USA Archives - Page 3 of 15 - CrossFireArarbia

Why is Israel Losing Support in The World?

CrossFireArabia
August 2, 2025

Those who have been exposed fully to the live-streamed genocide in Gaza are overwhelmingly the young people of the United States.

It is no secret that Israel’s stock amongst the global public has been plummeting since October 7, 2023. A top Israeli think-tank has now identified the trend as a “brewing crisis in bilateral relations”. However, reversing the damage done to Israel’s reputation is now impossible.

The Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), an influential Israeli think tank, has expressed great concern over the growing partisan gap in the United States on the issue of Israel. It took note of polling data and the growing gap between Democratic versus Republican Party support for Israel.

Support for Israel has long been a bipartisan stance in the United States. Back in 2018, according to a Gallup Poll conducted that year, some 64% of Americans supported Israel and only 21% said they leant towards Palestine.

The next year, while support for Palestine remained the same, only 59% of respondents said they supported Israel, which sparked major concerns for the Israel Lobby.

https://www.palestinechronicle.com/israel-faces-diplomatic-collapse-as-pressure-mounts-over-gaza-crisis-report/embed/#?secret=0z53Vhj5QB#?secret=Mi5ynobIy4

Fast forward to 2025 and the latest Gallup poll shows that only 32% of the US public back Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, most of whom are Republicans, with only 8% of Democrats supporting the Israeli assault.

Perhaps the most notable takeaway from the Gallup Poll however, were the opinions of young Americans, which appear to cut across Party lines in opposition to Israel. Overall, only 9% of respondents aged 18 to 34, said they supported Israel’s military actions in Gaza, while only 6% said they had a favorable view of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Recently, the right-wing Zionist Anti-Defamation League (ADL) conducted a survey and claimed to have found that 46% of the global adult population had entrenched anti-Semitic beliefs, up from 26% of adults harboring those same attitudes in 2014.

It should be noted that the ADL has been shown to include pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel views as “anti-Semitism”, which is what led to recent reports in which it concluded exponential spikes in “anti-semitic incidents”. The ADL’s reports indicate that the Zionist movement is certainly in a state of crisis.

The key takeaways here are that Americans who are women, young people, Democrats or people of color are overwhelmingly opposed to Israel. This was, just years ago, unimaginable to be speaking about the majority of the US population now standing in opposition to Israel.

A recent Pew Poll from a few months back also indicated that despite the continued Republican Party voter support for Israel, when you look specifically at Republicans aged between 18 to 49, half of them viewed Israel unfavorably.

https://www.palestinechronicle.com/worst-ratings-israel-netanyahu-face-record-low-us-support-amid-gaza-genocide/embed/#?secret=leWEcUVoYI#?secret=OY378cJqbT

Although the Pew data didn’t reveal the Gallup age range of 18 to 34, the evidence supports the notion that this demographic holds the most unfavorable views of Israel.

In response however, the Israeli government appears to be only bothering to focus its efforts on winning over young Republicans, not caring so much for Democrats that appear as a lost cause. This indicates an admission that in the future, Palestine-Israel is going to be a partisan issue in the United States.

When we also put into consideration that younger Americans get their news from social media, new media and independent commentators/journalists, more so than they do the major news outlets, it indicates that what they have already seen will have made up their mind as to where they stand on the issue.

Those who have been exposed fully to the live-streamed genocide in Gaza are overwhelmingly the young people of the United States. For them, Palestine has become the issue of a generation.

The big fear now for the Israel Lobby is that they are fully exposed and the younger generations will eventually grow up, making the population overwhelmingly pro-Palestine if no seismic shift occurs.

(The Palestine Chronicle)

– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine. He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.

Opinion

‘Mauritanians See Israeli Normalization Sinful’

CrossFireArabia
July 14, 2025

By AlDaho Sohaib

Mauritania is not a marginal country or a geographical anomaly. It is a country of silent history, long patience, and sovereignty that cannot be bought. It is the land of jurists who taught the deserts the meaning of light, and poets who made pulpits of wisdom from the sands.

