The Observer
Thomas Barrack and the Discourse of Western Guardianship: A Critical Reading through Orientalism, Neocolonialism, and Political Racism Introduction The statements made by Thomas Barrack, the U.S. Special Envoy to Syria and U.S. Ambassador to Turkey, represent…
Barrack claims to criticize the Sykes–Picot Agreement, yet this “critique” does not stem from the right of peoples to self-determination, but from the logic that says:
We are the ones who drew the borders, and we are the ones who reinterpret them.
His statements about “uniting Syria and Lebanon” clearly expose this logic. Even when praising Lebanese leadership, he treats Lebanon as an entity that can be dissolved within larger regional arrangements—namely, absorbed into Syria. This is not a mere verbal slip, but an extension of a vision that treats sovereignty as an administrative function rather than a historical or legal right. Despite widespread criticism, he neither retracted his remarks nor offered an apology.
Here, Orientalism intersects with neocolonialism:
Borders are not sacred when they obstruct Western interests, but they become “international legitimacy” when they serve them.
Fifth: Recognizing Occupation as a “Colonial Mandate” Without Accountability
Barrack’s admission that the occupations of Iraq and Libya were “colonial” is among his most dangerous statements—not because it represents radical critique, but because it is recognition without consequences. In postcolonial studies, this form of acknowledgment functions to close the file rather than open it:
• No apology
• No compensation
• No accountability
• No dismantling of the structures of domination
Colonialism is reduced to “a phase in which mistakes were made,” rather than a crime whose economic, political, and social effects remain ongoing.
Theoretical Conclusion
Thomas Barrack’s discourse cannot be understood as a “critical shift” in U.S. policy. It must instead be read as a formal transformation in the language of hegemony.
It is a discourse that is:
• Orientalist in its denial of popular political capacity
• Neocolonial in its instruments
• Politically racist in its exceptions
In this discourse, democracy is not a right, sovereignty is not a principle, and borders are not fixed realities; they are variables managed from the center of power. This is precisely the essence of colonialism when it sheds the military uniform and dons the suit of the diplomat.
🔵 Link to the article in Arabic
🖋 @observer_5
We are the ones who drew the borders, and we are the ones who reinterpret them.
His statements about “uniting Syria and Lebanon” clearly expose this logic. Even when praising Lebanese leadership, he treats Lebanon as an entity that can be dissolved within larger regional arrangements—namely, absorbed into Syria. This is not a mere verbal slip, but an extension of a vision that treats sovereignty as an administrative function rather than a historical or legal right. Despite widespread criticism, he neither retracted his remarks nor offered an apology.
Here, Orientalism intersects with neocolonialism:
Borders are not sacred when they obstruct Western interests, but they become “international legitimacy” when they serve them.
Fifth: Recognizing Occupation as a “Colonial Mandate” Without Accountability
Barrack’s admission that the occupations of Iraq and Libya were “colonial” is among his most dangerous statements—not because it represents radical critique, but because it is recognition without consequences. In postcolonial studies, this form of acknowledgment functions to close the file rather than open it:
• No apology
• No compensation
• No accountability
• No dismantling of the structures of domination
Colonialism is reduced to “a phase in which mistakes were made,” rather than a crime whose economic, political, and social effects remain ongoing.
Theoretical Conclusion
Thomas Barrack’s discourse cannot be understood as a “critical shift” in U.S. policy. It must instead be read as a formal transformation in the language of hegemony.
It is a discourse that is:
• Orientalist in its denial of popular political capacity
• Neocolonial in its instruments
• Politically racist in its exceptions
In this discourse, democracy is not a right, sovereignty is not a principle, and borders are not fixed realities; they are variables managed from the center of power. This is precisely the essence of colonialism when it sheds the military uniform and dons the suit of the diplomat.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍4
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍4
Alert News :
🔴 United States
Trump administration unveils plan requiring all tourists to submit their DNAs , disclose five years of social media activity, along with past email addresses and phone numbers, as part of new entry rules. The measure would apply even to travelers from visa‑exempt
countries
🔵 Link to the article in Arabic
🖋 @observer_5
Trump administration unveils plan requiring all tourists to submit their DNAs , disclose five years of social media activity, along with past email addresses and phone numbers, as part of new entry rules. The measure would apply even to travelers from visa‑exempt
countries
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👎4
The blood had barely dried on the pavement at Bondi Beach before the machinery of imperialist propaganda began its work. The horrific attack on the Hanukkah celebration in Sydney is a tragedy for the families involved, but for the strategists in Tel Aviv and Washington, it is something else entirely:
an asset.
In a matter of hours, a criminal act of violence has been transmuted into a geopolitical weapon. We are witnessing a masterclass in securitization—where a localized event is inflated into an existential threat to justify predetermined military escalations. To accept the Western narrative at face value is to ignore the timing, the beneficiaries, and the brutal logic of hybrid warfare. We must interrogate the script being written for us.
1. Who Benefits? Reframing the Question of Perpetration
We are told, almost instantly, that the trails lead to Tehran or the Southern Suburbs of Beirut. But before we consume this pre-packaged conclusion, we must apply the foundational question of forensic politics:
Who benefits?
* The Evidence Void:
At this stage, concrete evidence linking the shooters to state-level command structures in Iran or Hezbollah is non-existent. The attribution relies on "intelligence assessments" and "probing links"—phrases that historically serve as placeholders for political intent rather than factual certainty.
* The Strategic Gain:
The Resistance Axis gains nothing from indiscriminately targeting civilians in Australia. Such an act alienates the Global South and invites crushing sanctions. Conversely, the Zionist entity and its Western backers gain everything. The attack provides the perfect distraction from their failures in the Levant and a fresh pretext to demand global coalitions against the "Iranian threat."
False-Flag Theory Application:
In political sociology, a "false flag" does not always mean a staged event with actors; it often refers to the exploitation of ambiguity. By rushing to blame external enemies before the smoke clears, Western intelligence agencies practice "strategic attribution." The ambiguity of the perpetrators is not a bug; it is a feature. It allows the state to project its preferred enemy onto the blank face of the attacker.
2. Timing as Strategy, Not Coincidence
We must refuse to view events in a vacuum. This attack occurred barely 24 hours after the significant strike on American and Israeli assets in Palmyra (Tadmur), Syria.
* The Palmyra Context:
On December 13, US occupation forces and their proxies suffered a humiliating blow in central Syria. The narrative was shifting toward the vulnerability of US forces and the resilience of the Syrian state.
* The Sydney Pivot:
The Sydney attack violently wrenches the global news cycle away from Western military failure to Western victimhood.
This temporal proximity is not accidental; it is functional. In the doctrine of narrative warfare, "victimhood" is a strategic resource.
The Sydney attack effectively erases the Palmyra defeat from the headlines, replacing the image of a defeated occupier with that of a grieving victim, thereby re-legitimizing aggressive military posturing.
3. Netanyahu’s Accusation: Securitization in Real Time
Prime Minister Netanyahu’s immediate finger-pointing at Iran and Hezbollah is a textbook example of securitization theory in action.
* The Speech Act:
By declaring this a "Hezbollah-linked" attack, Netanyahu performs a "speech act." He moves the issue out of the realm of criminal justice (police, courts, trials) and into the realm of national security (war, airstrikes, emergency powers).
* Manufacturing Consent:
This accusation is not about justice for Sydney; it is about permission to attack Lebanon. It constructs a narrative where bombing Beirut is framed as "defense" of Australian streets.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍3
The Observer
It is a cynical attempt to globalize his war, forcing nations like Australia to treat the Resistance not as a distant political movement, but as a domestic terror threat.
Securitization transforms fear into consent. It tricks the Australian public into accepting surveillance and foreign wars under the guise of local safety.
4. False-Flag Logic vs. Evidentiary Logic
Why is "false flag" considered a conspiracy theory when directed at Western states, yet treated as "intelligence analysis" when directed at the Resistance?
* The Double Standard:
When the US claims a "lone wolf" attack was actually directed by ISIS or Iran, it is called "connecting the dots." When analysts suggest that Western intelligence might facilitate or exploit violence to justify policy, it is dismissed as paranoia.
* Critical Framework:
False-flag analysis is a legitimate tool of security discourse. It asks us to look at the capabilities and intent. The Zionist regime has a documented history (e.g., the Lavon Affair) of using violence to manipulate Western opinion. To ignore this historical precedent in favor of blind trust in Western intelligence is intellectual negligence.
5. The Human Cost of Narrative Warfare
The immediate victims are the dead and wounded in Sydney. But the secondary victims are already being lined up.
* Normalization of Collective Punishment:
By linking a local crime to a foreign state without evidence, the media normalizes the collective punishment of Lebanese and Iranian civilians. If Sydney is "Iran's fault," then bombing Tehran becomes "justice."
* Domestic Fallout:
This narrative weaponization deliberately inflames Islamophobia and anti-Arab sentiment. It turns every diaspora community into a "suspect population," justifying draconian policing and the erosion of civil liberties.
Conclusion
The Sydney attack is a tragedy, but the use of the attack is a strategy. We are watching fear being nationalized, internationalized, and militarized in real-time.
The danger is not just the violence on the streets of Bondi; it is the speed with which that violence is folded into a pre-existing war narrative. The script demands new enemies, new sanctions, and new wars.
We must have the courage to ask: are we mourning the victims, or are we being conscripted into the next phase of a global conflict?
🔵 Link to the article in Arabic
🖋 @observer_5
Securitization transforms fear into consent. It tricks the Australian public into accepting surveillance and foreign wars under the guise of local safety.
4. False-Flag Logic vs. Evidentiary Logic
Why is "false flag" considered a conspiracy theory when directed at Western states, yet treated as "intelligence analysis" when directed at the Resistance?
* The Double Standard:
When the US claims a "lone wolf" attack was actually directed by ISIS or Iran, it is called "connecting the dots." When analysts suggest that Western intelligence might facilitate or exploit violence to justify policy, it is dismissed as paranoia.
* Critical Framework:
False-flag analysis is a legitimate tool of security discourse. It asks us to look at the capabilities and intent. The Zionist regime has a documented history (e.g., the Lavon Affair) of using violence to manipulate Western opinion. To ignore this historical precedent in favor of blind trust in Western intelligence is intellectual negligence.
5. The Human Cost of Narrative Warfare
The immediate victims are the dead and wounded in Sydney. But the secondary victims are already being lined up.
