Friday, February 13, 2026

02/13 Links Pt1: The Economic Case for the US-Israel Partnership; Palestine’s Anti-Constitution; MSF now admits Nasser Hospital was a terrorist base; How an Indian Researcher Exposed the Nazi–Palestinian Alliance

From Ian:

The Economic Case for the US-Israel Partnership
Recommendations
Washington should treat the US-Israel partnership as strategic industrial architecture and act accordingly. Below are four concrete steps to do so.

1. Enforce against boycott spillover. Use trade law, financial authorities, and anti-boycott statutes to deter measures that disrupt US-Israel technology integration. European restrictions affecting American firms should be treated as trade barriers and addressed through bilateral leverage and multilateral channels. Indeed, Washington can respond with targeted tariffs, procurement exclusions, export-control adjustments, investment-screening scrutiny, or the suspension of sector-specific cooperation agreements. The point is to raise the cost of discriminatory treatment until reciprocity becomes the rational choice. In parallel, Washington should also offer a structured US-Israel-EU technology framework to align procurement, defense, and digital policies within a coherent allied system.

2. Modernize the free trade framework. The White House should update the 1985 US-Israel Free Trade Agreement to reflect a digital- and services-driven economy. The administration should also incorporate binding provisions on data flows, AI and cybersecurity standards alignment, facilitation of joint ventures in critical technologies, and protections against third-party coercion. Regulatory certainty is a competitive asset in technology ecosystems.

3. Institutionalize coproduction in critical technologies. The US should seek to shift its procurement deals with Israel to structured coproduction in sectors where Israeli capabilities complement US capacity gaps. This effort should seek to embed advanced defense, cyber, and emerging technology systems into American production lines to increase America’s industrial depth.

4. Build a bilateral industrial integration platform. America should establish a federal industrial matching mechanism linking Israeli firms to US manufacturing clusters. The mechanism should tie incentives to physical production, workforce development, and supply chain integration on American soil to bolster shared production capacity.

Collectively, these steps would secure the US-Israel partnership at the level that matters in strategic competition: capital control, production ecosystems, and institutional alignment.

Conclusion
Critics of the US-Israel partnership present it as a legacy arrangement sustained by habit and the idiosyncratic preferences of special interest groups. In fact, it is a prototype of allied codevelopment under conditions of strategic competition. The central challenge facing the United States is constructing an international economic order capable of outperforming authoritarian alternatives over time. The US-Israel relationship demonstrates what that order looks like when it matures: integrated innovation, institutional trust, and resilience verified under stress.

Alliances built on codevelopment and shared industrial capacity generate compounding returns. The United States possesses one that works. Washington now needs to protect it and scale it as part of a broader allied economic architecture for the next generation.
Seth Mandel: Palestine’s Anti-Constitution
The original Hamas charter, it’s worth noting, was straightforward in its “struggle against the Jews.” The Palestinian Authority’s own proposed constitution doesn’t mention Jews at all. This is the problem when dealing with each of the Palestinian national movement’s leaders in its century-old existence: Jews are either excluded entirely or they are mentioned only as the object of a genocidal raison d’etre. To these Palestinian nationalists, Jews either don’t exist or else they must be made to not exist.

This should take some of the pressure off of Israel. After all, if the Palestinians don’t want self-determination then it shouldn’t be forced on them. This document is an anti-constitution—it is intended to prevent the need for a Palestinian constitution in perpetuity.

No one should be surprised by this: Israel tried to give the Palestinians their own state multiple times, and each time the Palestinians responded with outrage and violence. The world cannot make the Palestinian leadership want a state.

But outside of whether the Palestinians want this state, the world should also ask itself whether it wants this Palestinian state—not some theoretical state that European leaders imagine, but this state that is on offer.

As the Jerusalem Post reports:
“Article XXIV described how the state would ‘work to provide protection and care for the families of martyrs, wounded, and prisoners, and those released from the occupation prisons and the victims of genocide.’

“This article is drafted into the constitution, appearing to formalize the continuation of the PA’s controversial ‘pay-for-slay’ policy, which provides financial stipends to families of convicted terrorists and terror suspects.”

In addition to the grotesque display of bloodlust here, this should also be taken as a slap in the face to the “State of Palestine’s” biggest boosters.

“The ‘pay for slay’ has ended,” crowed French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot in September. When it was reported two months later that the Palestinians had merely hidden such payments, French President Emmanuel Macron was right back at square one, pleading with Mahmoud Abbas to end what Macron had been fooled into believing had already ended.

