xi Jinping solemnly put forth the Global Governance Initiative (GGI), highlighting five core concepts: adhering to sovereign equality, abiding by international rule of law, practicing multilateralism, advocating the people-centered approach, and focusing on taking real actions, providing fundamental guidance for resolving the global governance dilemma. At the meeting, Wang Yi, member of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee and Foreign Minister, proposed nine directions for global governance reform and improvement on behalf of China, which received positive responses from all parties present. This meeting, as a key step in promoting the implementation of the GGI, drew a clear roadmap for reforming and improving the global governance system, and promoted the translation of Chinese wisdom and solutions into common action of the international community.

In less than a year, the GGI has garnered support and responses from nearly 160 countries and international organizations. The Group of Friends of Global Governance has been established in New York, Geneva, and Vienna, expanding its membership to over 60 countries. Members, adhering to the principles of equality and respect, have engaged in in-depth consultations and reached five consensuses, unanimously advocating for the democratization of international relations, upholding the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, maintaining the UN's central role, gradually narrowing the North-South divide and focusing on solving practical problems.

Although the Group of Friends of Global Governance is a newly established mechanism, its creation and development are not intended to build a parallel structure outside the existing international system. Rather, it is rooted in the UN-centered framework and serves as an open, inclusive, and practical platform for advancing the GGI and building multilateral consensus. From its launch in New York with 43 founding members to its expansion in Geneva and Vienna, the group has centered on the broad participation of developing countries, bringing together diverse development priorities into a collective voice for the Global South, freeing global governance reform from the constraints of great-power rivalry, geopolitical competition, and bloc confrontation.

The nine reform directions proposed by China are based on multilateral consensus and cover a wide range of areas, including the operation of UN mechanisms, the responsibilities of the Security Council, international peacekeeping operations, coordinated development cooperation, international human rights governance, reform of the economic and financial system, artificial intelligence rules, governance of new frontiers, and civilizational exchange and mutual learning. They precisely address three major shortcomings in the current international mechanisms: the Global South's insufficient representation, erosion of the UN's authority, and the urgent need to improve the effectiveness of global governance. Those mentioned in the nine directions - international financial architecture reform, artificial intelligence, cyberspace, climate change, and outer space - are areas with prominent governance urgency and significant governance deficits. By constructing a comprehensive, multi-layered, and integrated global governance reform framework, it addresses the shortcomings of the current international governance mechanisms and promotes the implementation of the five core concepts of the GGI.

Representatives attending the meeting expressed strong support for the GGI, agreeing that it is fully aligned with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. They also noted that the nine reform directions proposed by China align with the goals of the UN80 Initiative. A joint communiqué was issued at the meeting, calling on all parties to use the nine directions for reforming and improving global governance as a guiding framework, deepen consultations, build consensus, and introduce practical and actionable measures. Foreign ministers from several countries voiced their appreciation for China's leadership, expressed strong support for the GGI and its nine reform directions, and recognized them as an important foundation for safeguarding multilateralism, upholding international fairness and justice, and amplifying the voice of developing countries.

Reforming the global governance system is a complex undertaking with far-reaching implications. A persistent challenge in global governance has been the tendency to deliberate without reaching decisions, and to make decisions without ensuring implementation. Many governance agreements exist only on paper, lacking practical and effective mechanisms for execution, resulting in governance frameworks that fail to keep pace with evolving realities and pressing needs. In some cases, individual major powers have obstructed collective action in pursuit of their own interests, further complicating global governance efforts. 

This is why the GGI identifies an action-oriented approach as one of its five core principles: to address the problem of abundant commitments but insufficient implementation, and to encourage the international community to translate consensus into concrete action in tackling shared challenges. The growing influence of the Group of Friends for Global Governance and the introduction of the nine reform directions both demonstrate the vitality of the GGI. 

China looks forward to working with all countries to advance the GGI and promote a more just and equitable system of global governance. Particular attention should be given to the concerns of African countries, least developed nations, and small island developing states, so that the benefits of improved global governance can be shared by all nations and peoples.

Reforming and improving the global governance system is a long-term endeavor that requires sustained commitment and perseverance from the international community. China will continue to champion multilateralism and contribute its governance experience to global governance. As long as all parties continue to build consensus, strengthen solidarity, and deepen practical cooperation, a more just and equitable global governance system will take shape at an accelerated pace, helping humanity move toward a future that is more peaceful, secure, and prosperous.

Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard suggests Egypt and Turkey are next targets for war

Israeli-American says 'I'm not so sure that we will have as easy a time with the Turks as we've had with the Iranians'

By MEE staff

Published date: 28 May 2026 

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israeli-spy-jonathan-pollard-suggests-egypt-and-turkey-next-targets-israel

Israeli-American spy Jonathan Pollard has suggested Israel may attack Egypt and Turkey in the near future.

Speaking on a podcast for news outlet Arutz Sheva, Pollard suggested Israel would need to prepare for further wars in the Middle East after Iran.

"I'm not so sure that we will have as easy a time with the Turks as we've had with the Iranians," he said.

"We have to be prepared for the next war, which will probably be against Turkey and Egypt. The storm is coming."

He also warned against Israel allowing the Turkish-backed transitional government in Syria to reclaim areas in the south that are occupied by Israeli forces, saying it would effectively leave them with the "Turks on our border".

Pollard spent 30 years in prison for selling US secrets to Israel in 1984, and left the US for Israel after his release in 2015.

Since moving to Israel and acquiring citizenship, Pollard has been a supporter and friend of National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir and has backed calls for the ethnic cleansing of occupied Palestine.

Both Egypt and Turkey have enjoyed cordial relations with Israel for decades, but these have become increasingly strained in recent years over the genocide in Gaza.

Turkey was the first Muslim-majority country to recognise the State of Israel in 1949, and the two countries have maintained solid security and trade ties throughout most of their modern history.

However, since the 2010 attack on the Mavi Marmara flotilla, when Israeli forces raided a Turkish ship delivering aid to Gaza and killed 10 of those on board, tensions have been strained and Ankara has increasingly hit out at Israel's treatment of Palestinians.

The most recent attempt to restore relations in September 2023 – which saw Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meeting and shaking hands for the first time, in New York – collapsed the following month after the 7 October Hamas-led attacks on Israel and the subsequent genocide in Gaza.

Since then, the rhetoric from politicians in both countries has escalated, with former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett in March describing Turkey as potentially the "next Iran".

Egypt, for its part, has maintained relations and a peace treaty with Israel since 1979, following a series of wars between the two countries.

Pollard told the podcast that he "hoped" Israel would not be going to war with Egypt or Turkey, but warned that "hope was the last demon out of Pandora's Box".

Israel Orders Major Lebanese City of Tyre Evacuated, Escalates Attacks on Southern Lebanon

Lebanese soldier killed in Israeli airstrike against western Bekaa

by Jason Ditz | May 27, 2026

https://news.antiwar.com/2026/05/27/israel-orders-major-lebanese-city-of-tyre-evacuated-escalates-attacks-on-southern-lebanon/

Tuesday saw some of the heaviest Israeli airstrikes on southern Lebanon in weeks, killing dozens of people. Offensives are being reported further north beyond the Yellow Line, and all this is in spite of a ceasefire that nominally remains in place.

Wednesday morning suggested the situation in southern Lebanon is continuing to spiral, with Israel announcing another new evacuation order, this time for the major city of Tyre. The locals were told that “for their own safety” they should flee north of the Zahrani River.

That’s easier said than done. For residents of Tyre, even getting to the Zahrani River, let alone north of it, would require first crossing the Litani River, and Israeli forces already destroyed every single bridge across that river over a month ago.

Israel had ordered everyone south of the Litani River to flee north back in March, so technically speaking this is not the first time the residents of Tyre have been ordered out during this war. Many were simply unable to flee at the time, however, and the ability to flee northward, especially now that there are no extent bridges, has not gotten any easier.

The open-ended evacuation orders have displaced in excess of 1.2 million people, roughly 25% of the population of the entire country, and with hundreds of people continuing to be killed during the state of ceasefire and Israeli forces continuing to level southern villages, it’s not clear if many of them will ever be able to return home.

Israeli strikes against southern and eastern Lebanon have continued with the new evacuation orders. Lebanese officials reported a soldier was killed in an Israeli strike in the western Bekaa Valley late Tuesday evening. Lebanese military officials said they had only just recovered the body on Wednesday, with Israeli security threats in the area preventing the recovery overnight.

How Western Intelligence Agencies Built the Global Jihadist Network

by José Niño | May 26, 2026

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/how-western-intelligence-agencies-built-the-global-jihadist-network/

Americans have been fed a comforting fairy tale about Islamic terrorism. Radical jihadists attack the West simply because they despise freedom, democracy, and the American way of life. This narrative flatters domestic audiences while conveniently obscuring a far more troubling reality. For decades, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Israel have armed, financed, tolerated, and tapped into Sunni Islamist extremists as geopolitical tools to destabilize rivals. The evidence spans multiple theaters and rests on declassified documents, congressional investigations, and credible investigative journalism.