* Normalization of Collective Punishment:
By linking a local crime to a foreign state without evidence, the media normalizes the collective punishment of Lebanese and Iranian civilians. If Sydney is "Iran's fault," then bombing Tehran becomes "justice."
* Domestic Fallout:
This narrative weaponization deliberately inflames Islamophobia and anti-Arab sentiment. It turns every diaspora community into a "suspect population," justifying draconian policing and the erosion of civil liberties.
Conclusion
The Sydney attack is a tragedy, but the use of the attack is a strategy. We are watching fear being nationalized, internationalized, and militarized in real-time.
The danger is not just the violence on the streets of Bondi; it is the speed with which that violence is folded into a pre-existing war narrative. The script demands new enemies, new sanctions, and new wars.
We must have the courage to ask: are we mourning the victims, or are we being conscripted into the next phase of a global conflict?
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍3
Militarized Subjects, Politicized Victims, and What Captures the World’s Attention
A Reading of Three Attacks: From Australia to America and Syria
Abstract
This article attempts to understand three violent incidents that occurred in Australia, the United States, and Syria, not as isolated individual actions, but as events that have been politically and media-driven, interpreted in vastly different ways.
The basic idea is simple:
Not all crimes are told in the same way, and not all victims receive the same level of attention.
Here, we use ideas from political science and sociology to understand:
1. How individuals previously subjected to militarization become violent actors,
2. Why some victims are highlighted while others are marginalized,
3. How a ready-made narrative is imposed on an event before an investigation is concluded.
We focus specifically on the Bondi incident in Australia, which was quickly characterized as an “anti-Semitic attack,” in contrast to the near-complete disregard for the shooting at Brown University in the United States, despite the fact that it was part of a shocking number: 389 mass shootings in just one year.
We also remind the reader that the perpetrator of the Tadmor attack in Syria graduated from the same jihadist environment as the current ruler of Syria, al-Jolani, highlighting the overlap between institutionalized violence and extremism.
Conclusion:
The power of the narrative is what determines the political value of an event, not just the number of victims.
1. Violence is Not Just “News”
When an attack occurs, it is not treated as an abstract fact.
Instead, it is given a name, an identity, and tied to a larger political narrative.
If a senior official or a powerful state declares that what happened is a “security threat,” the event immediately becomes a matter of national security, and extraordinary measures are justified based on that.
This is what is called in political science: securitization.
2. Three Incidents… Three Different Narratives
We examine three cases:
1. Naveed Akram – The Bondi incident in Sydney
2. Benjamin Erickson – The shooting at Brown University (USA)
3. The Perpetrator of the Tadmor Attack – Targeting American and Israeli forces in Syria
The question is not just: Why did they do it?
But more importantly:
Why was each incident interpreted in a completely different way? And who benefits from these interpretations?
3. An Important Commonality: Militarization
All three share one key element:
They had previously been exposed to organized violence within military or security institutions.
• Naveed Akram: There was talk about his connection to the Israeli army and his influence from the events in Gaza.
• Benjamin Erickson: An American infantry soldier trained for combat.
• The Perpetrator of the Tadmor Attack: Part of Syrian security services and had links to ISIS.
These are not “monsters” or “crazy people” as they are often portrayed, but individuals who came out of systems of violence and were left without accountability or psychological support.
Scholars call this: Moral Injury
Which refers to the feeling of guilt and internal breakdown after participating in violence that conflicts with one’s conscience.
4. Why Did the World Focus on Australia… and Ignore America?
4.1 Australia: Immediate Amplification
The Bondi incident became, within hours:
• An international issue,
• Statements from world leaders,
• One dominant headline:
An anti-Semitic attack.
4.2 Brown University: Near Silence
In contrast, the shooting at Brown University:
• Did not turn into a global issue,
• No international conferences were held because of it,
• It was simply part of America’s “normalization” of gun violence.
Despite it being the 389th mass shooting in just one year.
This illustrates an important point:
Media attention does not follow the number of victims, but rather the political utility of the story.
5. The Problem of the “Anti-Semitism” Narrative in the Bondi Incident
5.1 Fixing a Single Narrative
A Reading of Three Attacks: From Australia to America and Syria
Abstract
This article attempts to understand three violent incidents that occurred in Australia, the United States, and Syria, not as isolated individual actions, but as events that have been politically and media-driven, interpreted in vastly different ways.
The basic idea is simple:
Not all crimes are told in the same way, and not all victims receive the same level of attention.
Here, we use ideas from political science and sociology to understand:
1. How individuals previously subjected to militarization become violent actors,
2. Why some victims are highlighted while others are marginalized,
3. How a ready-made narrative is imposed on an event before an investigation is concluded.
We focus specifically on the Bondi incident in Australia, which was quickly characterized as an “anti-Semitic attack,” in contrast to the near-complete disregard for the shooting at Brown University in the United States, despite the fact that it was part of a shocking number: 389 mass shootings in just one year.
We also remind the reader that the perpetrator of the Tadmor attack in Syria graduated from the same jihadist environment as the current ruler of Syria, al-Jolani, highlighting the overlap between institutionalized violence and extremism.
Conclusion:
The power of the narrative is what determines the political value of an event, not just the number of victims.
1. Violence is Not Just “News”
When an attack occurs, it is not treated as an abstract fact.
Instead, it is given a name, an identity, and tied to a larger political narrative.
If a senior official or a powerful state declares that what happened is a “security threat,” the event immediately becomes a matter of national security, and extraordinary measures are justified based on that.
This is what is called in political science: securitization.
2. Three Incidents… Three Different Narratives
We examine three cases:
1. Naveed Akram – The Bondi incident in Sydney
2. Benjamin Erickson – The shooting at Brown University (USA)
3. The Perpetrator of the Tadmor Attack – Targeting American and Israeli forces in Syria
The question is not just: Why did they do it?
But more importantly:
Why was each incident interpreted in a completely different way? And who benefits from these interpretations?
3. An Important Commonality: Militarization
All three share one key element:
They had previously been exposed to organized violence within military or security institutions.
• Naveed Akram: There was talk about his connection to the Israeli army and his influence from the events in Gaza.
• Benjamin Erickson: An American infantry soldier trained for combat.
• The Perpetrator of the Tadmor Attack: Part of Syrian security services and had links to ISIS.
These are not “monsters” or “crazy people” as they are often portrayed, but individuals who came out of systems of violence and were left without accountability or psychological support.
Scholars call this: Moral Injury
Which refers to the feeling of guilt and internal breakdown after participating in violence that conflicts with one’s conscience.
4. Why Did the World Focus on Australia… and Ignore America?
4.1 Australia: Immediate Amplification
The Bondi incident became, within hours:
• An international issue,
• Statements from world leaders,
• One dominant headline:
An anti-Semitic attack.
4.2 Brown University: Near Silence
In contrast, the shooting at Brown University:
• Did not turn into a global issue,
• No international conferences were held because of it,
• It was simply part of America’s “normalization” of gun violence.
Despite it being the 389th mass shooting in just one year.
This illustrates an important point:
Media attention does not follow the number of victims, but rather the political utility of the story.
5. The Problem of the “Anti-Semitism” Narrative in the Bondi Incident
5.1 Fixing a Single Narrative
👍3
The Observer
Militarized Subjects, Politicized Victims, and What Captures the World’s Attention A Reading of Three Attacks: From Australia to America and Syria Abstract This article attempts to understand three violent incidents that occurred in Australia, the United…
In the Bondi incident, information was leaked early, and only one narrative was presented:
The attacker was anti-Semitic.
The attacker was Pakistani and Muslim.
Before the investigation was even finished, and before any other explanations were considered.
This does not mean that anti-Semitism doesn’t exist,
but it means that choosing this particular explanation was a political-media decision.
5.2 The Political Context
Before the incident, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu issued threats to countries, including Australia, for their stance on recognizing the Palestinian state.
This context makes any political criticism immediately labeled as religious hatred.
6. What About Israeli Intelligence?
There is no conclusive evidence of direct involvement.
But what is clear is:
• The swift use of rhetoric about “Iran” and “Hezbollah”,
• Shifting the blame abroad,
• Exonerating the regimes that created these militarized subjects from accountability.
The real question is not:
Did intelligence agencies get involved?
But:
How are these narratives used to keep the world in a constant state of emergency?
7. A Simplified Conclusion
What these cases reveal is:
• People shaped by violent systems who were then abandoned,
• Victims whose level of visibility is selected,
• Narratives imposed faster than the truth.
One final noteworthy piece of information:
• Naveed’s mother is Italian, and his father is Indian,
• He was known to be a very kind person,
• Similarly, Benjamin Erickson was described as polite.
This doesn’t absolve them,
but it reminds us that evil doesn’t emerge suddenly; it is gradually made.
In a time of perpetual emergency,
the most responsible position is to resist quick judgments and hold on to the question.
8. Ahmad al-Ahmad: The Overlooked Truth
One of the facts that wasn’t highlighted in the media:
Ahmad al-Ahmad, a Muslim man, intervened and confronted one of the attackers, preventing further casualties.
This detail is very important because:
• It dismantles the idea of a “Muslim attacker versus a Jewish victim,”
• It proves that religious identity doesn’t explain violence,
• It challenges the simplistic narrative, which is why it was marginalized.
9. Was the Attack an Act of Religious Hatred?
The official narrative says yes.
But the facts suggest legitimate questions:
• The attack wasn’t random,
• It didn’t target Australian bystanders,
• It seemed to be linked to political symbolism rather than general religious hatred.
This does not justify violence,
but it means that automatically labeling it as “anti-Semitic” is a political reduction.
The bigger problem here is the confusion between Judaism, Zionism, and the policies of the Israeli state.
🔵 Link to the article in Arabic
🖋 @observer_5
The attacker was anti-Semitic.
The attacker was Pakistani and Muslim.
Before the investigation was even finished, and before any other explanations were considered.
This does not mean that anti-Semitism doesn’t exist,
but it means that choosing this particular explanation was a political-media decision.
5.2 The Political Context
Before the incident, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu issued threats to countries, including Australia, for their stance on recognizing the Palestinian state.
This context makes any political criticism immediately labeled as religious hatred.
6. What About Israeli Intelligence?
There is no conclusive evidence of direct involvement.
But what is clear is:
• The swift use of rhetoric about “Iran” and “Hezbollah”,
• Shifting the blame abroad,
• Exonerating the regimes that created these militarized subjects from accountability.
The real question is not:
Did intelligence agencies get involved?
