RSS
Bowman and Bush’s Demonization of Israel Moves from Congress to the Screen
The political landscape was dealt a positive development last year when two anti-Israel House Democrats — Jamaal Bowman (NY) and Cori Bush (MO) — were defeated in their respective Congressional primaries.
While America and the 119th Congress are better off without these two agitators using their political perch to smear and slander the Jewish State, pro-Israel Americans should temper reveling in Bowman and Bush’s ouster.
The two former lawmakers have now taken their demonization of Israel and splashed it over their new show — Bowman and Bush — which will be featured once a month on the Zeteo network’s YouTube channel.
Zeteo was launched in April 2024 by Mehdi Hasan, the former MSNBC host and UK-born journalist whose slew of public diatribes targeting Israel, which included falsely accusing Israel of bombing a Gaza hospital, was a step too far, even for MSNBC.
While claiming on its website to be a space for “independent and unfiltered journalism,” the interviews, podcasts, and columns featured on the network confirm that the only thing unfiltered about Zeteo is its raw, unapologetic hostility towards Israel.
That Bowman and Bush would find a home at Hasan’s outlet reflects a new and damaging avenue through which these two individuals, who harbor dangerous beliefs, are able to shape the public discourse surrounding American support for the Jewish State.
During their tenure in Congress, Bush and Bowman’s verbal assaults and unhinged rants targeting Israel intensified, culminating in Bowman’s remarks in November 2023, when, speaking at an anti-Israel protest, he said that the October 7 rape of Israeli women and beheading of babies by Hamas was based on “lies” and “propaganda.”
For her part, the former Missouri Congresswoman has backed ending US support for Israel while accusing Israel of “ethnic cleansing” during its war against genocidal Hamas terrorists. Bush’s revenge-fueled concession speech last August served as a portent for future plan, when she promised the pro-Israel lobbying group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), that she “was coming to tear your kingdom down.”
The depth of understandable disgust for Bowman and Bush galvanized communities nationwide to engage in the political process. Bowman’s primary race against former Westchester County Executive George Latimer was the most expensive primary House contest in US history. Bush’s race, against past St. Louis Prosecutor Wesley Bell, came in second.
Settling in plush chairs and bantering comfortably about their trendy monochromatic outfits, Bowman and Bush, who titled this month’s inaugural show “Let’s Talk AIPAC,” wasted no time steering into their established zone of promoting antisemitic tropes and masquerading their delegitimization of Israel as fighting for “Palestinian Liberation” and standing for “equality.”
The co-hosts devoted the nearly hourlong talk to positioning themselves as victims of the pro-Israel political community and greedy special interest groups, with Bowman saying he believes that Republican oligarchs fund AIPAC.
The duo likely felt that their tirade aimed at Jewish Americans, who overwhelmingly support Israel, could be buoyed by platforming a Jewish guest. With the program entering its final few minutes, Simone Zimmerman, founder of the radical anti-Zionist group IfNotNow, appeared on the screen.
Playing the role of concerned armchair psychologists and fellow haters of Israel, Bowman and Bush projected an easy familiarity with Zimmerman as they shared in their collective horror over watching “a genocide unfold,“ while casting Zimmerman as a sympathetic figure whose anti-Israel activism led to fissures between her and the traditional Zionist community in which she was raised.
The network aims to appeal to a younger and rising progressive cohort of Americans by straddling trendy and welcoming production space with a provocative and diverse lineup of shows. Hasan, who said he received four million dollars from family and friends to help start Zeteo, is pursuing an untapped medium for American progressives.
Zeteo’s mix of programs, columns, and media figures captures today’s red-green alliance, providing leftist connoisseurs with an amalgam of personalities and reading material from which to sift.
Since its launch, Zeteo’s guests have ranged from the serious, such as Democrat Congressman Dean Phillips (MN), who last year appeared on “Mehdi Unfiltered,” to provocative names like Egyptian-born comedian Bassem Youssef, who sat down with Hasan last month on the network’s “We’re Not Kidding” broadcast.
Unfortunately, the end of Sex and the City hasn’t prevented Cynthia Nixon from still appearing on screen, as the actress-turned-anti-Israel activist has a slot on the network called “Stage Left,” where she helps advance Zeteo’s anti-Jewish drift, and its anti-Israel hatefest.
Zeteo’s running list of writers also reflects a disturbing coalition of ideologues promoting an anti-Western ethos that embodies contemporary progressivism.
Americans should not discount Zeteo’s motives or dismiss the network as a marginal media presence. According to its website, Zeteo has amassed over 600,000 subscribers on its YouTube channel, and is sixth in US political publications on Substack.
Throughout the years, organizations and influencers peddling outlandish and unsavory ideas have been granted footholds in America’s mainstream cultural movement.
Celebrations surrounding Bowman and Bush’s exit from Congress should be met with a dose of humility. No longer confined to following political norms, the end of their Congressional careers does not signal the finale to their years-long anti-Israel and anti-Jewish reel. On the contrary, Bowman and Bush certifies that these two colleagues are still working on their opening scene.
Irit Tratt is an American and pro-Israel advocate residing in New York. Follow her on X @Irit_Tratt.
The post Bowman and Bush’s Demonization of Israel Moves from Congress to the Screen first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Striking Hamas Leaders in Qatar Is 100% Legal Under International Law

Vehicles stop at a red traffic light, a day after an Israeli attack on Hamas leaders, in Doha, Qatar, Sept. 10, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa
Here are just a few of the absurd reactions from world leaders in the wake of Israel’s stunning strike on Hamas leadership in Doha, Qatar, last week:
- A “blatant violation of international law.”
- A “violation of sovereignty.”
- A “flagrant breach of international law.”
France, Spain, the UK, the Qataris themselves, and others have joined in the hysterics.
Yet all these sloganizing leaders have one thing in common: an astonishing and total ignorance of actual, international law.
In future articles, I will dive into the far reaching implications and consequences of this stunning operation, but for now, here’s a quick review of international law.
- Qatar is not technically at war with Israel, therefore the country could be considered a “neutral power” under the Hague Convention V and thus immune from attack.
- However, under articles 2, 3 and 4 of Hague Convention V, a “neutral power” may not allow anyone on its territory to direct combat operations, run command and control centers, or even to communicate electronically with combatants.
- For years, the Hamas leadership has been carrying out exactly those prohibited acts from within Qatar — with sustained and integral Qatari support. In other words, Qatar has been violating international law for years — before, during, and after the October 7 massacre.
- Hamas is the internationally-designated terror organization that carried out the October 7 massacre of Israelis in 2023, and continues holding Israeli hostages in Gaza to this day. Though the Hamas leadership in Qatar claims the moniker “political wing,” it is consistently involved in directing combat operations against Israel.
- Qatar cannot claim to be a “neutral power” under the Hague Conventions, because it provides sustained and integral support for Hamas — which aids Hamas combat operations against Israel — from Qatari soil.
- Furthermore, Israel has an inviolate right to self defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, and Hamas may not undermine that right simply by directing its combat operations from inside a third-party country.
In summary: Qatar has been providing sustained and integral support for Hamas combat operations — from Qatari soil — in violation of The Hague conventions.
These acts give Israel the inviolate right, under both the Hague Conventions and the UN Charter’s Article 51, to defend itself and its citizens by targeting Hamas leadership inside Qatar.
Daniel Pomerantz is the CEO of RealityCheck, an organization dedicated to deepening public conversation through robust research studies and public speaking. He has been a lawyer for more than 25 years.
RSS
No, Mahmoud Abbas Did Not Condemn Jerusalem Terror Attack

People inspect a bus with bullet holes at the scene where a shooting terrorist attack took place at the outskirts of Jerusalem, Sept. 8, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ammar Awad
Last week, terrorists opened fire in Jerusalem, murdering six and injuring 12 innocent Israelis.
Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas — the man the international community insists is a “peace partner” — then put out a statement that was labeled by much of the international media as a condemnation. In reality, it was anything but.
Abbas never once mentioned the terror attack. He never referred to the murders, never acknowledged the victims, and never expressed a word of sympathy for their families. His statement spoke in vague terms about rejecting “any targeting of Palestinian and Israeli civilians,” a formula carefully crafted to sound balanced while deliberately blurring the reality that it was Palestinians who carried out the terror attack, and Israelis who were its victims.
Worse still, 98% of Abbas’ statement was condemnation of Israel, the “occupation,” “genocide,” and “colonist terrorism.” Instead of using the attack to speak out against Palestinian terror, Abbas used it to criticize Israel without even actually mentioning the attack, and while portraying Palestinians as the victims.
Abbas’ remark is not a condemnation of terrorism. It is a cover-up. He is once again confirming the PA’s ideology that sees Palestinian attacks against Israeli civilians as justified.
The emptiness of Abbas’s words becomes glaring when compared to the response of the United Arab Emirates.
The UAE condemned the “terrorist shooting incident … in the strongest terms,” offered condolences to the victims and their families, and wished a speedy recovery to the wounded.
The UAE’s statement was clear, moral, and human. Abbas’ was political and self-serving, designed to enable gullible Westerners to delude themselves that Abbas was actually condemning terrorism. The UAE and Abbas’ statements follow. The difference speaks volumes.
UAE condemnation of terror | Mahmoud Abbas’ sham |
“The United Arab Emirates has condemned in the strongest terms the terrorist shooting incident which occurred near Jerusalem, and resulted in a number of deaths and injuries.