Macron then offered France’s help in writing the Palestinian constitution. The Palestinians went forward without such input and came up with a constitution that enshrines pay-for-slay. How many times will France allow itself to be humiliated this way?

A few months ago Keir Starmer, who is somehow still the prime minister of the United Kingdom, was reported to “insist that the Palestinian Authority ends its ‘pay to slay’ policy of handing out stipends to the families of ‘martyrs’ killed or detained for attacks on Israelis,” according to the Telegraph. This would be required “before any two-state solution is finalized.”

Isn’t this all getting so very tiresome? Those who want a Palestinian state are either going to have to convince the Palestinians to want one too, or move on with their lives.




Why Saudi Arabia is turning back to Islamism – and against Israel
Last week Thursday, Saudi Defence Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman visited Washington and met with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Senator Lindsey Graham. The Saudi readout said the meetings reviewed “strategic relations between [the two] countries, prospects for enhancing cooperation… and efforts to advance regional and global peace and stability.”

The next day, state-sanctioned sermons in Saudi Arabia featured rhetoric that could hardly advance regional peace. In Mecca and Medina, government-appointed imams called on God to support “our downtrodden brothers in Palestine,” to “reverse their weakness into strength,” and to grant them “victory against the Zionist aggressors.” These clerics are state employees, and the content of their sermons is approved by the Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs.

The surge in anti-Israel – and at times even antisemitic – language, evident across editorials, columns and state-aligned media, is unmistakable. It marks a clear shift in the policy of Saudi Arabia, whose crown prince and de-facto ruler, Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), once described Israel not as an enemy but as a potential ally. The reasons are multifaceted.

Riyadh has been lobbying Washington to confront the Iranian regime since at least 2002, when the late Saudi King Abdullah visited President George W. Bush at his Texas ranch. “Cut off the head of the snake,” the Saudi monarch urged, a request Bush later recorded in his memoir Decision Points.

As Washington hesitated, Saudi Arabia gradually gravitated towards Israel, which shared the kingdom’s fear of the Islamist regime in Tehran.

In parallel, when MBS first came to power in 2015, high oil revenues allowed him to experiment with reshaping Saudi society. Islamism was repressed and women were granted expanded rights, including the ability to drive and travel independently. After 9/11, Saudi Arabia had already curtailed domestic Islamism – the kingdom’s most effective tool for projecting influence abroad. MBS went further, promising to transform Saudi Arabia into a Middle Eastern analogue of Dubai, the city many Arabs and Muslims aspire to live in.

But with revenues shrinking due to persistently lower oil prices, MBS now finds it harder to keep the Islamist genie in the bottle and appears to be loosening his grip to relieve internal pressure.

Vision 2030 – an ambitious plan to diversify Saudi Arabia’s oil-dependent economy, reshape its society, and position the kingdom as a global investment hub – now appears increasingly out of reach. As a result, the crown prince seems to have abandoned the Emirati model of economic transformation – moving from oil rents towards services – and replaced it with a Turkish-style approach: masking economic trouble with populist appeals to restored Islamic glory, beginning with hostility towards Israel.

Saudi Arabia’s shift back towards Islamism may have been inspired by Qatar and Turkey, whose Muslim Brotherhood-aligned policies expanded their regional influence without triggering alarm in Washington, thanks in part to the strength of Doha’s and Ankara’s lobbying operations in the US capital.
Saudi Arabia’s Break With Interventionism
After these attacks, the Saudi government adopted a more neutral and conciliatory regional policy. On Jan. 5, 2021, during a Gulf Cooperation Council summit in Al-Ula city in northwestern Saudi Arabia, the Saudis and the Qataris announced the end of their three-year dispute and the restoration of relations. Then the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen announced a unilateral ceasefire. In June 2022, the Saudi crown prince visited Turkey and the unofficial economic embargo was lifted.

The same approach was used with Iran. In an interview in April 2021, Crown Prince Mohammed adopted a new stance toward the Islamic Republic, saying, “At the end of the day, Iran is a neighboring country and all that we hope for is to have good relations.” This sentiment was reflected in several rounds of negotiations and was repeated in a March 2022 interview with The Atlantic, in which the crown prince said that the Iranians “are neighbors. Neighbors forever. We cannot get rid of them, and they can’t get rid of us. So it’s better for both of us to work it out and to look for ways in which we can coexist.” A year later, in March 2023, the two countries announced the resumption of their relationship.

This “zero-conflict” approach reduced the attacks on Saudi Arabia from Iran and its allies, and it allowed Riyadh to present itself as a mediator rather than a party to every regional confrontation. This is why it has survived the test of multiple conflicts in the past few years. Instead of taking sides in the Russia-Ukraine war, Saudi Arabia decided to adopt a neutral, mediatory role. The same approach was adopted in the case of Sudan when the civil war erupted in April 2023. When Israel launched its war on Gaza after Hamas’ surprise attack of Oct. 7, 2023, the Saudis led a diplomatic initiative for a ceasefire, expressed concerns about Israeli attacks in Yemen and even condemned Israel’s war against Iran.

But the Saudi “zero-conflict” approach also comes with a price. The posture that protects Saudi Arabia most effectively creates friction with allies that still operate through interventionism and proxy leverage. More particularly, it puts the kingdom at odds with its Emirati allies, who remain committed to their interventionist and anti-Islamist regional policy. In 2020, the Emiratis normalized their relations with Israel. Their increased support for the southern separatists in Yemen led to clashes that were only resolved in the Riyadh Agreement, which introduced a power-sharing and security-coordination mechanism between the Yemeni government and the STC. The UAE continued to send arms to the forces of Haftar in eastern Libya. When the Sudanese civil war broke out in 2023, the UAE supported the Rapid Support Forces in their war against the Sudanese military.

This Saudi-Emirati divide became more apparent with the collapse of the Iranian regional axis and increased Israeli interventionism after the Oct. 7 attack. Israel launched its first strike in the Arabian Peninsula against Houthi targets in July 2024. In September 2024, Israel launched a sophisticated pager attack on Hezbollah and then assassinated its leader, Hassan Nasrallah. The following month, Israel invaded southern Lebanon, and by the end of November, a ceasefire brokered between Israel and Hezbollah included the requirement that the latter redeploy north of the Litani River. A day after the conclusion of the ceasefire agreement, Syrian rebel forces in Idlib launched an attack on the Assad regime to capture Aleppo. Although the initial aims of the operation were limited to Aleppo, the rebels were surprised by the speed of the Assad regime’s collapse, which allowed them to enter Damascus on Dec. 8. Six months after the fall of the Assad regime, Israel launched an attack against Iran that lasted 12 days and ended with Trump attacking Iranian nuclear facilities.

These developments pushed the UAE closer to Israel in an anti-Islamist axis and away from the Saudis. The question, then, is not whether Riyadh’s language has changed. It has. The question is whether this UAE-Israel axis will allow Saudi Arabia to keep insulating itself from wars of choice. Last December, the Emirati-Israeli axis made two moves that pushed Saudi Arabia to adopt a more forceful posture. Starting in December, the UAE-backed STC in Yemen captured large swaths of territory in the country’s south. On Dec. 26, Israel became the first country to recognize Somaliland as an independent state. The two incidents both involved support for separatism in a region closer to Saudi borders.

The Saudi reaction was measured but swift. The kingdom struck an Emirati weapons shipment, and then gave the UAE 24 hours’ notice to leave Yemen. When the UAE announced its departure from the country, the Saudis convened a conference for the Southern Yemenis, at which the STC delegation announced the organization’s self-dissolution. With support from Saudi Arabia, Yemeni government forces were able to recapture most of the territories the STC controlled. As for Somalia, the Saudi reaction was mostly symbolic. It included assembling all major Muslim countries in condemning the Israeli move.

Because the Middle East has no single hegemon, regional alliances are shifting and changing. If the UAE-Israel axis continues its interventionist campaign, it will likely be extremely difficult for Saudi Arabia to maintain its new “zero-conflict” approach.


Why is Saudi Arabia investing billions in Syria’s economy?
The case for investment in Syria
Saudi businessman Khaled Al-Otaibi, an investor in the real estate and energy sectors, told The Media Line: “The Syrian market has great potential and promising opportunities, especially during the reconstruction phase. We believe that early entry into this market may yield rewarding returns in the medium and long term, but this requires genuine partnerships with local entities and clear guarantees to protect investments.”

Syrian investor Samer al-Hassan, who works in the food industries market, told The Media Line that Saudi investments represent an important opportunity to revitalize the local private sector, adding, “We need new capital and expertise, and Saudi investments are capable of transferring modern technology and opening new export markets for Syrian products. The most important thing is that these partnerships be based on mutual benefit, not on a relationship between a strong party and a weak one.”

Meanwhile, Syrian economic expert Dr. Mahmoud Abdullah told The Media Line that this step could constitute a turning point in the trajectory of the Syrian economy if properly utilized, explaining that “the inflow of large capital will help stimulate domestic demand, create wide employment opportunities, and improve the value of the currency, but this is linked to the existence of genuine reforms in the financial and administrative system.”

Saudi investor Fahd al-Qahtani, who is studying entry into the transport and logistics sector in Syria, noted that “Syria’s geographic location makes it an important gateway to regional markets, and investment in ports, roads, and airports could turn it into a regional logistics hub, in line with the kingdom’s vision of enhancing Arab economic integration.”

Market data confirm that the sectors most attractive for near-term investment will be renewable energy, housing, rehabilitation of industrial zones, and the development of smart cities, in addition to transport and tourism projects. Analysts also expect to soon witness the signing of more agreements and memoranda of understanding between Saudi and Syrian companies, paving the way for the launch of large-scale joint projects.


UN on Francesca Albanese: “We don’t agree with much of what she says”
In a rare moment of candor at yesterday’s UN Daily Press Briefing, the world body distanced itself from its own Special Rapporteur, Francesca Albanese. Responding to questions about her inflammatory rhetoric, the spokesman for Secretary-General Antonio Guterres stated plainly: “We don’t agree with much of what she says.”

This admission comes on the heels of sharp rebukes from key European allies. Foreign ministers from France, Germany, Austria, Italy and the Czech Republic have publicly rejected Albanese’s latest tirades, which veer into outright antisemitism and conspiracy theories—hallmarks of her tenure since 2022.

Albanese’s record is a litany of bias: praising terrorist groups, minimizing Hamas atrocities, and peddling blood libels against Israel and Jews. Under her watch, the UN’s “human rights” mandate has become a platform for hate, not justice.

Yet for years, the UN shielded her, ignoring calls for accountability. Only mounting international pressure—from governments to civil society—forced this half-hearted disclaimer by UN Spokesman Stéphane Dujarric.

It’s a start, but not enough. Albanese must be removed, her mandate revoked, and the UN’s mechanisms reformed to end the double standards that plague Geneva.

Watch the briefing exchange below and join UN Watch in demanding real change at the UN, starting with the demand to expel Francesca Albanese.


Demand resignation of ‘anti-Israel’ UN rapporteur, 40 peers tell Yvette Cooper
Dozens of peers have urged the government to press for the resignation of the United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on the Palestinian Territories following remarks she made that appeared to refer to Israel as a “common enemy of humanity”.

More than 40 members of the House of Lords have written to the Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper calling on her to demand Francesca Albanese is removed from her post, with the Board of Deputies backing such action too.

France and Germany are already seeking Albanese’s resignation following a meeting in Doha at which the Italian diplomat accused international governments of enabling a “genocide” and referred to a “common enemy of humanity”.

Speaking at an event on Saturday organised by the Al Jazeera network, Albanese said: "The fact [is] that instead of stopping Israel, most of the world has armed, given Israel political excuses, political sheltering, economic and financial support.

She continued: "We who do not control large amounts of financial capitals, algorithms and weapons, we now see that we as a humanity have a common enemy.”

Jean-Noël Barrot, France’s foreign minister, described Albanese’s remarks as “outrageous and irresponsible”, criticising the rapporteur for apparently directing her comments not at the Israeli government but at the country and its people. He is expected to call for the rapporteur to stand down at the next meeting of the UN Human Rights Council later this month.

Germany’s foreign minister Johann Wadephul, echoed this call, saying: "I respect the UN system of independent rapporteurs. However, Ms Albanese has made numerous inappropriate remarks in the past. I condemn her recent statements about Israel. She is untenable in her position.”

Now, their UK counterpart has been urged to follow suit by peers from across the political spectrum.


'We have two diamonds here': IDF releases video from hostage rescue operation
Two years after the 'Golden Hand' IDF operation, which rescued Fernando Marman (61) and Luis Har (70) from Hamas captivity, the military released video footage on Friday of the two hostages shortly after their rescue.

The video was composed of body camera footage from Shayetet 13 soldiers who participated in the operation. In it, the two rescued hostages spoke with the soldiers in the helicopter as they were being escorted to safety.

"We have two diamonds here," one of the soldiers states at the beginning of the recording, referring to Marman and Har.

The soldiers offered earplugs to overcome the noise of the helicopter, water, and any medical attention the two might need.

"Come visit me, and I'll make you pizzas," one of the hostages proposed, prompting one of the soldiers to quip back, "We'll come and make you pizzas."

Gaza hostages held under cruel conditions
Marman and Har were rescued on February 12, 2024, after 129 days in captivity in Gaza.

They were abducted on October 7 and kept with a group of other prisoners in inhumane conditions. Har recounted afterwards that they had been given little food and only allowed to bathe once every few days or weeks. A medical examination conducted after their rescue revealed that he had lost around 16 kg during his time as Hamas's prisoner.

After their rescue, Har turned his experience into a positive message, creating a large multicolored sculpture reading 'Tikva' (hope), which he placed in Hostage Square.


Jonathan Sacerdoti: Terror tunnels and snipers: Life on Gaza’s yellow line
He pointed out that the IDF post had been deliberately positioned 200 to 300 metres from the boundary to allow time for graduated responses. Warnings. Leaflets. Shots in the air. The idea is to avoid fatal misunderstandings. Yet he insisted the line itself is not the kind of place one crosses by accident.

In this sector alone, he told me, there are dozens of tunnel shafts. Even after extended operations in Rafah, new tunnels continue to be discovered and even built according to recent reports from reservists in the ground. “The IDF are world class experts in dealing with terror tunnels,” he said, “and still, after a year plus in Rafah, there are still tunnels. Which tells you the enormous amounts and the complexity of this vast terror tunnel network.”

The debate within Israel now turns on what to do with this reality. Some argue that holding 58 per cent of Gaza while maintaining sustained pressure on Hamas keeps Israeli civilians out of immediate range without incurring the costs of renewed full-scale war. Others question whether containment without disarmament merely defers the problem.

Shoshani returned repeatedly to the question of weapons. “The agreement says… Gaza will be a terror free zone. The agreement speaks about Hamas disarming.” Without that, the line becomes a defensive posture rather than a resolution.

The strategic tension becomes sharper in light of recent statements by Hamas leaders abroad, including Khaled Meshaal and Osama Hamdan. Both have spoken openly about refusing disarmament and about the possibility of a long-term hudna, a five, seven or even ten-year truce, framed not as an end to conflict but as an interval. From their perspective, the October 7th attack altered the regional equation and demonstrated Israeli vulnerability. A temporary calm would serve consolidation rather than reconciliation: survival first, reconstruction next, rearmament over time. In that context, proposals for technocratic governance and the deployment of thousands of Indonesian troops as part of an international stabilisation force raise a further question: whether an external presence along the yellow line would restrain Hamas, or primarily constrain the IDF’s freedom of action. The answer to that will shape whether this pause stabilises Gaza or simply freezes it.

As we stood there, the proximity to Israeli towns was striking. “We are literally standing between Hamas and our civilians,” he said. “It’s a kilometer or two, just from where we are to where civilians live in Israel.”

That distance is short enough to feel.

Beyond Gaza, diplomatic initiatives multiply. President Trump is expected to announce a major funding programme for reconstruction and to update plans for an international stabilisation force. Israel has joined his Board of Peace. Negotiations with Iran continue. The language of councils and charters circulates in Washington.

From the sand and concrete of the yellow line, those developments feel remote. What exists here is simpler: a wall that was not here two weeks ago, a boundary that is clear to the eye, aid waiting to be collected, and soldiers scanning a horizon where snipers have fired in recent days.

Gaza, for now, is held in suspension. The war is paused. The structures that sustained it are not yet gone. The yellow line marks control, not settlement.

I left as the sun hung low in the sky, struck more by the quiet than anything else. The last time I was in this area, constant artillery fire echoed through the air – the continuous booms of war. Now the warm setting sun and still February air cast a hazy calm over the strip, with only the soft buzz of the occasional drone in the sky.

But this may yet prove to be the calm before the storm. Standing there, the sense was not of resolution, but of containment – a narrow strip of territory carrying the weight of decisions that have yet to be made.


How an Indian Researcher Exposed the Nazi–Palestinian Alliance | Aabhas Maldahiyar
Most people believe the Israel–Palestine conflict began in 1948.
Most people believe Nazi history ended in 1945.

But what if those two stories are connected in ways almost nobody talks about?

In this powerful interview, Indian researcher and author Aabhas Maldahiyar reveals historical evidence of collaboration between Nazi leadership and key Arab figures, including the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

Drawing from archival documents in Germany, Israel, and the United States, he explains a chapter of history that is rarely discussed in mainstream education or media.

In this interview we discuss:
• The Grand Mufti’s relationship with Hitler
• Muslim units that fought inside the Nazi military
• Why this history is largely missing from textbooks
• Why many Indians feel a strong connection to Israel
• The most disturbing discoveries found in historical archives

After reading his book, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu personally wrote to him, acknowledging the importance of his research.

00:00 – The Connection Most People Never Hear About
00:41 – How This Research Began
04:02 – Archives That Prove Nazi–Arab Collaboration
04:47 – What Shocked Him the Most
06:03 – The Grand Mufti and Hitler
11:29 – Netanyahu’s Controversial Statement Explained
16:06 – Admiration for Hitler in the Arab World
18:12 – Mein Kampf in Arabic and Its Influence
19:41 – Muslim Units Inside the Nazi Army
23:33 – Hitler, Race, and Why Muslims Were an Exception
29:29 – The Most Disturbing Discoveries in the Archives
32:42 – Violence Against Jews Before 1948
35:01 – Why This History Isn’t Taught
37:57 – Why Indians Feel Connected to Israel
41:07 – What the World Can Learn from India
43:17 – Netanyahu’s Letter and What It Meant
45:21 – How Writing the Book Changed His View
46:55 – Final Message to the World
48:23 – Closing Remarks


Call me Back Podcast: Trump meets Netanyahu, but what’s the endgame? - with Nadav Eyal
Prime Minister Netanyahu’s meeting with President Trump ended without any clear declaration about simmering tensions with Iran, so Ark Media contributor Nadav Eyal joins Dan to try to read between the lines. What did Netanyahu hope to achieve? Does anyone know Trump’s plan? Is an attack on Iran still on the table and did Netanyahu move the needle? Could the talks with Iran be just a head fake?

In this episode:
What Netanyahu asked for in Washington
Why Israeli officials think the Iran talks may be “dead on arrival”
U.S. military buildup and strike contingencies
Why Trump’s Iran policy is not about Israel — and never has been
The China factor: oil, energy, and Cold War II
Will Israel participate in a strike?
The Board of Peace and a potential Marshall Plan for Gaza
Why Hamas will only disarm under credible threat






ABC’s misleading antisemitism coverage called out
Sky News Media Watch Dog Columnist Gerard Henderson has called out the misleading commentary from ABC’s Four Corners report, specifically the timeline of the Opera House protests in the wake of the October 7 attacks.




Ireland commits to play Israel in European soccer tourney after seeking Israeli team’s ouster
Ireland’s soccer governing body committed to playing Israel in the Nations League after the two sides were drawn to face each other in the competition on Thursday, three months after Ireland called for Israel’s expulsion from European competitions.

Ireland and Israel were drawn alongside Austria and Kosovo in one of the four groups in League B, meaning they must face each other home and away in games to be scheduled between September and November.

“The Football Association of Ireland (FAI) confirms that the Ireland Men’s National Team will fulfill their 2026 UEFA Nations League fixtures against Israel after being drawn together in Group B3,” the FAI said in a statement immediately after the draw was made.

“The association does recognize that UEFA regulations outline that if an association refuses to play a match then that fixture will be forfeited and further disciplinary measures may follow — including potential disqualification from the competition.”

The FAI formally requested that Israel be banned from UEFA competitions in November for alleged breaches of the European governing body’s statutes after members overwhelmingly backed a proposal compelling its board to make the request.


AOC won’t say whether 2028 Dem nominee should re-evaluate US aid to Israel
With the Department of Homeland Security set to shut down most operations at 11:59 p.m. Friday, members of Congress have left town for a week-long recess, ensuring no deal will happen for at least the next several days.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) is in Germany to take part in two panels at the high-level Munich Security Conference, a bid to burnish her foreign policy credentials ahead of a possible 2028 White House run.

The far-left New York Democrat accused President Trump of “tearing apart” alliances with his administration’s foreign policy and putting America in a “compromised” position globally at the summit.

She also dodged a question about whether the 2028 Democratic presidential nominee should commit to re-evaluating US aid to Israel.

“I think that, personally, that the the idea of completely unconditional aid, no matter what one does, does not make sense. I think it enabled a genocide in Gaza,” AOC said.


Brooklyn Navy Yard denies it ended company’s lease for selling drones to Israel
Reports that the Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corporation declined to renew Easy Aerial’s lease because the company sells drones to Israel are false, it told JNS.

The corporation “notified Easy Aerial at the beginning of the year that it would not renew its lease agreement for business reasons related to operational and campus compliance matters,” it said. “Like any landlord, we evaluate renewals based on adherence to lease terms and campus policies.”

“There were no other factors in our decision,” it told JNS.

An anti-Israel group called Demilitarize Brooklyn Navy Yard said it had written to elected officials and picketed the Navy Yard weekly as a result of its business with the Jewish state. In news reports and on social media, it celebrated the corporation’s decision not to renew the lease on social media.

Brooklyn Navy Yard is a 300-acre, city-owned industrial park on the waterfront in Brooklyn, N.Y.
Retiring Rep. Watson Coleman slams only Jewish candidate for being a ‘hardline supporter of Netanyahu’
Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ) urged voters in her district not to vote for East Brunswick Mayor Brad Cohen, one of the 17 candidates running to replace her, accusing him of being a “hardline supporter” of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Cohen, the top fundraiser in the field, was singled out for criticism by Watson Coleman, who declined to endorse a candidate in the 12th Congressional District primary, according to the New Jersey Globe.

“He’s a hardline supporter of Netanyahu, who is a despot, a corrupt leader,” Watson Coleman, a longtime critic of Israel, told the news outlet.

Cohen currently holds a substantial fundraising lead in the race to replace Watson Coleman, with $279,000 raised and $263,000 cash on hand as of the end of 2025.

Cohen told the Globe that Watson Coleman’s characterization of him is false, and that he disagrees with certain actions of the Israeli government.

“I have a lot of respect for Congresswoman Watson Coleman. She spent her first Passover at my house when she became a congresswoman, so our history goes back a long time,” Cohen said. “On most issues, we’re completely on the same page. But I think she’s mischaracterizing me when she calls me a hardliner.”

He did not respond to a request for comment from Jewish Insider.

Cohen is a prominent figure in the local Jewish community and a self-described AIPAC member, who also testified in support of legislation codifying the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism in the state legislature and pushed back against efforts to adopt a ceasefire resolution in the East Brunswick town council, according to the Jewish Link, a regional Jewish news outlet.
Famous Palestinian activist calls for dogs to be banned as 'indoor pets' in NYC because they are UNISLAMIC
A Palestinian activist has called for dogs to be banned as pets in New York City claiming they aren't Islamic.

Nerdeen Kiswani said dogs have a 'place in society' but 'not as indoor pets.'

'Like we've said all along, they are unclean,' she wrote on X.

After receiving fierce backlash she later claimed that her post was a 'joke'.

'[Laughing] at the Zionists frothing at the mouth at this, thinking they're doing something,' she wrote.

'It's obviously a joke I don't care if you have a dog, I do care if your dog is s***ting everywhere and you're not cleaning it.

'Also clearly trying to weigh in on an issue unaware of the current NYC discourse where we're collectively (jokingly) hating on dogs given all the visible dog s**t in the unmelted snow.'

Muslims typically do not keep dogs as pets as many believers feel they are meant to be used for work such as herding or hunting.


UK ban on Palestine Action ruled unlawful as government indicates it will appeal
Palestine Action has won a High Court challenge over the ban of the organisation as a terror group on two grounds, judges have said.

But the group remains proscribed as a terror group to allow further arguments and the Government time to consider an appeal, judge Dame Victoria Sharp has said.

In a summary of the High Court’s decision, Dame Victoria Sharp said: “The court considered that the proscription of Palestine Action was disproportionate.

“A very small number of Palestine Action’s activities amounted to acts of terrorism within the definition of section 1 of the 2000 Act.

“For these, and for Palestine Action’s other criminal activities, the general criminal law remains available.

“The nature and scale of Palestine Action’s activities falling within the definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and persistence to warrant proscription.”

But in a ruling that was not straightforward, Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori won a High Court challenge over the ban of the organisation as a terror group on two grounds, but judges rejected the claim on two other grounds.

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood responded by saying she was “disappointed” by the ruling and confirmed she intended to appeal and “fight” the decision.

She added: “The Court has acknowledged that Palestine Action has carried out acts of terrorism, celebrated those who have taken part in those acts and promoted the use of violence.
If the government loses the Palestine Action fight, it will prove it cannot keep us safe
What this decision means is that Palestine Action will soon resume its array of criminal activities – with an even stronger sense of the entitlement they have previously displayed. The police response will be even more sluggish and confused – the Met Police have released a statement today that since the High Court’s decision, they will no longer arrest people expressing support for the group, but will instead “gather evidence of those offences and the people involved to provide opportunities for enforcement at a later date”. This will inevitably lead to a significant increase in those expressing open support for the group – it’s a chance to demonstrate rebelliousness with a significantly reduced risk of consequences.

The government is determined to fight this decision, and it should. Because if it is allowed to stand, it is a signal not just to the country but to the world that the British state is a joke – unable to even proscribe a group which broke into the country’s largest air force base and damaged military transports.

But it will also be a signal to many British Jews. Palestine Action also targeted Jewish charities and businesses, due to what it described as their Israel links. Jewish communal groups urged the government to act, and while there is little suggestion that such representations were ultimately responsible for last year’s proscription decision, that action was a major step that the government could point to as evidence that they were listening and acting on Jewish community concerns.

If that disappears, then so does any remaining scrap of confidence that British Jews will have in this government. How can they protect us when they can’t even succeed in proscribing a group which the judges themselves admit has committed acts of terrorism?
Stephen Pollard: A bad day for democracy and a good day for supporters of terror
We live in a democracy under the rule of law, so the High Court’s ruling on the prescription of Palestine Action (PA) must be respected. Be clear, however, about what it means: it is another example of how it is no longer politicians, elected by and answerable to voters, who take the ultimate decisions on national security and protection of the public from terror. It is the judiciary.

When the High Court rules, as it did today, that “the proscription of Palestine Action was disproportionate” and that “a very small number of Palestine Action’s activities amounted to acts of terrorism within the definition of section 1 of the 2000 Act”, it is imposing its will and its view of the threat posed by a group and individuals over that of ministers and Parliament.

Legitimately so, of course, since that is the nature of judicial review. But deeply, profoundly and wrongly so – as a near-perfect example of how judicial review is now out of control. The court found that PA did indeed conduct acts of terror – but not enough to be considered a terrorist group. Alice in Wonderland has little on this. We have passed the point of no return

Rightly, the ban on PA remains in place while the Government appeals. But it is plain that we have passed the point of no return. The court found that the ban breaches Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, over freedom of expression. We are in the same territory here as with other all-too-familiar examples of the courts blocking the actions of Parliament and the executive – rulings which so frustrated the last government and have led to a groundswell of support for the idea of replacing the Human Rights Act and pulling out of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The irony of all this is that PA should never have been able to get to the stage where it posed any threat to national security in the first place.


High Court ruling against Palestine Action terror ban will convince far-left activists they can 'hold UK to ransom', warns ex anti-extremism tsar
A High Court ruling against the decision to ban Palestine Action as a terror group risks convincing far-left activists they can 'hold the country to ransom', the government's former adviser on political violence said today.

Palestine Action won a High Court challenge against the Home Office's decision to categorise it alongside the likes of Islamic State, with three judges declaring the move 'unlawful' and 'disproportionate'.

The verdict has prompted police to stop arresting Palestine Action supporters - despite the proscription remaining in force pending an appeal by Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood.

Lord Walney, who was appointed as an independent government advisor under the Conservatives, declared himself 'deeply disappointed'.

'It is right that the Home Secretary appeals this deeply disappointing verdict which risks sending a signal that far left activists can hold the country to ransom,' he said.

'While Palestine Action has deployed violence less frequently than other proscribed groups, the criminal damage they systematically inflict clearly falls within the legal definition of terrorism.'

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp MP also backed Ms Mahmood's appeal and accused Palestine Action of being bent on 'intimidation, destruction, and violence'.

He said: 'Palestine Action repeatedly invades secure sites, sabotages military aircraft, attacks police officers and causes millions in criminal damage. It is organised political violence and cannot be tolerated.'

While the judges found that the decision should be quashed, they warned that the group remains banned pending Ms Mahmood's appeal.

However, this distinction appears to have been lost on the Met Police, which said it would now stop arresting activists who express support for Palestine Action and merely 'gather evidence' against them instead.

A spokesman said: 'Officers will continue to identify offences where support for Palestine Action is being expressed, but they will focus on gathering evidence of those offences and the people involved to provide opportunities for enforcement at a later date, rather than making arrests at the time.

'This is the most proportionate approach we can take, acknowledging the decision reached by the court while recognising that proceedings are not yet fully concluded.'

Laurence Taylor, head of Counter Terrorism Policing - a UK-wide network of police and security service staff - said it would now enforce the proscription of Palestine Action 'pragmatically', raising the possibility it could also suspend arrests.

The High Court's ruling is a massive blow to the government and means that more than 2,000 people who were arrested for holding signs or displaying messages supporting the group may now have proceedings dropped.




Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

    
 

 



AddToAny

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Search2

Hasbys!

Hasbys!

2019 Nobel Peace Prize nominee

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Show All

Blog Archive

Copyright © Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News | Powered by Blogger
Blogger Templates