The most thoroughly documented case is Operation Cyclone, the CIA program to arm and finance the Afghan mujahideen from 1979 to 1992. In a 1998 interview with Le Nouvel Observateur, former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski confirmed that the CIA began aiding mujahideen opponents of the pro-Soviet Kabul government six months before the Soviet invasion—a calculated provocation intended to draw Moscow into an unwinnable war. When asked if he regretted supporting Islamic fundamentalism that gave “arms and advice to future terrorists,” Brzezinski replied:

“What is more important in world history? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some agitated Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?”

Multiple intelligence agencies participated in this operation. MI6 ran covert operations supporting hardline commanders. Pakistan’s ISI served as the critical financial and logistical conduit—operating under the direction of Pakistani President Zia ul-Haq, who controlled ISI policy throughout the war. Saudi Arabia agreed to match CIA contributions dollar for dollar, a commitment secured when Brzezinski visited Riyadh in February 1980 and one that CIA officer Gust Avrakotos and congressman Charlie Wilson (D-TX) would fly to Riyadh to enforce whenever Saudi payments fell behind. Historian Steve Coll documented in Ghost Wars that Osama bin Laden informally cooperated with ISI-run guerrilla training camps on behalf of newly arrived Arab jihadists, with intimate connections to CIA-backed commander Jalaluddin Haqqani. The global jihadist network that became al-Qaeda grew directly from this infrastructure.

The Afghan theater was not an isolated experiment but the opening chapter of a longer story. The same networks it created spread rapidly to the next front. The Chechen insurgency of the 1990s was joined by Arab and Central Asian jihadists who had cut their teeth in Afghanistan. The most prominent was Ibn Khattab, a Saudi-born mujahideen veteran born in 1969 inʿAr’ar, Saudi Arabia, who left for the Afghan jihad at age 18 before entering Chechnya in 1995. Saudi-backed organizations funneled funds, and Gulf state charities developed during the Afghan jihad maintained, in some cases wittingly and in others not, support for al-Qaeda-affiliated groups throughout the decade. Several of the future 9/11 conspirators—including Mohamed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, Ziad Jarrah, and Ramzi bin al-Shibh—originally sought to travel to Chechnya in 1999 before being redirected to al-Qaeda’s Afghan camps, per the 9/11 Commission.

While the Chechen theater illustrated how Western-cultivated networks could spiral beyond control, Washington was already running new variations of the same playbook elsewhere. Veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh’s 2007 New Yorker article “The Redirection” documented that the W. Bush administration, in cooperation with Saudi Arabia, launched covert operations to weaken Hezbollah and Iran by bolstering Sunni factions. According to Hersh’s intelligence sources, “a by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.”

Israel was running its own parallel operations against Iran during the same period. Foreign Policy magazine published a 2012 report by journalist Mark Perry drawn from CIA memoranda, describing how Israeli Mossad officers posed as CIA agents to recruit members of Jundallah, a Pakistan-based Sunni Salafi organization responsible for numerous bombings inside Iran. As one intelligence official told Perry:

“It’s amazing what the Israelis thought they could get away with. Their recruitment activities were nearly in the open.”

The same structural logic that shaped Afghanistan, Chechnya, and the Middle East has also played out in Central Asia. The Chinese government has accused the United States of using Uyghur Islamist networks to destabilize Xinjiang, with Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian repeatedly alleging American support for Uyghur militant organizations during 2020 and 2021. The U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy has provided grants to Uyghur exile organizations. NED co-founder Allen Weinstein acknowledged in a 1991 Washington Post column by David Ignatius that “a lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.” In October 2020, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo formally revoked the designation of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement as a terrorist organization—a move Beijing characterized as evidence of Western support for Uyghur militancy.

Across Afghanistan, Chechnya, the Middle East, and Xinjiang, the same structural features recur. Western strategic interests converge with the short-term utility of Sunni Islamist networks. Operations route through intermediaries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan’s ISI, or Gulf states, allowing Washington to maintain official distance. Blowback eventually arrives years later, paid in American blood.

The naive story about terrorists hating freedom serves domestic propaganda purposes while obscuring a far darker truth: Western intelligence agencies have functioned as architects of mayhem, generating instability abroad in pursuit of American primacy. If the world wants genuine stability, it must first acknowledge this pattern and demand that these agencies be held accountable for the chaos they have unleashed across multiple decades.

'Failure': Israel reacts with alarm as emerging US-Iran deal draws criticism

Israeli analysts and hawkish US politicians say proposed agreement falls far short of war aims and signals weakening Israeli influence in Washington

By Nadav Rapaport in Tel Aviv, Israel

Published date: 25 May 2026 

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-reacts-alarm-emerging-us-iran-deal-draws-criticism

The emerging agreement between the United States and Iran to permanently end the war has been met with scepticism and growing alarm in Israel.

Reports over the weekend said the deal centres on a memorandum of understanding establishing a preliminary 60-day ceasefire, which reportedly does not address Iran’s nuclear programme.

The initial framework is also said to include ending wars “on all fronts”, including Lebanon.

The reported terms have drawn criticism from US Democrats, hawkish Republicans and Israeli commentators alike.

Amid mounting backlash, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday that he had agreed with US President Donald Trump that “any final agreement with Iran must eliminate the nuclear threat”.

Netanyahu also said Trump had reaffirmed “Israel’s right to defend itself against threats on every front, including Lebanon”.

Trump, meanwhile, has defended the negotiations on his Truth Social platform.

“If I make a deal with Iran, it will be a good and proper one, not like the one made by Obama,” Trump wrote, referring to the 2015 nuclear agreement signed under former president Barack Obama.

“I don’t make bad deals,” he added.

'Failure'

But Israeli journalists and military analysts appeared unconvinced by the reassurances from either leader, with many portraying the emerging agreement as a political failure and a strategic climbdown by both the US and Israel.

Amos Harel, military affairs commentator for Haaretz, wrote on Monday that a deal would amount to an American capitulation and reflect Israel’s declining standing within the Trump administration.

Harel argued that the agreement falls far short of Netanyahu’s declared objectives when the war began in late February, including the collapse of the Iranian government and the dismantling of Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programmes.

Danny Citrinowicz, an Iran specialist at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), echoed that assessment, saying the military campaign’s architects “did not truly understand Iran”.

“The enormous gap between the declarations made at the beginning of the campaign and the agreement that will likely bring it to an end illustrates its failure,” Citrinowicz said on Monday.

"This war proved that Benjamin Netanyahu’s strategy has collapsed.”

Raz Zimmt, also a researcher at INSS, described the proposed agreement as “very problematic” for Israel and argued that Iran had succeeded in shaping “a new regional order”.

"The one who blinked first was President Trump, not the Iranians," Zimmt told the 103FM radio programme.

Veteran political columnist Nahum Barnea of Yedioth Ahronoth wrote on Monday that the emerging deal would represent a “defeat” for both Israel and the United States.

He wrote that Netanyahu and Trump “never imagined” that after nearly three months, Iran would be in a better position than it was before the war.

Barnea added that Israel was now “subject to the absolute authority of a capricious, hollow, desperate American president” and argued that while Israel still faces the challenge of confronting Iran, “Netanyahu is the last person” capable of leading that effort.

Security officials alarmed 

The criticism comes amid growing concern in Israel over what many see as the country’s diminishing influence in Washington.

On Saturday, the New York Times reported that Israel had largely been sidelined from the ongoing negotiations by the Trump administration.

Meanwhile, Haaretz reported on Sunday that senior Israeli security officials were alarmed by the direction of the talks and warned that “Israeli interests were not taken into account throughout the negotiations”. 

According to the report, officials expressed frustration that despite Israel’s joint military campaign against Iran, Washington had failed to prioritise Israel’s security concerns.

The officials are now said to fear that a US-Iran agreement could place restrictions on Israel’s future military operations in Lebanon and Gaza.

Israeli news outlet Ynet also reported that army officials viewed the proposed agreement as “a bad agreement for Israel” and were deeply disappointed by its reported terms.

According to the report, the Israeli military had already been preparing for a renewed campaign against Iran and believed the agreement would fall short of its strategic objectives, potentially leaving Iran as a “nuclear threshold state”.

David Bitan, a member of the Knesset from Netanyahu’s Likud party, acknowledged on Monday that expectations in Israel at the start of the war had been unrealistically high.

Still, he insisted Israel had achieved significant gains during the 40-day conflict.

Asked about Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities, Bitan said Israel would “have to deal with it again and again”, adding that he believed further rounds of conflict with Iran were likely every two to three years.