Our president visited the United States, as Arab and African presidents do, not to beg or sign anything that violates conscience, but to knock on the doors of partnership and convey the voice of a small country with great pride. Has every visit to the West become an accusation? Is anyone who meets with an American official considered suspect in the eyes of those writing from behind the media veil?

Mauritania stands independently, making its own decisions, and choosing its partnerships, far removed from dependency or empty alignment.

We know that there are those who are unhappy to see Nouakchott sitting with Washington without tutelage and negotiating its interests without permission.

We say it without hesitation, and in a high-pitched voice: Mauritania is not about to normalize relations with the Zionist entity, not now or tomorrow.

Not only because it would be a betrayal of a principle, but because normalization, for Mauritanians, is an unforgivable sin, as long as Israel occupies Arab land, desecrates our holy sites, and persecutes our people in Gaza, the West Bank, and Jerusalem.

Anyone who knows this people knows that Palestine, in their conscience, does not represent a card in political discussions, but rather a constant, unwavering call.

The President of the Republic, Mr. Mohamed Ould Cheikh El Ghazouani, known for his political moderation and adherence to national principles, has never wavered from his position in support of Palestine, and neither he nor his government has issued any indication of a deviation from this line.

We write not to offend, but to preserve the weight of this position. We respond not because we are weak, but because we refuse to have the image of an entire nation reduced to a single, insinuating line, or to have a fleeting accusation pinned on his sovereign visit. Mauritania is built on principles, not on momentary positions.

It is read through its history, not through tweets written from behind a political veil.

If you want the truth, Mauritania has never sought testimony from anyone, and it will not accept anyone dictating whom to visit or whom to talk to.

It follows its own path, does not sway where the wind blows, nor does it follow an extended shadow.
It sits with the great, engages in dialogue with partners, and raises the Palestinian flag in its heart as well as in its streets. It does not need anyone to remind it of those who have always been with it, in good times and bad.

The writer is a member of the Mauritanian Parliament

Analyses

Trump, Netanyahu’s Shared Secret!

CrossFireArabia
July 6, 2025

By Dr Hasan Al Dajah

Since his arrival on the American political scene, Donald Trump has been an exceptional case in the United States’ relationship with Israel. Historically described as a strategic alliance, this relationship has transformed under Trump into a personal partnership between him and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This relationship has deepened to an unprecedented degree, with Trump becoming one of the most biased and supportive American presidents toward Netanyahu, not only in foreign policy decisions but also on issues of a purely Israeli domestic nature, such as the ongoing trials against Netanyahu or calls for early elections.

What drives Trump to this level of involvement in Israeli domestic affairs? And why does he insist on defending Netanyahu despite the criticism and accusations against him? In the current Israeli landscape, Netanyahu faces significant domestic challenges related to multiple corruption trials, in addition to escalating tensions within the ruling coalition, particularly with the religious parties, which have expressed on more than one occasion their desire to dissolve the Knesset and call for early elections. These parties, despite being partners in the government, view continuing under Netanyahu’s leadership as a political burden due to the corruption cases and poor performance in some cases. This recently prompted them to propose a vote within the Knesset to call for new elections.

In this context, Trump’s position was clearly supportive of Netanyahu, expressing his rejection of any attempt to remove Netanyahu from power and considering his continued rule essential to Israel’s stability and its security and political future. Even stranger are the reported interventions by Trump or his circle in the matter of Netanyahu’s trial. It has been reported—through both official and unofficial channels—that he called for a pardon or an end to the legal proceedings against him, arguing that these trials are politically motivated and that Netanyahu is being subjected to an unfair campaign by the Israeli judiciary. This intervention raises many questions, most importantly: What is Trump’s interest in Netanyahu’s survival? Why would he risk his political reputation for the sake of being a foreign leader facing criminal charges?