But:
How are these narratives used to keep the world in a constant state of emergency?
7. A Simplified Conclusion
What these cases reveal is:
• People shaped by violent systems who were then abandoned,
• Victims whose level of visibility is selected,
• Narratives imposed faster than the truth.
One final noteworthy piece of information:
• Naveed’s mother is Italian, and his father is Indian,
• He was known to be a very kind person,
• Similarly, Benjamin Erickson was described as polite.
This doesn’t absolve them,
but it reminds us that evil doesn’t emerge suddenly; it is gradually made.
In a time of perpetual emergency,
the most responsible position is to resist quick judgments and hold on to the question.
8. Ahmad al-Ahmad: The Overlooked Truth
One of the facts that wasn’t highlighted in the media:
Ahmad al-Ahmad, a Muslim man, intervened and confronted one of the attackers, preventing further casualties.
This detail is very important because:
• It dismantles the idea of a “Muslim attacker versus a Jewish victim,”
• It proves that religious identity doesn’t explain violence,
• It challenges the simplistic narrative, which is why it was marginalized.
9. Was the Attack an Act of Religious Hatred?
The official narrative says yes.
But the facts suggest legitimate questions:
• The attack wasn’t random,
• It didn’t target Australian bystanders,
• It seemed to be linked to political symbolism rather than general religious hatred.
This does not justify violence,
but it means that automatically labeling it as “anti-Semitic” is a political reduction.
The bigger problem here is the confusion between Judaism, Zionism, and the policies of the Israeli state.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍4
On my mind
✍ Asaad Abu Khalil
Tucker Carlson may currently be Israel’s biggest nightmare in all of America. I remember this man as an extreme Zionist in the 1990s, and as an enemy of the Palestinian cause. He is a talented and energetic writer who rose to prominence at a time when print journalism was becoming scarce. Yet he is among the few who transitioned smoothly from print to visual media.
He achieved great success and now has millions of viewers online. In fact, Carlson’s audience is larger than the combined viewership of all the news programs on CNN, which will soon come under the ownership of the hardline Zionist Ellison family. The podcast phenomenon on YouTube now rivals all the so-called “legacy” media (that is, traditional media) here.
Carlson’s rise is due to the fact that he was one of the theorists behind the “America First” and “Make America Great Again” movements, which were embodied by Trump’s election campaign and later his administration.
He is a polished, eloquent, and well-informed speaker who prepares extensively for his interviews (like Ahmad Mansour on Al Jazeera, and unlike Taher Barakeh on Al Arabiya). The interview he conducted recently with Senator Ted Cruz (one of the heroes of the Cedar Revolution and a pillar of the current political order because of his deep attachment to Israeli interests) contributed to undermining Cruz’s standing even within his own party.
Carlson questioned him repeatedly about Iran, exposing his ignorance of its affairs (despite Cruz calling almost daily for war against it), and also embarrassed him over his loyalty to the state of Israel. Cruz continues to criticize Carlson on a daily basis.
Carlson and Candace Owens are the two greatest enemies of Israel in America today because of their effectiveness and because they do not belong to the left or to liberalism, but rather to the new right. Owens often goes too far in her rhetoric, and there are indications of emerging signs of hostility toward Jews in her discourse, but Carlson is careful in his speech to make distinctions.
He has admitted that, because of the genocide, he educated himself on the Palestinian cause and its history and has begun to argue in its defense. Israel accused him of being an agent of Qatar without any evidence. He is not weak when confronted with criticism or attacks by the Israeli lobby (unlike Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders).
This new trend within the American right (which is expanding among young Republicans and conservatives) constitutes the greatest threat to American policy aligned with Israel — even if only in the long run.
🔵 Link to the article in Arabic
🖋 @observer_5
Tucker Carlson may currently be Israel’s biggest nightmare in all of America. I remember this man as an extreme Zionist in the 1990s, and as an enemy of the Palestinian cause. He is a talented and energetic writer who rose to prominence at a time when print journalism was becoming scarce. Yet he is among the few who transitioned smoothly from print to visual media.
He achieved great success and now has millions of viewers online. In fact, Carlson’s audience is larger than the combined viewership of all the news programs on CNN, which will soon come under the ownership of the hardline Zionist Ellison family. The podcast phenomenon on YouTube now rivals all the so-called “legacy” media (that is, traditional media) here.
Carlson’s rise is due to the fact that he was one of the theorists behind the “America First” and “Make America Great Again” movements, which were embodied by Trump’s election campaign and later his administration.
He is a polished, eloquent, and well-informed speaker who prepares extensively for his interviews (like Ahmad Mansour on Al Jazeera, and unlike Taher Barakeh on Al Arabiya). The interview he conducted recently with Senator Ted Cruz (one of the heroes of the Cedar Revolution and a pillar of the current political order because of his deep attachment to Israeli interests) contributed to undermining Cruz’s standing even within his own party.
Carlson questioned him repeatedly about Iran, exposing his ignorance of its affairs (despite Cruz calling almost daily for war against it), and also embarrassed him over his loyalty to the state of Israel. Cruz continues to criticize Carlson on a daily basis.
Carlson and Candace Owens are the two greatest enemies of Israel in America today because of their effectiveness and because they do not belong to the left or to liberalism, but rather to the new right. Owens often goes too far in her rhetoric, and there are indications of emerging signs of hostility toward Jews in her discourse, but Carlson is careful in his speech to make distinctions.
He has admitted that, because of the genocide, he educated himself on the Palestinian cause and its history and has begun to argue in its defense. Israel accused him of being an agent of Qatar without any evidence. He is not weak when confronted with criticism or attacks by the Israeli lobby (unlike Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders).
This new trend within the American right (which is expanding among young Republicans and conservatives) constitutes the greatest threat to American policy aligned with Israel — even if only in the long run.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍5
By Dr. Jamal Wakim — December 16, 2025
Following normalization, DP World has been transformed into a regional–international platform for indirect Israeli influence over ports with high geopolitical sensitivity.
The growing role of DP World, owned by the emirates of Dubai and Abu Dhabi, has increasingly come to the fore. The company has become one of the world’s largest port operators, currently managing around 80 ports and terminals across more than forty countries. This expansion has coincided with a shift in the geopolitical role of the United Arab Emirates—from a state operating under Saudi tutelage to a player seeking a distinct regional role, particularly in the western basin of the Indian Ocean and the Red Sea.
Emirati–Israeli Cooperation After 2020
The significance of this role increased markedly after the normalization agreements with “Israel” in 2020. These agreements prompted observers to question DP World’s indirect role in enabling “Israel” to penetrate economically and security-wise into countries where DP World operates ports and facilities. This is especially the case given that normalization coincided with an expansion of logistical and security partnerships between the UAE and “Israel,” particularly in port management, maritime shipping security, surveillance technologies, and logistical data analysis.
After 2020, Israeli companies operating in maritime shipping—such as Dover Tower, ShipIn, and ZIM—signed agreements with Emirati companies affiliated with DP World that operate in shipping and maritime transport. These agreements included the operation of joint Emirati–Israeli shipping lines, the development of AI-based port monitoring technologies, the exchange of data on vessel and cargo movements, and undeclared cooperation in maritime security.
Western research centers such as RAND and INSS argue that the UAE has come to serve as a façade used by “Israel” as a secure transit point to expand its influence in sensitive ports in the Horn of Africa and the Red Sea, such as the ports of Djibouti, Eritrea, and Somalia, in addition to ports near the Bab al-Mandab Strait and others in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Access to Indian, Red Sea, and Yemeni Ports
In this context, “Israel” has come to use the UAE to access ports it cannot reach directly for several reasons, including the absence of political sensitivity among African and Arab states toward the UAE comparable to that toward “Israel,” as well as the UAE’s vast financial capabilities—capabilities that “Israel” lacks. This is in addition to the appealing slogans promoted by DP World, such as development and investment, alongside the absence of a declared Emirati political project, unlike the openly stated domination strategy pursued by “Israel.”
DP World has thus become a gateway for Israeli companies to access a large number of Indian ports managed by DP World, such as the Jawaharlal Nehru Port (Nhava Sheva), India’s largest port, and Mundra Port. It is worth noting that India’s Adani Group maintains strategic partnerships with “Israel” and operates the Port of Haifa following its privatization.
Accordingly, a trilateral partnership among “Israel,” the UAE, and India has emerged, consolidating an integrated relationship: the UAE provides capital and port networks; “Israel” provides technology and port security; and India provides a dominant geopolitical location deep within the Indian Ocean, one of the most important axes of global maritime transport. Consequently, Emirati expansion in Indian ports has become a bridge for expanding Israeli maritime influence in the Indian Ocean.
For a long time, “Israel” has set its sights on controlling Bab al-Mandab. Since 2015, the UAE has become the most influential actor in Yemeni ports, particularly Mukalla, Mocha, Balhaf, Socotra, Mayun, and even Aden before being forced out.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🌚5
The Observer
As a result of the strategic partnership between “Israel” and DP World, Tel Aviv has secured for itself a logistical and intelligence presence at Bab al-Mandab, enabling it to monitor maritime traffic—especially Iranian vessels—and allowing it to establish a forward strategic line toward Asia. The American magazine Foreign Policy has published reports on Emirati–Israeli intelligence cooperation, particularly on Yemen’s Socotra Island and on Mayun.
Israel’s Eye on Egypt and Africa
African ports are of particular interest to “Israel,” which seeks access to them—especially in East Africa—via DP World, which manages a large number of African ports.
The Emirati company previously managed the Port of Djibouti, the Port of Assab in Eritrea (which it used as a logistical base for military operations against Yemen), and the Port of Berbera in Somaliland, in addition to managing several ports in Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, and even Senegal in West Africa.
These states form part of “Israel’s” strategy to counter Iran’s attempts to expand its alliances in Africa and to monitor maritime traffic in the Red Sea. Accordingly, the expansion of the UAE’s presence in these ports grants “Israel” a long-term logistical base of influence and the opportunity to establish maritime intelligence centers capable of monitoring the flow of goods from Asia to Africa.
The danger becomes particularly pronounced when discussing Egypt, which remains “Israel’s” primary strategic adversary despite five decades having passed since the signing of a peace agreement between the two countries.
Through DP World, “Israel” seeks to expand its influence in Egyptian ports, particularly those in the Suez region. Notably, DP World has been seeking since 2006 to expand its investments in Suez ports, having acquired management of Ain Sokhna Port and established strategic partnerships within the Suez Canal Economic Zone.
