Why Trump May Actually Have Told Netanyahu ‘Everybody Hates You!’

by Trita Parsi | Jun 4, 2026 |

Reprinted with permission from Trita Parsi’s Substack.

https://original.antiwar.com/trita-parsi/2026/06/03/why-trump-may-actually-have-told-netanyahu-everybody-hates-you/

“You’re fucking crazy. You’d be in prison if it weren’t for me. I’m saving your ass. Everybody hates you now. Everybody hates Israel because of this.”

According to Axios, this is what Donald Trump said to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in “an expletive-laden call” earlier today.

Trump also accused Netanyahu of ingratitude since Trump had helped keep Netanyahu out of jail. At the heart of the matter was Trump’s frustration with Netanyahu not caving to his demands to cease bombing Lebanon, as Israel’s aggression risked jeopardizing Trump’s diplomacy with Iran.

The story has understandably been met with considerable skepticism. After all, there is a long and well-documented pattern of American presidents privately expressing anger and frustration with Israeli prime ministers while publicly standing shoulder-to-shoulder with them and continuing to support their policies.

Take Joe Biden as an example. In late December 2023, Axios reported that Biden’s frustration with Benjamin Netanyahu had become so intense that he abruptly ended a phone call with the Israeli leader, reportedly concluding the exchange with the terse remark: “This conversation is over.” Yet in practice, Biden remained firmly aligned with Israel’s conduct of the war in Gaza.

Two months later, NBC News reported that Biden had repeatedly referred to Netanyahu as an “asshole” in private conversations with aides and donors. But even as he vented his exasperation behind closed doors, Biden continued to arm Israel lavishly and shield it from mounting diplomatic and political pressure at the United Nations. The gap between private frustration and public policy could hardly have been more striking.

According to Bob Woodward’s 2024 book War, Biden’s frustrations became intensely personal during the Rafah dispute and Biden told an associate: “That son of a bitch, Bibi Netanyahu, he’s a bad guy. He’s a bad f***ing guy.” No policy change followed.

There are plenty of other examples.

There are, however, a few important counterexamples – particularly from Trump’s second term – that suggest the Axios story is not entirely implausible. (Indeed, the report would have been far more difficult to believe had Axios claimed that Trump told Netanyahu, “Everybody loves you.”)

On June 24, 2025, after Israel and Iran had agreed to a ceasefire following their twelve-day war, Israel almost immediately violated the agreement, infuriating Trump. Before boarding Marine One on the South Lawn of the White House, Trump delivered an unusually blunt and public rebuke, declaring that Israel and Iran “don’t know what the f*** they’re doing” and adding that he was “really unhappy with Israel.”

The outburst was not merely rhetorical. Trump reportedly intervened directly with Netanyahu, after which Israel halted its planned escalation and the ceasefire held for several months. Ironically, however, Trump himself would restart the conflict in February 2026, after sustained pressure from Israel and its supporters in Washington.

Another notable episode came after Israel bombed the Qatari capital, Doha, killing a Qatari security guard and jeopardizing Qatar’s role as a key mediator in the Gaza negotiations. In an extraordinary and arguably unprecedented move, Trump arranged a phone call from the Oval Office and had Netanyahu apologize directly to the Qatari Emir.

When Netanyahu later denied that he had apologized, the White House responded by releasing a photograph from the Oval Office showing Trump holding the phone while Netanyahu appeared to be reading from a prepared script. A Qatari diplomat was also present in the room, observing the apology as it unfolded.

The only comparable example that comes to mind is from 2013, when Barack Obama pressed Netanyahu to apologize to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan over the Mavi Marmara flotilla raid. Even then, however, the apology took place privately. By contrast, the Qatar episode was so unusually public that the White House itself effectively documented Netanyahu’s compliance.

None of this, of course, proves that the Axios story is true, but it suggests that it may not be as implausible as some may otherwise believe. What is also plausible, however, is that Trump will once again fail to sustain the pressure and, by that, allow for Netanyahu’s potential retreat to prove temporary.

Rep. Massie on Reported Trump-Netanyahu Spat: It’s All Talk Until US Withholds Military Aid to Israel

The Kentucky congressman said withholding aid to Israel for just a month would force Israel to stop bombing its neighbors

by Dave DeCamp | June 2, 2026

https://news.antiwar.com/2026/06/02/rep-massie-on-reported-trump-netanyahu-spat-its-all-talk-until-us-withholds-military-aid-to-israel/

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) on Tuesday responded to an Axios report that alleged President Trump lashed out at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over Israel’s escalations in Lebanon, saying that it was “all talk” and pointing out that the US could withhold military aid if it actually wanted to see an end to Israel’s wars.