The answer to these questions requires examining the nature of the relationship between the two men. Since Trump assumed the presidency in 2017, he has pursued an unprecedented agenda in support of Israel, including moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, recognizing Israel’s sovereignty over the occupied Syrian Golan Heights, and supporting the “Deal of the Century,” considered the most biased in the history of US mediation.

All these measures were met with widespread acclaim and celebration by Netanyahu, who used them in his election campaign to bolster his domestic popularity, portraying himself as capable of bringing absolute US support to Israel.

In turn, Trump found in Netanyahu a reliable ally who reflects his vision for the Middle East and helps him win the support of a pivotal electoral base within the United States: evangelical Christians. People must realize that the true backbone of support for Israel in America is not the Jewish community, but evangelicals, who constitute approximately 25% of the population, compared to less than 2% of American Jews.

Therefore, Trump—as he has stated on more than one occasion—considers engaging with evangelicals more effective than appeasing the Jews, because they constitute a formidable lobbying force pushing for American policies aligned with the Israeli right-wing agenda, and view support for Israel as part of the Christian Zionist religious doctrine. These people see Netanyahu as the leader most qualified to preserve the “Jewishness of the state” and advance policies of expansion and hegemony.

Accordingly, Netanyahu’s downfall, or even his trial, represents a threat not only to Trump, but also to the political and ideological system he has meticulously crafted during his presidency. It is impossible to trust that potential Israeli alternatives will maintain the same level of loyalty or pursue the same confrontational approach toward Iran and the Palestinians.

Hence, for Trump, defending Netanyahu becomes a defense of a broader regional project that keeps Israel at the forefront of the confrontation with Tehran and strengthens right-wing populist alliances globally.

Moreover, Trump himself faces investigations and legal prosecutions in the United States, whether related to his attempt to overturn the election results, his retention of classified documents after leaving the White House, or various financial issues. Therefore, his defense of Netanyahu may be implicitly understood as self-defense. He seeks to establish the principle that the trial of political leaders is primarily a selective political process, not a fair judicial process. If Netanyahu is able to escape accountability or obtain a pardon, Trump will see this as a precedent that will strengthen his argument before the American judiciary and domestic public opinion.

Strategically, Trump does not view Israel merely as a traditional ally, but rather as an extension of his global political vision based on isolation from international institutions, undermining the liberal multilateral order, and strengthening bilateral alliances with strong leaders who share his political style and confrontational personality. For him, Netanyahu is the Israeli version of this model: a leader who clings to power despite internal and external pressures, fiercely confronts the media and the judiciary, and relies on a solid right-wing popular base fueled by a sense of existential danger and threat.

From this perspective, Trump’s support for Netanyahu is not limited to domestic issues but extends to regional security issues, most notably the open confrontation with Iran. Trump believes that an alliance with Netanyahu is necessary to sustain the escalation against Tehran and contain its influence in the region. Therefore, any weakening of Netanyahu, whether through elections or trials, is viewed as a direct blow to the axis of pressure on Iran and a threat to the deterrence strategy adopted by Trump during his presidency.

All of this explains why Trump supports Netanyahu and even intervenes in domestic issues, such as seeking a judicial pardon or rejecting early elections that could lead to Netanyahu’s removal from the political scene. It is a deeply mercenary relationship that transcends diplomatic protocol and extends to an ideological alliance between two leaders who each see the other as a mirror to their own selves and a first line of defense for their political and personal futures. Despite the criticism Trump faces for this involvement, he continues this approach without wavering, driven by an overwhelming desire to return to the White House and see a world shaped according to his own vision. In this world, there is no place for trials of political leaders, no room for elections that bring down allies, and only mutual loyalty, no matter the cost.

Dr Dajah is a professor of Strategic Studies at Al-Hussein Bin Talal University. He contributed this article to the Jordan Times.