In a statement, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) reaffirmed the UAE’s strong condemnation of these terrorist acts and its permanent rejection of all forms of violence and terrorism aimed at undermining security and stability. The Ministry expressed its sincere condolences and sympathy to the families of the victims, and to the State of Israel and its people, as well as its wishes for a speedy recovery for all the injured.” [United Arab Emirates Ministry of Foreign Affairs, website, September 8, 2025] |
“The Palestinian Presidency reiterated its firm stance rejecting and condemning any targeting of Palestinian and Israel civilians, and denouced all forms of violence and terrorism, regardless of their source.
The Presidency stressed that security and stability in the region cannot be achieved without ending the occupation, halting acts of genocide in the Gaza Strip, and stopping colonist terrorism across the West Bank, including occupied Jerusalem. It emphasized the Palestinian people’s attainment of their legitimate rights to an independent and sovereign state with East Jerusalem as its capital, and the achievement of security and peace for all, is what wil end the cycle of violence in the region. This came in the wake of today’s events in occupied Jerusalem.” [WAFA, official PA news agency, September 8, 2025] |
Ephraim D. Tepler is a contributor to Palestinian Media Watch (PMW). Itamar Marcus is the Founder and Director of PMW, where a version of this article first appeared.
RSS
Carrying Charlie Kirk’s Torch: Why the West Must Not Retreat

A memorial is held for Charlie Kirk, who was shot and killed in Utah, at the Turning Point USA headquarters in Phoenix, Arizona, US, Sept. 10, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Caitlin O’Hara
Charlie Kirk’s sudden death leaves more than grief; it leaves a void in a moment of profound civilizational danger. He was not just a political organizer or cultural commentator. He was a voice that gave the next generation permission to reject the lies of relativism, to reclaim confidence in the West, and to stand against the forces — both ideological and violent — that seek to dismantle it. To honor his life means refusing to let that mission fade.
Kirk understood that the greatest threats to freedom were not hidden in obscure policy debates, but in the cultural and spiritual health of the West. He saw that when a society abandons faith, mocks tradition, and treats national identity as a shameful relic, it becomes easy prey for movements that thrive on weakness and self-doubt. His genius was to frame this not as nostalgia, but as survival.
For him, defending family, faith, and moral order was not a luxury — it was the only path by which free societies could endure.
One challenge Kirk named very clearly was the rise of radical Islamism and terrorism. He warned that this was not merely a foreign problem, but an internal one. Radical ideologies, cloaked in the language of grievance, have found fertile ground in Western cities, universities, and political discourse. Under the cover of tolerance, they have grown bolder. Under the silence of elites, they have become entrenched. Kirk refused to bend to the false equivalence that excuses extremism as cultural difference. He understood that those who despise freedom should not be empowered to weaponize it.
His critics often called him polarizing, but what they truly feared was his clarity. He reminded audiences that not all values are equal, not all ideas are harmless, and not every ideology deserves space in a free society. In a climate where cowardice is praised as moderation, his directness was seen as dangerous. But the true danger lies in the refusal to speak plainly about the threats that face us. Civilizations do not collapse overnight; they are eroded when their defenders lose the courage to distinguish between what is worth preserving and what must be rejected.
Kirk never lost that courage. He confronted progressive elites who undermined confidence in the West from within, and he confronted radical Islamist sympathizers who justified violence against it from without. He saw that both positions, though different in form, worked toward the same end: a weakening of Western resolve, an erosion of shared identity, and the creation of a generation uncertain of its own inheritance. His refusal to allow that message to go unchallenged gave hope to millions of young people who might otherwise have drifted into cynicism or despair.
Now his death presents a stark choice. The forces he warned against are not pausing to mourn. They are pressing forward, eager to fill the space that was already under siege. If his legacy is not actively continued, it will not simply fade — it will be replaced by movements hostile to everything he fought to defend. To preserve his mission, the West must double down on the truths he carried: that strength is not arrogance, that tradition is not oppression, and that freedom without moral order is an illusion that collapses into chaos.
The stakes are high. If these principles are allowed to wither, we risk a generation unmoored from history, unprepared for the battles ahead, and unwilling to confront the ideological threats at our doorstep. But if Kirk’s legacy is embraced and advanced, his death will be the beginning of a renewal.
The West cannot retreat. It cannot afford the luxury of silence or the temptation of compromise with those who seek its undoing. The path forward requires the clarity and courage that Charlie Kirk embodied. To carry his torch is not simply to honor his memory. It is to safeguard the survival of the civilization he loved and defended. The question is not whether we should continue his work. The question is whether we can endure if we do not.
Amine Ayoub, a fellow at the Middle East Forum, is a policy analyst and writer based in Morocco. Follow him on X: @amineayoubx