“It’s all talk. Just withhold foreign aid to Israel for a month and they’ll stop bombing their neighbors – instant peace, the Strait of Hormuz can be opened, and gas drops $2 a gallon,” Massie wrote on X. “Israel has been, and continues to be, the biggest welfare recipient from American taxpayers.”

According to a source speaking to Axios, Trump told Netanyahu, “You’re fucking crazy. You’d be in prison if it weren’t for me. I’m saving your ass. Everybody hates you now. Everybody hates Israel because of this.” Axios had published multiple accounts of similar rifts between President Biden and Netanyahu as the Biden administration continued supporting Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza.

After the call with Netanyahu on Monday, Trump said in two separate posts on Truth Social that there was an agreement between Israel and Hezbollah for a ceasefire in Lebanon, but Israeli attacks continued on Tuesday. Israel did hold off on threatened strikes on Beirut, though an Israeli official had told Ynet earlier on Monday that the threat was coordinated with the US.

Massie also took aim at Netanyahu in a post on X on Tuesday, saying that the more the Israeli leader “prevents the war with Iran from ending, the more obvious it becomes that he convinced Trump to start it.”

Massie, virtually the only Republican in Congress who consistently opposes military aid to Israel, recently lost his primary to a Trump-backed candidate in a race that became the most expensive House primary in US history, fueled by spending from pro-Israel groups and donors.

‘Ceasefire Is a Joke’: Israeli Soldiers Recount Ongoing Indiscriminate Killings in Gaza

“It was a jungle,” one soldier said. “After the ceasefire, the order was: If someone crosses the line, you shoot them.”

by Brett Wilkins | May 31, 2026

https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2026/05/31/ceasefire-is-a-joke-israeli-soldiers-recount-ongoing-indiscriminate-killings-in-gaza/

Israel Defense Forces soldiers interviewed for an article published Friday by The Associated Press described ongoing indiscriminate killing of Palestinians – including civilians – despite a purported ceasefire.

One IDF combat soldier told the AP that he saw his teammates “yelling in celebration” and “congratulating one another” after blowing up a vehicle driving near the ever-expanding so-called “yellow line” dividing the Gaza Strip into Israeli and Palestinian-controlled zones. The strike killed everyone inside the vehicle.

“It was a jungle,” the soldier said. “After the ceasefire, the order was: If someone crosses the line, you shoot them.”

The problem is, the yellow line is often unclear, invisible, and often shifts. It cuts through farmland, roads, neighborhoods, and areas where Palestinians live and work.

Nadav Weiman, an IDF veteran who is now the executive director of the veterans’ whistleblower group Breaking the Silence, told the AP that the military’s permissive shoot-to-kill policy has “created a reality where countless civilians have and are being killed for crossing invisible lines.”

One IDF soldier interviewed by the AP said, “there was a general feeling that human lives are not valuable.” The soldier said his commanding officer told him it would be “too much work” to clearly mark the yellow line, and that Palestinians were supposed to somehow know where it was.

According to the AP, one soldier said that “sometimes snipers fired warning shots at people close to the line… but commanders told troops to do more to protect themselves. The soldier understood that to mean firing more lethal shots.”

“Soldiers shooting or ordering drone strikes don’t always know who’s crossing the line,” the AP reported, citing interviewed troops. “Although soldiers must provide coordinates and get approval from superiors before striking, it’s hard to give exact information as people are moving,” and soldiers reported colleagues “calling in coordinates based on a hunch or the last place they saw someone.”

IDF troops interviewed by the AP also described “a sense of confusion” and “a lack of clarity on rules of engagement around the yellow line.” Some commanders “paid lip service” to the ceasefire agreement that’s been in effect since last October, but in practice ignored it.

According to Gaza’s Government Media Office, Israel has violated the ceasefire more than 3,005 times, resulting in more than 900 Palestinians killed and nearly 2,800 others injured, despite the truce.

“To call it a ceasefire is a joke,” one IDF soldier told the AP.

Israel claims that the entire length of the yellow line is now clearly marked. However, as Common Dreams reported this week, the IDF has incrementally shifted the boundary deeper into Gaza, where Israel now controls more than 60% of the coastal strip. This has left Palestinians sometimes waking up to learn they’re in “open-fire zones” where they are subjected to being shot on sight.

Since the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, Israeli forces have killed or wounded more than 250,000 Palestinians in Gaza, including thousands of people who are missing and presumed dead and buried beneath rubble. Israeli troops have previously described indiscriminate killing of Palestinian civilians, including children and aid-seekers.

While such killings have become less frequent since the ceasefire, some IDF soldiers dismiss the word as practically meaningless.

“We need to stop using this term,” one soldier told the AP, referring to the word ceasefire. “It’s not serving people that want to stop the war.”

AIPAC 'obscures' support for Democratic candidates in US elections: Report

Only 13 percent of Democratic voters in the US view Israel favorably, making support from the lobbying group AIPAC a liability

News Desk

MAY 31, 2026

https://thecradle.co/articles/aipac-hides-support-for-democratic-candidates-as-support-for-israel-now-viewed-as-toxic-report

The pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC has begun hiding its involvement in funding political campaigns for candidates running for public office in the US, as support for Israel becomes increasingly “toxic” among Democratic voters, Haaretz reported on 31 May.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has traditionally boasted of its success in helping elect candidates for Congress and the Senate who are committed to supporting Israel, including voting to provide it billions in US military aid each year.

However, as Israel continues to commit genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and wage war on Lebanon and Iran, US voters are beginning to view Israel and its lobby in the US in an increasingly negative light.

Support among Democrats has fallen to particularly low levels, making AIPAC campaign contributions to Democratic candidates a potential liability.

"But as the Israel-boosting organization's brand becomes toxic in many Democratic primaries, [AIPAC] has adopted a new fundraising method that hides its involvement in steering funds to favored contenders," Haaretz writes.

To obscure its involvement, AIPAC is asking donors to make donations through online portals it controls that "funnel money directly to candidates' campaigns — erasing AIPAC's fingerprints in public data."

The pro-Israel lobbying group used the tactic in Michigan, where Congresswoman Haley Stevens is running against Abdul el-Sayed for an open Senate seat.

During the campaign, Sayed has criticized Stevens for accepting financial support from AIPAC, saying the funds have "bought" her support for providing US military aid to Israel.

According to the Detroit News, a local Michigan newspaper, AIPAC raised several million dollars for Stevens by placing a fundraising page on its website, allowing donors to steer funds directly to her campaign.

In similar moves last summer and fall, AIPAC sent emails to donors directing them to use candidate-specific links to pages on the Pro-Israel Network website, rather than donate to the lobbying group.

The online portals also allow AIPAC to collect information about donors, including how much they contributed, to provide the data to the candidates. This allows AIPAC to work on the candidates' behalf "while shielding it from public view."

Doing so protects candidates from criticism for accepting AIPAC funds, as only 13 percent of Democratic voters hold a positive view of Israel.

In March, Democratic Senator Ruben Gallego of Arizona announced, "I wouldn't take AIPAC money because you have to basically be endorsing what's happening right now, and it's not good."

AIPAC has also begun creating political action committees (PACs) with names unrelated to the organization or Israel that obscure their origin.

The United Democracy Project, AIPAC's main political spending arm, now focuses its advertising on domestic issues important to voters, such as immigration, while avoiding any mention of Israel, Haaretz added.

For a congressional election in the city of Chicago, AIPAC created a political action committee called "Elect Chicago Women" to try to defeat Daniel Biss, the Jewish candidate who advocates placing conditions on US aid to Israel.

The issue of Israeli lobby funding also arose on the Republican side of the political aisle when AIPAC spent $16 million to help defeat long-time Congressman and prominent critic of Israel, Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, in a Republican primary earlier this month.

Ed Gallrein defeated Massie in the most expensive Congressional primary in US history, thanks to AIPAC's spending.

"It's turned into a referendum on whether Israel gets to buy seats in Congress," said Massie.

Last year, Massie tried to pass legislation known as the "Dual Loyalty Disclosure Act," which would have required candidates for federal office to disclose both their dual citizenship and the foreign country in which it is held.

In 2024, he revealed to journalist Tucker Carlson that each member of Congress and the Senate is assigned an AIPAC "minder" who is responsible for steering lawmakers to vote for pro-Israel legislation.

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.