Following Emirati–Israeli normalization, Egyptian concerns have intensified regarding the UAE, due to DP World’s security ties with “Israel.” Egypt fears Israeli intentions to create alternatives to the Suez Canal—such as the Haifa–Gulf railway line—and views the UAE as a Trojan horse through which Israeli influence could penetrate and control Egyptian supply chains, posing a serious threat to Egypt’s national security.
Eastern Mediterranean Ports
“Israel” is not content with exploiting DP World to penetrate ports in India, Africa, Yemen, and Egypt; it also aspires to control ports in the Eastern Mediterranean, particularly in Lebanon and Syria.
Since Israeli companies cannot directly invest in Lebanese and Syrian ports—given that both countries remain formally at war with “Israel”—they seek to control the ports of Beirut, Tartus, and Latakia through DP World, which has proposed projects to rehabilitate these ports after the extensive damage caused by prolonged wars and, in Beirut’s case, by the massive explosion of August 4, 2020.
DP World is seeking concessions to rehabilitate these ports, while “Israel” aims to exploit this process to ensure security penetration of the ports in order to monitor cargo movements, prevent Iranian logistical supplies from reaching Hezbollah in Lebanon, and assert security control over the supply chains of two countries that have been among the most persistent in confronting “Israel” over the past six decades.
It is worth noting that DP World attempted to enter Lebanon beginning in 2018 through management contracts for the ports of Beirut and Tripoli. After the 2020 Beirut port explosion, calls emerged to privatize the port, and DP World was the first company to submit a request to purchase shares.
This move, however, was opposed by some forces allied with Hezbollah, who feared the UAE’s ties with “Israel” would enable the transfer of data from the ports of Beirut and Tripoli to “Israel,” potentially exposing the movement of people and goods linked to Hezbollah and allowing such information to be used against the party.
Israel’s Eye on Egypt and Africa
African ports are of particular interest to “Israel,” which seeks access to them—especially in East Africa—via DP World, which manages a large number of African ports.
The Emirati company previously managed the Port of Djibouti, the Port of Assab in Eritrea (which it used as a logistical base for military operations against Yemen), and the Port of Berbera in Somaliland, in addition to managing several ports in Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, and even Senegal in West Africa.
These states form part of “Israel’s” strategy to counter Iran’s attempts to expand its alliances in Africa and to monitor maritime traffic in the Red Sea. Accordingly, the expansion of the UAE’s presence in these ports grants “Israel” a long-term logistical base of influence and the opportunity to establish maritime intelligence centers capable of monitoring the flow of goods from Asia to Africa.
The danger becomes particularly pronounced when discussing Egypt, which remains “Israel’s” primary strategic adversary despite five decades having passed since the signing of a peace agreement between the two countries.
Through DP World, “Israel” seeks to expand its influence in Egyptian ports, particularly those in the Suez region. Notably, DP World has been seeking since 2006 to expand its investments in Suez ports, having acquired management of Ain Sokhna Port and established strategic partnerships within the Suez Canal Economic Zone.
Following Emirati–Israeli normalization, Egyptian concerns have intensified regarding the UAE, due to DP World’s security ties with “Israel.” Egypt fears Israeli intentions to create alternatives to the Suez Canal—such as the Haifa–Gulf railway line—and views the UAE as a Trojan horse through which Israeli influence could penetrate and control Egyptian supply chains, posing a serious threat to Egypt’s national security.
Eastern Mediterranean Ports
“Israel” is not content with exploiting DP World to penetrate ports in India, Africa, Yemen, and Egypt; it also aspires to control ports in the Eastern Mediterranean, particularly in Lebanon and Syria.
Since Israeli companies cannot directly invest in Lebanese and Syrian ports—given that both countries remain formally at war with “Israel”—they seek to control the ports of Beirut, Tartus, and Latakia through DP World, which has proposed projects to rehabilitate these ports after the extensive damage caused by prolonged wars and, in Beirut’s case, by the massive explosion of August 4, 2020.
DP World is seeking concessions to rehabilitate these ports, while “Israel” aims to exploit this process to ensure security penetration of the ports in order to monitor cargo movements, prevent Iranian logistical supplies from reaching Hezbollah in Lebanon, and assert security control over the supply chains of two countries that have been among the most persistent in confronting “Israel” over the past six decades.
It is worth noting that DP World attempted to enter Lebanon beginning in 2018 through management contracts for the ports of Beirut and Tripoli. After the 2020 Beirut port explosion, calls emerged to privatize the port, and DP World was the first company to submit a request to purchase shares.
This move, however, was opposed by some forces allied with Hezbollah, who feared the UAE’s ties with “Israel” would enable the transfer of data from the ports of Beirut and Tripoli to “Israel,” potentially exposing the movement of people and goods linked to Hezbollah and allowing such information to be used against the party.
👍3
The Observer
As a result of the strategic partnership between “Israel” and DP World, Tel Aviv has secured for itself a logistical and intelligence presence at Bab al-Mandab, enabling it to monitor maritime traffic—especially Iranian vessels—and allowing it to establish…
A Front for “Israel”?
DP World constitutes an ideal front for “Israel” because it possesses a global network of relationships that “Israel” itself cannot easily acquire due to many states’ diplomatic sensitivity toward the entity.
Moreover, the UAE’s position as a neutral financial–logistical hub facilitates the penetration of Israeli influence without raising suspicion in the states targeted by Tel Aviv for intelligence expansion. In addition, cooperation between “Israel” and DP World facilitates Israeli intelligence activities through artificial intelligence across a large number of states, while also benefiting from the UAE’s involvement in regional conflicts such as Yemen and the Horn of Africa in ways that serve Israeli strategic interests.
It is also noteworthy that there is strategic alignment between the objectives of “Israel” and those of the UAE. Abu Dhabi seeks to establish a ports empire, particularly in the western basin of the Indian Ocean, while “Israel” aims to control supply chains from Asia to the Mediterranean.
It can therefore be said that, following normalization, DP World has become a regional–international platform for indirect Israeli influence over ports of high geopolitical sensitivity.
This influence is not exercised through the raising of the “Israeli” flag or the direct presence of Israeli companies, but through port acquisitions, supply-chain management, the deployment of Israeli security technologies, and the exchange of maritime data. Taken together, these elements have granted “Israel,” for the first time in its history, a maritime geopolitical expansion stretching from the Strait of Hormuz in the east to East Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean in the west.
➡️ Source (click here)
🔵 Link to the article in Arabic
🖋 @observer_5
DP World constitutes an ideal front for “Israel” because it possesses a global network of relationships that “Israel” itself cannot easily acquire due to many states’ diplomatic sensitivity toward the entity.
Moreover, the UAE’s position as a neutral financial–logistical hub facilitates the penetration of Israeli influence without raising suspicion in the states targeted by Tel Aviv for intelligence expansion. In addition, cooperation between “Israel” and DP World facilitates Israeli intelligence activities through artificial intelligence across a large number of states, while also benefiting from the UAE’s involvement in regional conflicts such as Yemen and the Horn of Africa in ways that serve Israeli strategic interests.
It is also noteworthy that there is strategic alignment between the objectives of “Israel” and those of the UAE. Abu Dhabi seeks to establish a ports empire, particularly in the western basin of the Indian Ocean, while “Israel” aims to control supply chains from Asia to the Mediterranean.
It can therefore be said that, following normalization, DP World has become a regional–international platform for indirect Israeli influence over ports of high geopolitical sensitivity.
This influence is not exercised through the raising of the “Israeli” flag or the direct presence of Israeli companies, but through port acquisitions, supply-chain management, the deployment of Israeli security technologies, and the exchange of maritime data. Taken together, these elements have granted “Israel,” for the first time in its history, a maritime geopolitical expansion stretching from the Strait of Hormuz in the east to East Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean in the west.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍2🌚2❤1
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
THE "FIRST JEWISH PRESIDENT": Donald Trump, the Conversion Myth, and the Theology of Permanent War
The rumors circulating on encrypted channels and in the corridors of power regarding Donald Trump’s alleged "conversion" to Judaism are not merely tabloid gossip. They are a symptom of a much deeper, more dangerous pathology in American foreign policy.
Whether Donald Trump has secretly recited the Shema is irrelevant; politically, financially, and militarily, he has become the most effective Zionist operative in history.
This narrative—that Trump is spiritually, if not halakhically, Jewish—is a weaponized myth. It serves to sanctify the genocide in Gaza, legitimize the annexation of the West Bank, and frame the American imperial project in the Middle East not as a strategic choice, but as a divine mandate.
1. The Genesis of the Myth: From Metaphor to "Hidden Truth"
The narrative of Trump’s "Jewish soul" was not born in a synagogue, but in the propaganda mills of the American right. It began during his first term when conservative Zionist commentator Mark Levin famously declared Trump "the first Jewish president."
Levin argued that because Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, converted and his grandchildren are Jewish, and because his policies aligned so perfectly with the Israeli right, he had effectively "converted" in spirit.
* The Kushner Factor:
Jared Kushner, the architect of the disastrous "Deal of the Century," played the role of the bridge. By integrating Trump into the inner circles of Orthodox Jewish high society in New York and Florida, Kushner created an environment where Trump’s identity was fused with Zionist interests.
* The Echo Chamber:
Today, in 2025, this metaphor has mutated. On Telegram channels and Evangelical forums, the claim of a "secret conversion" circulates to explain his fanatical devotion to Israel. It tells his base that his actions are not just political, but covenantal.
2. The Paymasters: Faith or Finance?
While the naive discuss theology, the realist follows the money. The engine behind Trump’s "conversion" to total Zionism is not the Torah, but the Adelson fortune.
* The $106 Million Down Payment:
In the 2024 election cycle, Miriam Adelson became the third-largest donor to Trump’s campaign, contributing over $106 million. This was not charity; it was a transaction. Adelson, who famously advocated for the annexation of the West Bank, did not buy a president; she bought a viceroy for Israel.
* Transactional Theology:
Trump’s policies—from the "Gaza Riviera" plans drafted by the Tony Blair Institute to the recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Occupied Territories—are the direct dividends of this investment. The "Jewish President" narrative effectively launders this bribery, framing corrupt donor influence as "spiritual alignment."
3. The 2025 Reality: The "Cyrus" of the Apocalypse
The irony of the "conversion" rumor is that Trump’s most fervent supporters are not Jews, but Christian Zionists. To figures like Mike Evans and the millions of Evangelicals who form the MAGA base, Trump is not a convert to Judaism, but the modern-day "Cyrus"—a heathen king anointed by God to restore Israel.
* The Theology of Genocide:
This demographic views the wars in Gaza and Lebanon not as humanitarian catastrophes, but as necessary preludes to the End Times. When Trump’s National Security Advisor Mike Waltz says "let Israel finish the job," he is speaking to a constituency that believes Israeli military dominance is a biblical requirement.
* The Unholy Alliance:
The "conversion" myth serves to unite these two disparate groups: Right-wing Jewish Zionists see a protector, while Christian Zionists see a prophecy fulfilled. The Palestinians are merely collateral damage in this theological drama.
4. Policy as Proof: The Erasure of Palestine
In his second term, Trump has stripped away the mask of "neutral mediator." The decisions made in late 2024 and throughout 2025 demonstrate a policy of total erasure.
* The "Riviera" Fantasy:
The rumors circulating on encrypted channels and in the corridors of power regarding Donald Trump’s alleged "conversion" to Judaism are not merely tabloid gossip. They are a symptom of a much deeper, more dangerous pathology in American foreign policy.
Whether Donald Trump has secretly recited the Shema is irrelevant; politically, financially, and militarily, he has become the most effective Zionist operative in history.
This narrative—that Trump is spiritually, if not halakhically, Jewish—is a weaponized myth. It serves to sanctify the genocide in Gaza, legitimize the annexation of the West Bank, and frame the American imperial project in the Middle East not as a strategic choice, but as a divine mandate.
1. The Genesis of the Myth: From Metaphor to "Hidden Truth"
The narrative of Trump’s "Jewish soul" was not born in a synagogue, but in the propaganda mills of the American right. It began during his first term when conservative Zionist commentator Mark Levin famously declared Trump "the first Jewish president."
Levin argued that because Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, converted and his grandchildren are Jewish, and because his policies aligned so perfectly with the Israeli right, he had effectively "converted" in spirit.
* The Kushner Factor:
Jared Kushner, the architect of the disastrous "Deal of the Century," played the role of the bridge. By integrating Trump into the inner circles of Orthodox Jewish high society in New York and Florida, Kushner created an environment where Trump’s identity was fused with Zionist interests.
* The Echo Chamber:
Today, in 2025, this metaphor has mutated. On Telegram channels and Evangelical forums, the claim of a "secret conversion" circulates to explain his fanatical devotion to Israel. It tells his base that his actions are not just political, but covenantal.
2. The Paymasters: Faith or Finance?
While the naive discuss theology, the realist follows the money. The engine behind Trump’s "conversion" to total Zionism is not the Torah, but the Adelson fortune.
* The $106 Million Down Payment:
In the 2024 election cycle, Miriam Adelson became the third-largest donor to Trump’s campaign, contributing over $106 million. This was not charity; it was a transaction. Adelson, who famously advocated for the annexation of the West Bank, did not buy a president; she bought a viceroy for Israel.
* Transactional Theology:
Trump’s policies—from the "Gaza Riviera" plans drafted by the Tony Blair Institute to the recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Occupied Territories—are the direct dividends of this investment. The "Jewish President" narrative effectively launders this bribery, framing corrupt donor influence as "spiritual alignment."
3. The 2025 Reality: The "Cyrus" of the Apocalypse
The irony of the "conversion" rumor is that Trump’s most fervent supporters are not Jews, but Christian Zionists. To figures like Mike Evans and the millions of Evangelicals who form the MAGA base, Trump is not a convert to Judaism, but the modern-day "Cyrus"—a heathen king anointed by God to restore Israel.
* The Theology of Genocide:
This demographic views the wars in Gaza and Lebanon not as humanitarian catastrophes, but as necessary preludes to the End Times. When Trump’s National Security Advisor Mike Waltz says "let Israel finish the job," he is speaking to a constituency that believes Israeli military dominance is a biblical requirement.
* The Unholy Alliance:
The "conversion" myth serves to unite these two disparate groups: Right-wing Jewish Zionists see a protector, while Christian Zionists see a prophecy fulfilled. The Palestinians are merely collateral damage in this theological drama.
4. Policy as Proof: The Erasure of Palestine
In his second term, Trump has stripped away the mask of "neutral mediator." The decisions made in late 2024 and throughout 2025 demonstrate a policy of total erasure.
* The "Riviera" Fantasy:
👍5
The Observer
THE "FIRST JEWISH PRESIDENT": Donald Trump, the Conversion Myth, and the Theology of Permanent War The rumors circulating on encrypted channels and in the corridors of power regarding Donald Trump’s alleged "conversion" to Judaism are not merely tabloid…
The administration’s endorsement of the Tony Blair Institute’s plan to rebuild Gaza as a "tourism hub"—after ethnically cleansing its population—is the ultimate expression of this cynicism. It treats Gaza not as a homeland, but as a real estate opportunity.
* Sharm el-Sheikh & The Abraham Accords:
The signing of the "Trump 20-Point Peace Plan" in Sharm el-Sheikh (October 2025) was a theatrical display of normalization. By expanding the Abraham Accords, Trump has attempted to construct a regional NATO (the "Middle East Strategic Alliance") designed solely to confront the Axis of Resistance. The "peace" offered is the peace of the graveyard for Palestinian aspirations.
5. Confrontational Analysis: The Strategic Utility of the "Jew" Trump
Why does the establishment allow, or even encourage, these rumors? Because a "Jewish" Trump is shielded from criticism.
* Immunization:
If the President is "culturally Jewish," accusations of antisemitism—often weaponized against critics of Israel—become impossible to stick to him, even as he emboldens white supremacists at home.
* Legitimacy:
For the Zionist entity, having a U.S. President viewed as "one of us" validates their most extreme violations of international law. It turns the occupation from a political dispute into a family affair, where the U.S. cannot intervene because it is "part of the family."
Conclusion:
The Weaponization of Identity
Donald Trump has not converted to Judaism. He has converted to Zionism—a political ideology of supremacy and expansion. The rumors of his religious shift are a smokescreen designed to hide the cold, hard reality of imperial interests. By cloaking $100 million donations and geopolitical maneuvering in religious robes, the U.S. and Israel have manufactured a "Holy War" narrative to justify the permanent subjugation of the region.
Whether he prays to Yahweh, Jesus, or the Almighty Dollar, the result for the Resistance is the same:
the United States remains the Great Satan, and Trump is its most willing executioner.
🔵 Link to the article in Arabic
🖋 @observer_5
* Sharm el-Sheikh & The Abraham Accords:
The signing of the "Trump 20-Point Peace Plan" in Sharm el-Sheikh (October 2025) was a theatrical display of normalization. By expanding the Abraham Accords, Trump has attempted to construct a regional NATO (the "Middle East Strategic Alliance") designed solely to confront the Axis of Resistance. The "peace" offered is the peace of the graveyard for Palestinian aspirations.
5. Confrontational Analysis: The Strategic Utility of the "Jew" Trump
Why does the establishment allow, or even encourage, these rumors? Because a "Jewish" Trump is shielded from criticism.
* Immunization:
If the President is "culturally Jewish," accusations of antisemitism—often weaponized against critics of Israel—become impossible to stick to him, even as he emboldens white supremacists at home.
* Legitimacy:
For the Zionist entity, having a U.S. President viewed as "one of us" validates their most extreme violations of international law. It turns the occupation from a political dispute into a family affair, where the U.S. cannot intervene because it is "part of the family."
Conclusion:
The Weaponization of Identity
Donald Trump has not converted to Judaism. He has converted to Zionism—a political ideology of supremacy and expansion. The rumors of his religious shift are a smokescreen designed to hide the cold, hard reality of imperial interests. By cloaking $100 million donations and geopolitical maneuvering in religious robes, the U.S. and Israel have manufactured a "Holy War" narrative to justify the permanent subjugation of the region.
Whether he prays to Yahweh, Jesus, or the Almighty Dollar, the result for the Resistance is the same:
the United States remains the Great Satan, and Trump is its most willing executioner.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍5
Energy Hegemony, the Egypt–Israel Gas Deal, and the Political Economy of Managed Arab Dependency
Abstract
The December 2025 approval of a long-term natural gas export agreement between Israel and Egypt—valued at approximately USD 34–35 billion and extending until 2040—marks a decisive turning point in Eastern Mediterranean energy politics. Celebrated by Israeli leadership as the largest economic deal in the state’s history, the agreement consolidates Israel’s position as a regional energy hegemon while transforming Egypt from a former gas exporter into a structurally dependent consumer. This article situates the deal within a broader political economy of energy securitization, normalization, and coercive interdependence. It traces the history of the Leviathan gas field, examines the contractual and geopolitical mechanisms that produced Egypt’s dependency, and analyzes the deal’s economic, political, and moral ramifications—particularly in the context of the ongoing siege of Gaza. A comparative section evaluates the Israel–Lebanon maritime dispute over the Karish and Qana fields, demonstrating how resistance produces limited rights while compliance generates dependency. The article argues that energy has become a primary instrument of regional domination, revealing a wider pattern of managed Arab sovereignty under Israeli and U.S. oversight.
Introduction: The Reversal of Energy Sovereignty
“Egypt conceded gas fields within its own maritime environment to the Israeli occupation, only to return as a supplicant buyer—transforming itself from a rights-holder into a subordinate client.”
This formulation captures the structural reality underlying the Egypt–Israel gas deal ratified by the Israeli government in December 2025. Far from a neutral commercial transaction, the agreement represents a historic reversal in regional energy relations, whereby Egypt—once a major gas producer and exporter—has been repositioned as a long-term consumer of Israeli gas.
According to Reuters, the agreement covers the export of approximately 130 billion cubic meters (bcm) of natural gas from Israel’s Leviathan field to Egypt through 2040, with an estimated total value of USD 34–35 billion. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the agreement as “the largest economic deal in Israel’s history,” a characterization that underscores its strategic importance rather than its commercial neutrality.
This article argues that the deal must be read as part of a broader architecture of domination in which energy operates as a mechanism of normalization, dependency, and political leverage. From the perspective of the axis of resistance, the agreement strengthens Israel’s war economy, deepens Egypt’s fiscal and political vulnerability, and unfolds amid the ongoing siege and destruction of Gaza—without any humanitarian or political conditionality.