Analyses

Iran Emerges Strongest From This War

CrossFireArabia
June 25, 2025

Dr. Salam al-Obeidi

In the finally analysis Iran still has about 600 kilograms – that is 60% enriched uranium – that it has hidden. Iran has nuclear physicists and it has technical capabilities. From a theoretical point of view, the amount of uranium ot still has could be enriched to 90%, fissile material that is needed for a nuclear bomb, within a few months. All that separates Iran from that is a fatwa made by its Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

We must remember that the conflict was imposed on Iran and therefore it was very important for Tehran to withdraw from it. And hence upon withdrawal, it symbolically bombed Israel again as a final show of force.

The world saw that the Iranians know how to fight and are ready for a major war (even though they don’t seek it). But Iran’s enemies are not ready for a major war. Realizing that the Iranian street would not revolt, they preferred to hold off. Netanyahu has so far been unable to drag the United States into a full-scale conflict with Iran. Without that, Israel can do nothing.

Israel has suffered heavy losses without achieving its primary goals. Netanyahu’s window of opportunity is about to close (unless he embarks on another adventure). Trump has emerged from the deadlock, as expected, similar to 2020. Now he’ll await the Nobel Prize.

At this point, it can be said that Israel has lost. It failed to drag the United States into a war aimed at destroying Iran, it did not eliminate the Iranian nuclear program, and did not change the regime in Iran.

Iran suffered damage, but it did not lose. In fact, it gained a lot.

The Iranians gained invaluable experience and learned many lessons. They saw all of Israel’s weaknesses, understood what to expect from whom in the region and the world. They tested their missiles in real combat against technologically-advanced powers.

Finally, the Iranians eliminated a huge number of internal enemies. Overall, they realized the magnitude of the disaster not before it was too late, but while they still had the time and strength to eliminate the threat. The purges in Iran will continue for a long time to come. This will strengthen the Supreme Leader’s authority.

As well, the positions of those in Iran who advocate for nuclear weapons have also been strengthened.

Dr al-Obeidi is an Iraqi writer and contributed this piece to Al Rai Al Youm.

Opinion

US-Israeli Conspiracy on Iran?

CrossFireArabia
June 16, 2025

By Jamal Kanj

Israel’s latest strike on Iran had nothing to do with dismantling the Iranian (civilian) nuclear program. Despite Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s assertion that “the timing was fixed back in November 2024,” the real zero hour was designated only to undercut possible diplomatic framework that could have legitimized Iran’s nuclear development under international, verifiable, supervision.

This war is not a preemptive blow against Iran —it is a preemptive strike against diplomacy itself. The Trump administration made a grave error by keeping Israeli officials closely informed of the sensitive progress in the secret negotiations. This privileged access allowed Israel to strategically time its military strike to sabotage diplomatic efforts at a critical juncture—undermining further progress just as it was beginning to take shape, and before any agreement could fully mature.

Multiple independent leaks had pointed to progress in the Oman brokered negotiation between the U.S. and Iran, inclusive of intrusive International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections, capped enrichment, and restart of oil exports under strict monitoring. An agreement of that sort would have undercut Israel’s decades-long doctrine that only isolation and coercion can keep Iran “in its box.”

Rather than accepting a rules-based diplomatic framework that Netanyahu could not control or veto, he chose to hinder the potential agreement—with F-35s and cruise missiles.

This war is also part of Israel’s long-standing obsession with maintaining its monopoly on nuclear technology in the Middle East. Far from a purely defensive measure, Israel’s broader strategy has consistently aimed at preventing any regional power from acquiring—not only the infrastructure required to develop nuclear capabilities—but even the scientific expertise and human capital necessary to pursue such knowledge.

Hours after the first explosions, U.S. officials solemnly declared, “America did not take part.” But the denial was tactical, not principled. By remaining officially aloof, the Trump White House hoped to keep a seat at any revived negotiating table while still wielding the Israeli strike as leverage. Donald Trump’s own split-screen rhetoric—calling the raid “excellent,” threatening Iran with “more to come,” yet urging Tehran to “make a deal”—spelled out the gambit: let Israel be the cudgel while the United States courts concessions.

On the other hand, and in response to American Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, claim that the U.S. is “not involved in strikes against Iran,” Israel declared that every phase of the attack had been “closely coordinated” with the Pentagon and that that US provided “exquisite intelligence” to attack Iran.

The yawning gap between the two narratives served both capitals. In Washington, it allowed officials to reassure anxious allies that the U.S. was not actively escalating another Middle East war. In Tel Aviv, Netanyahu exploited the ambiguity to provoke Iran into retaliating against U.S. forces—potentially drawing Washington deeper into Israel’s war. At the same time, he sent a calculated message to domestic hawks and regional adversaries: that Israel still enjoys unwavering American backing.

Netanyahu’s sinister calculus was familiar and transparent from Israel’s book to drag the US into its endless wars: derail the diplomatic channel, then dare Washington to pick up the pieces while Israel enjoys another round of strategic impunity.

Even in a region where Israel uses starvation as a weapon of war and genocide in Gaza, Israel’s choice to strike residential neighborhoods—ostensibly targeting senior officers, civilian leaders, and nuclear scientists—crosses a perilous line. The laws of armed conflict draw a bright red distinction between combatants and civilians; by erasing it, Israel has handed Iran moral and legal grounds to retaliate in kind. If Tehran targets the private homes of Israeli leaders and commanders, Tel Aviv cannot plausibly cry victim after setting that precedent.

The first wave of Iranian retaliation—targeting the Israeli Ministry of Defense headquarters in Tel Aviv, among other sites—marks the beginning of a new kind of war, one unlike anything Israelis have faced in previous conflicts. For the first time, a state with advanced missile capabilities has shown both the resilience to absorb the initial strike and the capacity to hit back ] deep inside Israel—an experience unprecedented in Israel’s 77 years of existence.

Unlike the sporadic and largely asymmetrical conflicts with non-state actors like the Resistance in Lebanon and occupied Gaza, this confrontation introduces a level of state-to-state warfare that challenges Israel’s long-held military superiority and assumptions of deterrence. What has unfolded so far with the Iranian retaliation is a harbinger of a more symmetrical and likely prolonged confrontation—one in which Israel’s own centers of power may be within range, and where the frontlines are no longer confined to Gaza, the West Bank, or southern Lebanon, but centered into the very core of Tel Aviv.

In the coming days, Washington’s true measure will be taken after the smoke clears. If U.S. Aegis destroyers in the Gulf or antimissile batteries in the region are activated to shoot down Iranian missiles and drones, America will cease to be an observer and become a co-belligerent.

Such presumably “defensive” steps quickly metastasize: one intercept invites another, and each exchange digs the United States deeper into a conflict created by a foreign country. History offers bleak guidance. Once American troops engage, momentum overrides strategy and the dynamics of war supplant planning. Political leaders feel compelled to “finish the job,” costs spiral, U.S. interests go unsecured, and the chief beneficiary is almost always the Israeli security establishment that triggered the crisis.

At the end of the day, Netanyahu’s success will not be measured by how many centrifuges he cripples or how many Iranian scientists he murders. It will be measured by whether he can lock the United States into yet another made-for-Israel Middle East war, paid for—strategically, financially, life, and morally—by Americans.

If Washington truly opposes escalation, it must say no—publicly and unequivocally—to any role in shielding Israel from the blowback it just invited. Anything less is complicity disguised as caution, and it will once again confirm that Israeli impunity is underwritten in Washington, even when it torpedoes America’s own diplomacy and ignites yet another Israeli-engineered war.

– Jamal Kanj is the author of “Children of Catastrophe,” Journey from a Palestinian Refugee Camp to America, and other books. He writes frequently on Arab world issues for various national and international commentaries. He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle