‘I Hate Israel’

By Ismail Al Sharif

On 4 June, the Pew Research Center released a survey titled: “Most People in 36 Countries Have a Negative View of Israel and No Trust in Netanyahu.”

The study, which polled 44,657 people worldwide, revealed that negative views of Israel have become prevalent in most of the surveyed countries. On average, 67% of respondents hold a negative view of Israel, compared to only 25% who expressed a positive one.

Notably, the study found only a handful of countries—no more than a handful—where Israel enjoyed a positive view among the majority of their people.

Perhaps most importantly, this decline is no longer limited to Muslim-majority countries or societies historically known for their negative stance toward Israel. It now extends to Western countries whose people were traditionally considered supporters of Israel.

In Europe, North America, and Australia, negative views are growing, particularly among young people and those on the political left. The study indicates that young people in several countries hold more negative views of Israel than the older generations there, making the crisis far from a passing phenomenon and giving it a generational character that could have long-lasting effects.

The study also shows the division over Israel has become clearly ideological. In the United States, for example, liberals hold far more negative views than conservatives, and young Americans are more critical of Israel than the older generations. This pattern is repeated in other Western countries, where the left tends to hold even more anti-Israel positions than the right.

President Donald Trump was right when he told the war criminal [Benjamin] Netanyahu in a phone call that the world hates him; the world’s hatred for him even surpasses its hatred for Israel. The study found that a majority in most countries do not trust him. In the United States, 59% of respondents do not trust him, compared to only 27% who do. Even among American Jews, although the positive view of Israel remains relatively high, trust in Netanyahu appears to be significantly low.

The study also indicates that some countries register very high levels of negativity toward Israel, such as in Turkey, where the negative view reached 97%. In the West Bank and East Jerusalem, 85% expressed a negative opinion, compared to only 4% who expressed a positive one. It should be noted that the study did not include Gaza.

The few remaining points of support are mainly confined to some African countries, such as Kenya and Ghana, due to Zionist influence in them, but they do not amount to a clear majority in support of Israel. As for Netanyahu, he enjoys the trust of a majority of the population in only two countries: Kenya and the Philippines, where he is seen as a strong leader.

Unfortunately, this study did not include the opinion of Jordanians regarding Israel or the war criminal Netanyahu, an opinion that, in reality, does not require extensive polling. The Jordanian position on Israel and Netanyahu is well-known and consistent, and is confirmed by other studies. 

A recent Arab Barometer survey revealed that Jordanians’ view of Western policies has sharply declined due to the Gaza war, with 81% believing that the United States defends Zionist interests. A 2023 Washington Institute poll found that 84% of Jordanians oppose establishing trade relations with Israel, even if they bring economic benefits to Jordan, and 76% refuse to accept humanitarian aid from Israel, even in times of disaster.

A 2025 survey of Jordanian university students showed that 92.6% consider Israel as the “main enemy” of Jordan and the Arab world.

Besides Jordan, the study omitted the countries surrounding Israel: Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon. This omission is perhaps questionable, as the populations of these countries hold a deeply negative view of Israel and its prime minister. Their figures would have provided conclusive evidence that Israel remains a foreign entity in the region, despite peace agreements and economic interests that have failed to alter public opinion.

These figures would have raised broader questions among the world’s populations about the very notion of Israel’s acceptance within its surrounding region. If this entity is indeed surrounded by such rejection and hatred, then the logic of history and geography dictates that the region will ultimately reject it.

This article was first published in the Arabic Addustour daily newspaper and reprinted in crossfirearabia.com

Continue reading
Iran Strikes Israel With 10 Ballistic Missiles

Iran launched a missile attack on Israel on Sunday evening. This is its first time since the ceasefire between the two countries was made two months ago. The Iranian strikes came in response to Israel’s escalation of its aggression against Lebanon by targeting Beirut’s southern suburbs.

Sirens sounded in Haifa and across large areas of northern Israel after missile launches from Iran were detected. Initial reports indicated a direct hit on a building in Tiberias.

Media reports state that Iran launched 10 ballistic missiles in four slavos.

Continue reading
Iran: ‘Strategic Patience’ to ‘Sustained Confrontation’

By Najih Mohammad Ali

In a clear and direct language, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) affirmed that regional “peace and stability will not be achieved unless there is withdrawal from the occupied Lebanese territories.” This stance followed Hezbollah’s Secretary-General’s rejection of the Washington talks, emphasizing his refusal to separate the arenas and the “Dahieh for the North” equation.

This statement expresses a coherent strategic vision that considers regional stability inextricably linked to ending occupations and aggressions. It places the defense of Lebanon, Syria, and the region among Iran’s political and military priorities.

This shift to a strategy of “eternal war”—or continuous confrontation—and reflects a pragmatic and principled decision made by Tehran after decades of pressure and aggression. Iran did not abandon the idea of ​​a settlement in vain; rather, it realized that relying on partial agreements with Washington, which imposes unilateral conditions and disregards the rights of peoples, is no longer a viable option.

The cowardly assassination of Martyr Qassem Soleimani, followed by direct strikes targeting high-ranking Iranian leaders, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, proved that relying solely on “strategic patience” is mistaken for weakness. Therefore, Iran has shifted to a doctrine of active deterrence based on the entire axis of resistance, making any aggression costly for its adversaries.

This transformation was not the result of the absolute dominance of a hardline faction, as Zionist-American narratives and their Arab proxies (and, of course, the Iranian opposition abroad) claim. Rather, it is a natural evolution of the Iranian elite that stood united in the face of external aggression.

After significant losses, the priority of maintaining national and revolutionary cohesion emerged. Defending revolutionary principles—exporting the spirit of resistance and confronting arrogance—has become an essential part of the regime’s identity that has become a source of strength to prevent internal collapse whilst uniting the people behind the leadership in the face of sanctions. Pragmatists and hardliners alike now agree that continued confrontation better protects national interests than concessions that could lead to disintegration.

The leaders of the Iranian regime believe—and I think they are right—that continuing the confrontation will yield greater strategic gains than any fragile peace agreement. History proves that America understands only the language of force and attrition. From Vietnam to Afghanistan, wars of attrition forced Washington to withdraw.

Today, the “Axis of Resistance” is cleverly applying this equation: Linking the arenas to prevent separate deals that would weaken Lebanon, Iraq, or Yemen, and imposes a heavy price on its adversaries. Iranian diplomacy has been transformed into the diplomacy of the field, as General Soleimani envisioned, and is now a flexible tool that buys time and exposes the contradictions of the other side, while maintaining full military readiness.

The American-Israeli strikes have already altered Tehran’s calculations in favor of adopting an offensive-defensive posture. Instead of settling for limited responses, Iran is developing comprehensive deterrent capabilities through its natural allies, who represent the will of the region’s peoples in the face of occupation.

This is a calculated escalation, a precise strategic calculation based on resilience and strategic depth. Within the elite, a balance prevails between caution, fearing losses, and resolve, which sees resistance as the only path to dignity and independence.

Compared to the previous “strategic patience,” the strategy of sustained confrontation has proven effective in preserving battlefield gains and preventing the regional collapse of the resistance axis. It has succeeded in exhausting the enemy and strengthening internal unity, despite economic challenges primarily attributed to unjust sanctions, not Iranian policy.

The most serious risk facing this strategy lies in the possibility of miscalculation by adversaries and their attempts to impose a full-scale war, but Iran has repeatedly demonstrated an exceptional capacity for resilience and adaptation.

We are indeed facing a “simmering cold war,” where there is no false peace imposed by force, nor a total war that destroys everyone. This situation serves Iran and its axis because it maintains the strategic balance, prevents surrender, and opens the door to a comprehensive and just settlement based on withdrawal from occupied territories and respect for the sovereignty of states.

In conclusion, this “perpetual war” relies on the long-term vision of the Iranian character. It is not a whim, but an existential choice imposed by the ongoing aggression against Iran and the peoples of the region.

Iran is defending itself and the dignity of the nation, and affirms that true stability begins with ending aggression, occupation, and foreign interference. This path, despite its difficulties, reinforces Tehran’s position as an indispensable regional power and paves the way for a new balance of power that respects the rights of peoples. The region needs such firm stances to achieve an honorable peace, not surrender.

The author is a researcher in Iranian and regional affairs and this article is reproduced from the Arabic Al Rai Al Youm website and reprinted in crossfirearabia.com.

Continue reading
Israel Soldiers Shoot, Kill Baby in Hebron

A 7-month-old Palestinian infant was killed Friday and his parents wounded when the Israeli army shot at the family’s car in the Tel Rumeida area in the southern occupied West Bank, according to the Palestinian Health Ministry.

It said the Israeli army killed Sam Abu Haikal and that his father, Fahd Abdul Aziz Abu Haikal, a lecturer at Bethlehem University, lived with his wife and son in Bethlehem.

The shooting took place while Abu Haikal was on his way to his mother’s house in the Tel Rumeida neighborhood in central Hebron.

Israeli soldiers fired live ammunition, wounding the father in his hand. His wife was also wounded by the same bullet, which pierced the jaw of their infant son. All three were taken to the hospital.

The occupied West Bank has witnessed escalating Israeli military raids, arrests and settlement expansion since the start of Israel’s war on the Gaza Strip in October 2023 according to Anadolu.

Continue reading
Israeli Looters in Lebanon

❝The accounts describe the theft of motorcycles, televisions, paintings, sofas and rugs on a wide scale, which has become routine. Both senior and junior commanders on the ground are said to be aware of the phenomenon, but are not taking disciplinary action to curb it.

According to the testimonies, as IDF soldiers leave Lebanon, they load stolen items onto their vehicles openly, without attempting to conceal them. “It’s on a crazy scale,” one soldier said. “Anyone who takes something – televisions, cigarettes, tools, whatever – immediately puts it in their vehicle or leaves it off to the side, not inside the army base, but it’s not hidden. Everyone sees it and understands.” – The Palestine Project

Continue reading