The Leviathan Gas Field: Discovery, Control, and Strategic Weaponization
Discovered in 2010, the Leviathan gas field is one of the largest offshore gas discoveries in recent history, with estimated reserves exceeding 620 bcm. Located roughly 130 kilometers west of the Palestinian coast under Israeli control, the field entered commercial production in 2019.
Leviathan is operated by Chevron, alongside Israeli partners NewMed Energy (formerly Delek Drilling) and Ratio Oil Exploration. From its inception, the field was conceptualized not merely as a domestic energy source but as the backbone of a regional export strategy aimed at repositioning Israel as an indispensable energy hub linking Europe, Arab markets, and global LNG supply chains.
Israeli policy discourse and industry reporting consistently framed Leviathan as a strategic asset capable of reshaping regional power relations. Energy, in this context, was never divorced from geopolitics; rather, it became an extension of Israel’s security doctrine through economic means.
Egypt’s Energy Decline: From Exporter to Importer
The Illusion of Self-Sufficiency
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍3
The Observer
The discovery of Egypt’s Zohr gas field in 2015 briefly appeared to counterbalance Israel’s rise as a gas exporter. Egyptian authorities proclaimed energy self-sufficiency and promoted Egypt as a regional energy hub. Yet this narrative obscured deeper structural weaknesses, including declining production in older fields, chronic underinvestment, rapid domestic demand growth, and severe fiscal constraints.
By the early 2020s, Egypt’s gas surplus had eroded. LNG exports fluctuated, electricity shortages re-emerged, and the state increasingly relied on external borrowing rather than long-term sectoral reform.
Contractual Dependency and the Road to 2025
The first decisive shift occurred in 2018, when Egypt began importing Israeli gas through private intermediaries such as Dolphinus Holdings. This was not a temporary measure but the institutionalization of dependency.
The August 2025 Leviathan–Egypt agreement, formally approved in December, locked Egypt into a 15-year purchase commitment, guaranteeing Israel a stable export market regardless of political or regional developments.
Egyptian pipelines and LNG facilities now serve Israeli exports, effectively transforming Egyptian infrastructure into a logistical extension of Israel’s energy strategy.
Economic Consequences for Egypt: Debt, Dependency, and Sovereignty Erosion
The deal imposes significant long-term costs on Egypt’s already fragile economy. Payments are largely denominated in foreign currency, exacerbating Egypt’s balance-of-payments crisis at a time of acute dollar shortages, high inflation, and mounting external debt.
Energy costs will either be transferred to consumers—through higher electricity and fuel prices—or absorbed by the state via subsidies, deepening fiscal deficits. In either scenario, the social burden will fall disproportionately on ordinary Egyptians.
Beyond economics, the deal represents a profound erosion of energy sovereignty. When electricity generation and industrial production depend on gas supplied by a historically hostile state, political autonomy becomes structurally constrained. Energy dependency thus translates directly into political vulnerability.
Israel’s Gains: Revenue, Leverage, and the War Economy
Israel emerges as the unequivocal beneficiary. The deal guarantees:
• USD 34–35 billion in long-term revenues
• Stable demand through 2040
• Enhanced geopolitical leverage over Egypt
• Expanded credibility as a global energy supplier
According to the Financial Times, Israeli state revenues from taxation and royalties will significantly boost public finances. These revenues directly support Israel’s military and security sectors, particularly during a period of prolonged warfare.
In effect, Egyptian energy consumption becomes a financial pillar of Israel’s war economy.
The Karish–Qana Dispute: Lebanon, Managed Rights, and Contained Sovereignty
The Egypt–Israel gas arrangement must be contextualized alongside another pivotal Eastern Mediterranean case: the maritime dispute between Lebanon and Israel over the Karish and Qana (Sidon) gas fields.
Karish, located south of the disputed maritime line, was unilaterally developed by Israel and entered production in 2022 under Energean. Lebanon objected to Israeli extraction prior to demarcation, warning that unilateral production constituted an act of aggression.
Under the U.S.-mediated agreement of October 2022:
• Israel retained full rights to Karish
• Lebanon secured exploration rights over Qana
• Israel is entitled to indirect financial compensation from any Qana revenues, paid via the operating company TotalEnergies
Has Lebanon Secured Its Rights?
Legally, Lebanon did obtain internationally recognized exploration rights without formal normalization with Israel—unlike Egypt. No direct gas trade or long-term dependency was created. However, Lebanon’s gains remain partial and constrained.
As of 2025, Lebanon has not extracted a single cubic meter of gas from Qana.
By the early 2020s, Egypt’s gas surplus had eroded. LNG exports fluctuated, electricity shortages re-emerged, and the state increasingly relied on external borrowing rather than long-term sectoral reform.
Contractual Dependency and the Road to 2025
The first decisive shift occurred in 2018, when Egypt began importing Israeli gas through private intermediaries such as Dolphinus Holdings. This was not a temporary measure but the institutionalization of dependency.
The August 2025 Leviathan–Egypt agreement, formally approved in December, locked Egypt into a 15-year purchase commitment, guaranteeing Israel a stable export market regardless of political or regional developments.
Egyptian pipelines and LNG facilities now serve Israeli exports, effectively transforming Egyptian infrastructure into a logistical extension of Israel’s energy strategy.
Economic Consequences for Egypt: Debt, Dependency, and Sovereignty Erosion
The deal imposes significant long-term costs on Egypt’s already fragile economy. Payments are largely denominated in foreign currency, exacerbating Egypt’s balance-of-payments crisis at a time of acute dollar shortages, high inflation, and mounting external debt.
Energy costs will either be transferred to consumers—through higher electricity and fuel prices—or absorbed by the state via subsidies, deepening fiscal deficits. In either scenario, the social burden will fall disproportionately on ordinary Egyptians.
Beyond economics, the deal represents a profound erosion of energy sovereignty. When electricity generation and industrial production depend on gas supplied by a historically hostile state, political autonomy becomes structurally constrained. Energy dependency thus translates directly into political vulnerability.
Israel’s Gains: Revenue, Leverage, and the War Economy
Israel emerges as the unequivocal beneficiary. The deal guarantees:
• USD 34–35 billion in long-term revenues
• Stable demand through 2040
• Enhanced geopolitical leverage over Egypt
• Expanded credibility as a global energy supplier
According to the Financial Times, Israeli state revenues from taxation and royalties will significantly boost public finances. These revenues directly support Israel’s military and security sectors, particularly during a period of prolonged warfare.
In effect, Egyptian energy consumption becomes a financial pillar of Israel’s war economy.
The Karish–Qana Dispute: Lebanon, Managed Rights, and Contained Sovereignty
The Egypt–Israel gas arrangement must be contextualized alongside another pivotal Eastern Mediterranean case: the maritime dispute between Lebanon and Israel over the Karish and Qana (Sidon) gas fields.
Karish, located south of the disputed maritime line, was unilaterally developed by Israel and entered production in 2022 under Energean. Lebanon objected to Israeli extraction prior to demarcation, warning that unilateral production constituted an act of aggression.
Under the U.S.-mediated agreement of October 2022:
• Israel retained full rights to Karish
• Lebanon secured exploration rights over Qana
• Israel is entitled to indirect financial compensation from any Qana revenues, paid via the operating company TotalEnergies
Has Lebanon Secured Its Rights?
Legally, Lebanon did obtain internationally recognized exploration rights without formal normalization with Israel—unlike Egypt. No direct gas trade or long-term dependency was created. However, Lebanon’s gains remain partial and constrained.
As of 2025, Lebanon has not extracted a single cubic meter of gas from Qana.
👍3
The Observer
The discovery of Egypt’s Zohr gas field in 2015 briefly appeared to counterbalance Israel’s rise as a gas exporter. Egyptian authorities proclaimed energy self-sufficiency and promoted Egypt as a regional energy hub. Yet this narrative obscured deeper structural…
Exploration remains subject to corporate hesitation, geopolitical instability, and Western political pressure. Meanwhile, Israel’s production from Karish and Leviathan is immediate, monetized, and export-oriented.
Lebanon has secured legal access, not energy sovereignty.
Comparison with Egypt
Crucially, Lebanon’s limited gains were inseparable from deterrence. Negotiations accelerated only after credible resistance threats during the Karish standoff. Egypt, by contrast, negotiated from a position of compliance, not leverage.
Gaza and the Moral Rupture of Energy Normalization
The gas deal was approved while Gaza remained under total siege, deprived of electricity, fuel, and humanitarian relief. Energy, in this context, is not neutral; it is weaponized.
Despite claiming a mediating role, Egypt did not condition the agreement on lifting the siege or guaranteeing humanitarian access. From the axis-of-resistance perspective, this constitutes economic complicity and normalization amid mass civilian suffering.
Energy as Hegemony: A Political Economy Reading
The Egypt–Israel gas deal exemplifies energy securitization: the transformation of natural resources into instruments of coercion, discipline, and normalization. Israel’s gas exports function simultaneously as:
• A normalization mechanism
• A source of war financing
• A tool of regional leverage
This reflects a neo-colonial pattern in which peripheral states provide infrastructure and markets while dominant powers extract value and impose structural constraints.
Conclusion: Against the Geography of Subordination
The Egypt–Israel gas deal is not simply an economic contract; it is a strategic architecture that reshapes regional power relations. It converts Egypt into a dependent consumer, finances Israeli militarism, and proceeds without regard for Gaza’s suffering.
The Lebanon case demonstrates that resistance can extract limited rights, while Egypt’s experience shows that compliance produces dependency. Energy sovereignty, the article concludes, cannot be separated from political leverage.
A state that imports its energy from its occupier does not merely lose resources—it forfeits decision-making itself.
🔵 Link to the article in Arabic
🖋 @observer_5
Lebanon has secured legal access, not energy sovereignty.
Comparison with Egypt
Crucially, Lebanon’s limited gains were inseparable from deterrence. Negotiations accelerated only after credible resistance threats during the Karish standoff. Egypt, by contrast, negotiated from a position of compliance, not leverage.
Gaza and the Moral Rupture of Energy Normalization
The gas deal was approved while Gaza remained under total siege, deprived of electricity, fuel, and humanitarian relief. Energy, in this context, is not neutral; it is weaponized.
Despite claiming a mediating role, Egypt did not condition the agreement on lifting the siege or guaranteeing humanitarian access. From the axis-of-resistance perspective, this constitutes economic complicity and normalization amid mass civilian suffering.
Energy as Hegemony: A Political Economy Reading
The Egypt–Israel gas deal exemplifies energy securitization: the transformation of natural resources into instruments of coercion, discipline, and normalization. Israel’s gas exports function simultaneously as:
• A normalization mechanism
• A source of war financing
• A tool of regional leverage
This reflects a neo-colonial pattern in which peripheral states provide infrastructure and markets while dominant powers extract value and impose structural constraints.
Conclusion: Against the Geography of Subordination
The Egypt–Israel gas deal is not simply an economic contract; it is a strategic architecture that reshapes regional power relations. It converts Egypt into a dependent consumer, finances Israeli militarism, and proceeds without regard for Gaza’s suffering.
The Lebanon case demonstrates that resistance can extract limited rights, while Egypt’s experience shows that compliance produces dependency. Energy sovereignty, the article concludes, cannot be separated from political leverage.
A state that imports its energy from its occupier does not merely lose resources—it forfeits decision-making itself.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍6
The Occupied Syrian Golan: From Military Occupation to Political Commodification by Netanyahu, Trump, and Arab Normalization
The occupied Syrian Golan Heights remains one of the most enduring unresolved issues in the Arab–Zionist conflict—not merely as occupied territory, but as a litmus test for the credibility of international law and the principle of sovereignty. Since 1967, the Golan has been transformed into a strategic, security, and economic asset for Israel, while being politically frozen under U.S. protection and Arab fragmentation.
1. The Golan: Syrian Territory Under History and International Law
Prior to the June 1967 Six-Day War, the Golan Heights were an integral part of the Syrian Arab Republic, administered militarily and civilly from Damascus and populated by dozens of Syrian villages. During the war, Israel occupied most of the plateau, forcibly displacing its inhabitants.
In 1981, the Israeli Knesset passed the Golan Heights Law, imposing Israeli law and administration on the occupied territory in a unilateral act of annexation. The UN Security Council responded unanimously with Resolution 497, declaring the annexation “null and void and without international legal effect,” reaffirming that the Golan remains Syrian territory under occupation. However, the absence of enforcement mechanisms allowed Israel to consolidate occupation as a fait accompli.
2. Netanyahu: Institutionalizing Occupation as ‘Sovereignty’
For Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Golan Heights are not merely a buffer zone but a core pillar of Israel’s security doctrine and a nationalist political symbol. Throughout 2024–2025, Netanyahu repeatedly asserted that the Golan “will always remain part of Israel,” framing permanent control as a security necessity.
Just days ago, in mid-December 2025, Netanyahu once again publicly reaffirmed that the Golan Heights are part of Israel—reiterating a long-standing position rather than announcing a new legal reality. These statements aim to normalize annexation politically, despite its continued illegality under international law.
3. Trump’s 18 December 2025 Decision: ‘Granting Rights of Sovereignty’
On 18 December 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that he had signed a decision granting Israel what he described as “rights of sovereignty” over the Syrian Golan Heights. Speaking from the White House, Trump stated that he made the decision after realizing the strategic importance of the territory.
While politically significant, this move does not alter the international legal status of the Golan. Under UN resolutions and international consensus, the territory remains occupied Syrian land. The recognition reflects U.S. unilateralism rather than any lawful change in sovereignty.
4. Trump and the ‘Trillions of Dollars’ Remark
In widely circulated remarks, Trump later admitted that when he initially recognized Israeli control over the Golan, he believed it to be a minor issue—only to discover afterward that the territory was “worth trillions of dollars.” The statement exposed the transactional mindset behind the decision, highlighting interests tied to water resources, agriculture, strategic elevation, and potential natural wealth.
These remarks underscored that the recognition was driven by geopolitical and economic calculations, not legal or ethical considerations.
5. Syria After the War: A Vacuum Exploited
Although the Golan was occupied in 1967, Syria’s prolonged war after 2011 significantly weakened the state’s ability to impose deterrence in the south. Israel exploited this condition to expand control beyond the 1974 Disengagement Line, occupy demilitarized zones, and conduct hundreds of air operations under the pretext of countering Iranian and allied forces.
Claims that the Golan was lost due to Syria’s internal collapse are misleading; the occupation predates the war by decades. Nevertheless, the conflict provided Israel with unprecedented freedom to entrench its hold.
6. Who Lives in the Golan Today?
The occupied Syrian Golan Heights remains one of the most enduring unresolved issues in the Arab–Zionist conflict—not merely as occupied territory, but as a litmus test for the credibility of international law and the principle of sovereignty. Since 1967, the Golan has been transformed into a strategic, security, and economic asset for Israel, while being politically frozen under U.S. protection and Arab fragmentation.
1. The Golan: Syrian Territory Under History and International Law
Prior to the June 1967 Six-Day War, the Golan Heights were an integral part of the Syrian Arab Republic, administered militarily and civilly from Damascus and populated by dozens of Syrian villages. During the war, Israel occupied most of the plateau, forcibly displacing its inhabitants.
In 1981, the Israeli Knesset passed the Golan Heights Law, imposing Israeli law and administration on the occupied territory in a unilateral act of annexation. The UN Security Council responded unanimously with Resolution 497, declaring the annexation “null and void and without international legal effect,” reaffirming that the Golan remains Syrian territory under occupation. However, the absence of enforcement mechanisms allowed Israel to consolidate occupation as a fait accompli.
2. Netanyahu: Institutionalizing Occupation as ‘Sovereignty’
For Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Golan Heights are not merely a buffer zone but a core pillar of Israel’s security doctrine and a nationalist political symbol. Throughout 2024–2025, Netanyahu repeatedly asserted that the Golan “will always remain part of Israel,” framing permanent control as a security necessity.
Just days ago, in mid-December 2025, Netanyahu once again publicly reaffirmed that the Golan Heights are part of Israel—reiterating a long-standing position rather than announcing a new legal reality. These statements aim to normalize annexation politically, despite its continued illegality under international law.
3. Trump’s 18 December 2025 Decision: ‘Granting Rights of Sovereignty’
On 18 December 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that he had signed a decision granting Israel what he described as “rights of sovereignty” over the Syrian Golan Heights. Speaking from the White House, Trump stated that he made the decision after realizing the strategic importance of the territory.
While politically significant, this move does not alter the international legal status of the Golan. Under UN resolutions and international consensus, the territory remains occupied Syrian land. The recognition reflects U.S. unilateralism rather than any lawful change in sovereignty.
4. Trump and the ‘Trillions of Dollars’ Remark
In widely circulated remarks, Trump later admitted that when he initially recognized Israeli control over the Golan, he believed it to be a minor issue—only to discover afterward that the territory was “worth trillions of dollars.” The statement exposed the transactional mindset behind the decision, highlighting interests tied to water resources, agriculture, strategic elevation, and potential natural wealth.
These remarks underscored that the recognition was driven by geopolitical and economic calculations, not legal or ethical considerations.
5. Syria After the War: A Vacuum Exploited
Although the Golan was occupied in 1967, Syria’s prolonged war after 2011 significantly weakened the state’s ability to impose deterrence in the south. Israel exploited this condition to expand control beyond the 1974 Disengagement Line, occupy demilitarized zones, and conduct hundreds of air operations under the pretext of countering Iranian and allied forces.
Claims that the Golan was lost due to Syria’s internal collapse are misleading; the occupation predates the war by decades. Nevertheless, the conflict provided Israel with unprecedented freedom to entrench its hold.
6. Who Lives in the Golan Today?
👍6
The Observer
The Occupied Syrian Golan: From Military Occupation to Political Commodification by Netanyahu, Trump, and Arab Normalization The occupied Syrian Golan Heights remains one of the most enduring unresolved issues in the Arab–Zionist conflict—not merely as occupied…
Approximately 50,000 people currently live in the occupied Golan Heights. They include:
• Israeli Jewish settlers residing in illegal settlements
• Syrian Arab Druze communities, many of whom continue to reject Israeli citizenship and maintain their Syrian identity
Israel pursues gradual “Israelization” through education, infrastructure, and economic integration, but societal and political resistance persists.
7. Strategic and Security Significance: Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine
From Israel’s perspective, the Golan provides:
• Military oversight of southern Syria
• Strategic depth against Syria and Lebanon
• A forward pressure point against the Axis of Resistance
From the resistance viewpoint, the Golan functions as an advanced platform for threatening Syrian and Lebanese territory and as a cornerstone of Israel’s doctrine of domination rather than deterrence.
8. The Golan and Arab Normalization: From Silence to Complicity
The Arab silence following U.S. recognition of Israeli control over the Golan in 2019, and its renewal in 2025, cannot be separated from the broader regional shift represented by Arab normalization agreements, particularly the Abraham Accords.
Before normalization, the Golan was at least nominally referenced in Arab League statements. After normalization, it became a politically inconvenient issue. Any serious demand for its return would require confrontation with Israel and the United States—something normalization-oriented regimes are no longer willing to pursue.
More dangerously, normalization has contributed to normalizing the occupation itself, recasting Israel as a legitimate regional “security partner” with alleged rights in the Golan to counter Iran and resistance forces. Thus, the Golan has shifted from occupied Syrian land to an Israeli security asset tacitly accepted by parts of the Arab political order.
From the Axis of Resistance perspective, Israeli entrenchment in the Golan cannot be separated from normalization, which stripped occupation of its political cost and rendered international law selectively irrelevant.
9. Why the UN Has Failed to Restore the Territory
Despite clear UN resolutions, no Israeli withdrawal has occurred due to:
1. The U.S. veto, which blocks enforcement in the Security Council
2. Arab political fragmentation and the shift from confrontation to normalization
3. Syria’s exhaustion after years of war, limiting diplomatic leverage
10. Conclusion: The Golan Is an Open Struggle, Not a Closed File
The occupied Syrian Golan is not a settled issue. Under international law, it remains Syrian territory, regardless of U.S. declarations in 2019 or 18 December 2025, or Netanyahu’s repeated assertions days ago.
Trump’s admission of the Golan’s “trillion-dollar value” exposes the essence of the issue: organized land and resource appropriation under the logic of power. For the Axis of Resistance, the Golan will remain a central front in the struggle for sovereignty and liberation—not a forgotten line in UN archives.
🔵 Link to the article in Arabic
🖋 @observer_5
• Israeli Jewish settlers residing in illegal settlements
• Syrian Arab Druze communities, many of whom continue to reject Israeli citizenship and maintain their Syrian identity
Israel pursues gradual “Israelization” through education, infrastructure, and economic integration, but societal and political resistance persists.
7. Strategic and Security Significance: Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine
From Israel’s perspective, the Golan provides:
• Military oversight of southern Syria
• Strategic depth against Syria and Lebanon
• A forward pressure point against the Axis of Resistance
From the resistance viewpoint, the Golan functions as an advanced platform for threatening Syrian and Lebanese territory and as a cornerstone of Israel’s doctrine of domination rather than deterrence.
8. The Golan and Arab Normalization: From Silence to Complicity
The Arab silence following U.S. recognition of Israeli control over the Golan in 2019, and its renewal in 2025, cannot be separated from the broader regional shift represented by Arab normalization agreements, particularly the Abraham Accords.
Before normalization, the Golan was at least nominally referenced in Arab League statements. After normalization, it became a politically inconvenient issue. Any serious demand for its return would require confrontation with Israel and the United States—something normalization-oriented regimes are no longer willing to pursue.
More dangerously, normalization has contributed to normalizing the occupation itself, recasting Israel as a legitimate regional “security partner” with alleged rights in the Golan to counter Iran and resistance forces. Thus, the Golan has shifted from occupied Syrian land to an Israeli security asset tacitly accepted by parts of the Arab political order.
From the Axis of Resistance perspective, Israeli entrenchment in the Golan cannot be separated from normalization, which stripped occupation of its political cost and rendered international law selectively irrelevant.
9. Why the UN Has Failed to Restore the Territory
Despite clear UN resolutions, no Israeli withdrawal has occurred due to:
1. The U.S. veto, which blocks enforcement in the Security Council
2. Arab political fragmentation and the shift from confrontation to normalization
3. Syria’s exhaustion after years of war, limiting diplomatic leverage
10. Conclusion: The Golan Is an Open Struggle, Not a Closed File
The occupied Syrian Golan is not a settled issue. Under international law, it remains Syrian territory, regardless of U.S. declarations in 2019 or 18 December 2025, or Netanyahu’s repeated assertions days ago.
Trump’s admission of the Golan’s “trillion-dollar value” exposes the essence of the issue: organized land and resource appropriation under the logic of power. For the Axis of Resistance, the Golan will remain a central front in the struggle for sovereignty and liberation—not a forgotten line in UN archives.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍6
The current discourse surrounding Donald Trump and the Nobel Peace Prize is not a harmless diplomatic joke; it is a manifestation of a terrifying moral collapse. Trump’s frantic pursuit of this prize represents the height of imperial arrogance, but the true catastrophe lies in those "regional" voices who legitimize this obsession, forgetting that this man's hands still drip with the blood of the Leaders of Victory (Qadat al-Nasr).
1. Trump: A Butcher Seeking an Acquittal
For Trump, peace is not the end of wars or the establishment of justice; it is a "deal" enforced through economic terrorism and treacherous assassinations. How can a killer who openly ordered the cowardly missile attack targeting the martyrs Qasem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis dare to utter the word "peace"? His obsession with the Nobel is a desperate attempt to wash away his war crimes with international "prestige," transforming the blood of the martyrs into a mere hurdle cleared on his path to personal "greatness."
2. The Nobel: A History of Whitewashing Killers
It is no wonder Trump covets this prize; he is preceded by war criminals whose hands were no less bloodied than his. From Henry Kissinger, the architect of massacres in Vietnam and Cambodia, to Barack Obama, who received it while his drones harvested innocent lives in Yemen and Libya. The "Nobel" has never been about peace; it has always been a reward for the brute force that serves Western interests. Trump realizes that the criterion is not morality, but the ability to impose hegemony and wrap it in a fraudulent "diplomatic" veil.
3. The Fall of the "Diplomats": Betraying the Covenant and the Martyrs’ Blood
Here emerges the filthiest aspect of this scene: the sycophancy of figures like Abbas Araghchi and Mohammed Shia’ Al-Sudani toward this repulsive idea. For these individuals to suggest—whether publicly or in closed rooms—that Trump "deserves" the prize because he is a "dealmaker" or because he "did not start new wars" is a vile and blatant betrayal of the memory of the martyrs Soleimani and Muhandis.
How dare a
FM of a country that supported the "Axis of Resistance" or a Prime Minister of a country that embraced the blood of the Leaders of Victory offer "political gifts" to their murderer? These endorsements are not "pragmatism" or "diplomatic tactics"; they are psychological defeat and a groveling submission to the executioner. Claiming Trump is a "man of peace" is a second stabbing in the chests of the martyrs and a pathetic attempt to beg for his favor to ease sanctions or gain false legitimacy at the expense of national dignity.
4. The FIFA Farce and the Commodification of Blood
The "FIFA Peace Prize" awarded to Trump completes this theater of the absurd. The transformation of sporting institutions into tools for whitewashing the image of killers proves that "peace" has become a commodity to be bought and sold. These packaged awards are successive slaps to the faces of the orphans and widows who lost their loved ones due to Trump’s reckless decisions. The peace promoted by Infantino and Trump is the peace of the graveyard, where the victim is silenced and the killer is honored in lavish celebrations.
5. Conclusion: No Peace with Killers
Trump’s Nobel obsession, and the complicity of the "half-men" among regional politicians in polishing his image, reveals a global moral bankruptcy. "Peace" under American hegemony is nothing but disguised surrender.
The blood of Soleimani and Muhandis will continue to haunt Trump and everyone who tries to exonerate him under the guise of false "peace." Whoever shakes the hand that pressed the button of assassination, or praises it, is a partner in the crime. Neither "Nobel" nor "FIFA" will wash away the shame of murder, and history will not forgive those who traded the blood of martyrs for a faded diplomatic smile toward their killer.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍5
The "Caliphate’s" Silence vs. Canberra’s Outcry: The Bondi Beach Operation Mystery
While the Australian government issues continuous statements confirming "ISIS" responsibility for the Bondi Beach attack in Sydney (December 14, 2025)—which resulted in 15 deaths—the latest "Harvest of Soldiers" (Al-Naba) infographic remains completely void of any reference to this operation, despite its perceived "strategic importance."
Geopolitical Observations:
* Operational Disconnect: The organization focuses its statistics on "Core" and "Active Peripheral" provinces (West Africa, Central Africa, Syria, Iraq, and the Sahel), while ignoring external operations that Western governments attribute to them.
* Delayed Adoption Policy: The organization often avoids including "inspired" operations in its official weekly harvest unless they have confirmed a pledge of allegiance (Bay'ah) or a "will video," preferring to highlight the daily wars of attrition in Africa, which accounted for the vast majority of casualties in this issue (44 killed/wounded).
Questions for the Reader:
* Why does the Australian government insist on immediately attributing the operation to ISIS (based on flags found in the suspects' vehicle), while the organization refrains from mentioning it in its official harvest? Is it because he has also been pictured with a salafi preacher taking classes with him ?
* Are we looking at "lone wolves" operating so independently that the central leadership lacks the details to include them, or are there security reasons preventing the organization from announcing it now?
*Is there a possibility that it was a revenge attack because of the atrocities that were committed in Gaza ?
*Does this silence serve the organization's narrative of exhausting the West's security apparatus without providing direct threads of evidence?
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍4
The recurring spectacle of Donald Trump’s obsession with the Nobel Peace Prize is often dismissed as a quirk of his personal vanity. However, viewed through the lens of critical geopolitics, this fixation reveals a deeper, more systemic rot: the complete collapse of international "peace" awards into instruments of imperial legitimacy and corporate branding. Trump does not want the Nobel because he values peace; he wants it because, in the contemporary global order, "peace" has been hollowed out and refashioned as a transactional asset—a trophy for those who successfully enforce stability through coercion.
1. Trump and the Politics of Recognition
For Trump, the Nobel is the ultimate validation in a lifelong "politics of recognition." In his worldview, peace is not a condition of justice or the absence of structural violence; it is a "deal." Whether through the Abraham Accords or summits with adversarial leaders, Trump frames diplomacy as a high-stakes real estate transaction where the prize serves as the final receipt.
This is the securitization of peace: the belief that stability is achieved not through international law, but through the "maximum pressure" of a hegemon who decides which actors are "normalized" and which are liquidated. By equating his signature on a piece of paper with the resolution of century-old colonial conflicts, Trump transforms the ethical imperative of peace into a spectacle of ego, demanding the Nobel as a "payoff" for his service to the imperial status quo.
2. A Legacy of Moral Bankruptcy
Trump’s critics often claim he would "tarnish" the Nobel, yet history suggests the prize was tarnished long ago. The Nobel institution has a long-standing habit of rewarding power rather than principled peacebuilding:
* **Henry Kissinger (1973): Awarded while overseeing the carpet-bombing of Cambodia and supporting military juntas in Latin America.
* Barack Obama (2009): Handed an "advance" prize for his oratory, only to oversee a massive surge in drone warfare and the destruction of Libya.
* The 2025 "Crisis": The recent awarding of the prize to figures like María Corina Machado—who has openly called for military intervention and sanctions against her own country—confirms that the Nobel Committee has abandoned even the pretense of non-violence.
These precedents have created a vacuum of moral authority. Trump’s obsession is merely an honest reflection of what the prize has become: a tool for Western geopolitical alignment.
3. Tactical Endorsements: The Logic of Regional Actors
It is a profound irony of modern diplomacy that figures within the "Axis of Resistance" or its periphery—such as Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi or Iraq’s Prime Minister Mohammed Shia’ Al-Sudani—have been linked to the idea of a Trump Nobel. These are not moral endorsements; they are tactical maneuvers in a world of asymmetric power.
For regional leaders, suggesting Trump deserves a prize for "not starting new wars" is a diplomatic gambit designed to:
* Incentivize Restraint: Encouraging Trump’s vanity to prevent further military escalations or "maximum pressure" campaigns.
* Expose Western Hypocrisy: By suggesting Trump is as "deserving" as Obama or Kissinger, they highlight the absurdity of the award itself.
* Sanctions Politics: Framing peace as a transactional win for Trump provides him a "golden bridge" to de-escalate sanctions without appearing weak to his domestic base.
4. The FIFA "Peace Prize" Farce
The absurdity reached its zenith with the creation of the FIFA Peace Prize in late 2025. Awarded to Trump by Gianni Infantino amidst the backdrop of the 2026 World Cup preparations, this "award" represents the final commodification of peace. When political institutions like the Nobel Committee fail to satisfy the ego of the hegemon, corporate and sporting bodies step in to provide a substitute.
This "FIFA Peace" is a public relations product.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍4