Uncategorized
Progressive US ‘Squad’ Lawmakers Condemn Israel’s Strikes Against Hezbollah, Silent on Nasrallah Assassination
The most vocal critics of Israel in the US Congress have been silent on the death of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, a notorious terrorist committed to the Jewish state’s destruction.
Members of the so-called “Squad” — a coalition of lawmakers with progressive policy positions on issues ranging from economics to foreign affairs — have not issued statements responding to the death of Nasrallah. However, these lawmakers — including Democratic Reps. Rashida Tlaib (MI), Ilhan Omar (MN), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY), Cori Bush (MO), Jamaal Bowman (NY), Summer Lee (PA), and Ayanna Pressley (MA)— have repeatedly ripped Israel over its defensive military operations against the Hezbollah terrorist group in Lebanon. Many of them have also called for an arms embargo to be placed on Israel amid its military operations against both Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Both Islamist terrorist organizations are backed by Iran, which provides them with weapons, funding, and training.
Beyond not directly addressing Nasrallah’s killing in an Israeli airstrike last week in their statements, the lawmakers also did not respond to requests for comment on his death and their silence on it.
Tlaib, the sole Palestinian American woman in Congress, has accused Israel of waging an “indiscriminate” bombing campaign in Lebanon. She slammed Israel for supposedly “expanding” its “genocidal campaign” from Gaza into Lebanon. Tlaib wrote that “the US government are conspirators to the war criminal Netanyahu’s genocidal plan,” referring to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and urged the Biden administration to place an arms blockade on the Jewish state.
However, the anti-Israel firebrand did not mention the Jewish state’s successful elimination of Nasrallah.
Meanwhile, Omar issued a statement condemning Israel’s strikes against Hezbollah in Lebanon, arguing that they serve to escalate tensions within the region. She similarly urged the Biden administration to withhold arms from Israel, accusing the Jewish state of recklessly endangering civilian lives. Omar, like her progressive contemporaries, did not mention Hezbollah’s repeated attacks against Israel that prompted the Israeli strikes. She also did not mention Israel’s successful assassination of several Hezbollah high-ranking officials, including Nasrallah.
“It is imperative we use every single tool to de-escalate tensions. Just as President Biden stated, a ‘full-scale war is not in anyone’s interest.’ A full-scale war would have catastrophic implications for everyone, especially for Lebanese and Israeli civilians who would bear the brunt of this war and dramatically increase the risk of regional conflict involving the United States,” Omar wrote. “If we are serious about preventing the escalation of this conflict, we must use our leverage to cut off military aid to stop the violence both in Lebanon and Gaza. We cannot continue to stand idly by while innocent civilians are being bombarded with our tax dollars.”
Pressley, a congresswoman who has accused Israel of enacting “apartheid” against Palestinians, has not mentioned the death of the Hezbollah leader either. However, she has repeatedly condemned the Israeli military operations against the Iran-backed Lebanese terrorist group. Comparing Lebanon to Gaza, she urged the US federal government to prevent the Jewish state from prosecuting its war against Hezbollah.
“Israel’s indiscriminate bombing, forced displacement, & war crimes in Gaza have been beyond devastating. This must not be repeated in Lebanon. We must de-escalate and the US must stop sending offensive weapons,” Pressley posted on social media.
However, on Tuesday, in the immediate aftermath of Iran attacking Israel with a barrage of missiles, Pressley accused the Jewish state of exacerbating tensions in the Middle East by dismantling Hezbollah.
“Netanyahu’s invasion of Lebanon is putting millions of people at risk, forcing thousands to be displaced, and inciting a regional war. The escalating violence must end. In Lebanon, in Gaza, and across the region,” Pressley wrote.
Ocasio-Cortez, one of the most steadfast opponents of the Jewish state in Congress, has also not issued a statement on the killing of Nasrallah. However, Ocasio-Cortez criticized the recent attack on communications devices used by Hezbollah terrorists for “seriously injuring and killing innocent civilians.” Israel is widely believed to be behind the operation, although Jerusalem has neither confirmed nor denied responsibility. The congresswoman did not mention that the pager attack primarily harmed Hezbollah members.
“This attack clearly and unequivocally violates international humanitarian law and undermines US efforts to prevent a wider conflict,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote.
Meanwhile, Lee warned that Israel’s attacks on Hezbollah could trigger a “regional escalation of war.” She cautioned that Americans could be “dragged into another endless war abroad” and urged the US to implement an “arms embargo now.”
Bush and Bowman also made no official statements regarding the death of Nasrallah. However, each one condemned Israel’s military operations against Hezbollah.
“A ceasefire and arms embargo are urgently needed to end the violence & save lives. By failing on both fronts and sending additional troops to the Middle East, the Biden Administration is further fueling more death & destruction. Our communities do not want more endless wars,” Bush wrote.
Bowman accused Israel of arbitrarily “terrorizing” the civilians of Lebanon. The congressman notably did not mention Hezbollah.
“Israel’s playbook is all too familiar: indiscriminate bombing and widespread civilian carnage. Reports are emerging that Israel is considering a full-scale ground invasion of Lebanon. This is unacceptable,” Bowman wrote.
Bush and Bowman, two of the most virulently anti-Israel forces in Congress, lost their recent primary campaigns in races heavily defined by their opposition to the Jewish state.
Hezbollah has fired barrages of rockets, missiles, and drones at northern Israel almost daily following the Oct. 7 attacks by Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists on the Jewish state’s southern region. Since then, both sides have been exchanging fire constantly while avoiding a major escalation as war rages in Gaza to the south.
About 80,000 Israelis have been forced to evacuate their homes in northern Israel and flee to other parts of the country amid the unrelenting attacks from Hezbollah.
Israel began a blistering campaign against Hezbollah two weeks ago, launching a wave of airstrikes that have crippled the Iran-backed terrorist group’s leadership. Many observes believe Israel wants to establish a demilitarized buffer zone between the Jewish state and Lebanon, aiming to decrease violence from non-state actors such as Hezbollah.
The post Progressive US ‘Squad’ Lawmakers Condemn Israel’s Strikes Against Hezbollah, Silent on Nasrallah Assassination first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
Uncategorized
If Iran Won’t Deal, Trump Must Make the Cost of Refusal Unbearable
A US Navy sailor signals an F/A-18E Super Hornet on the flight deck of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in support of the Operation Epic Fury attack on Iran at an undisclosed location, March 4, 2026. Photo: US Navy/Handout via REUTERS
The ceasefire with Iran is expiring. The talks collapsed after 21 hours in Islamabad. Iran has closed the Strait of Hormuz. Trump himself, speaking aboard Air Force One, put the choice plainly: “Maybe I won’t extend [the ceasefire]. So you have a blockade, and unfortunately, we’ll have to start dropping bombs again.”
That is the right instinct. But dropping bombs alone is not a strategy. It is a continuation of what has not worked. The question before the administration is not whether to apply pressure, but what kind of pressure actually changes Iran’s calculus. The answer requires being honest about what the war has so far failed to accomplish, and clear about what must follow.
Start with what the strikes achieved and what they did not. The United States and Israel killed Iran’s supreme leader, wiped out much of its senior military command, and damaged its nuclear facilities. These were historic accomplishments. But US intelligence assessments say Iran’s regime likely will remain in place for now, weakened but more hardline, with the Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) exerting greater control. As one analyst put it: “When President Trump says he has changed the regime in Iran, he’s right in one sense: he’s changed it to a much more radicalized regime.” The war shifted who holds power in Tehran, but it did not shift what that power wants.
The IRGC, which now runs Iran more openly than at any point since 1979, looks at the nuclear question through the lens of survival. Analysts say the IRGC will be looking toward the example of North Korea, noting that the country has not been subject to attacks precisely because it possesses a nuclear deterrent. Former Supreme Leader Khamenei’s fatwa banning a nuclear bomb died with him, and for any military whose conventional deterrence has been degraded, the ultimate deterrent is now “a very attractive prospect.”
This is the central strategic reality the Trump administration must accept: Iran’s incentive to acquire a nuclear weapon has increased, not decreased, as a result of the war. Bombing alone will not change that. Only a combination of measures that makes the pursuit of the bomb more costly than abandoning it can.
The first requirement is maintaining the naval blockade unconditionally, regardless of Iranian announcements about Hormuz openings. Iran has been selectively admitting ships from China, Turkey, Pakistan, and India under bilateral arrangements while blocking others, converting the strait into a political instrument rather than surrendering the leverage it provides. A blockade that can be circumvented through side deals is not a blockade. It is theater. CENTCOM must enforce the blockade against all sanctioned traffic without exceptions, including Chinese tankers, and Trump must be prepared to make that enforcement the hill his presidency stands on, economically and diplomatically.
The second requirement is activating European snap-back sanctions immediately. Secretary of State Marco Rubio urged European countries on April 18 to quickly reimpose sanctions, warning that Iran is approaching nuclear weapons capability. This call should not have been made publicly as a request. It should have been delivered as a condition. Washington has leverage over European access to American markets and defense cooperation that it has consistently refused to use in Iran policy. That reluctance must end. A European sanctions regime that closes off the money that the blockade does not reach, will give Iran no economic off-ramp that does not run through US terms.
The third requirement is the most uncomfortable to name. The Iranian people have already done the work the administration hoped bombing would do. Surveys conducted inside Iran show that Iranians believe protests, foreign pressure, and intervention are more likely to bring about political change than elections and reforms. The regime is militarily weakened, culturally weakened, and economically weakened, with a plummeting currency. Protests that began in December 2025 over economic conditions grew into nationwide demonstrations in all 31 provinces, with hundreds of thousands participating and calls shifting from economic grievances to the overthrow of the Islamic Republic itself. This is the most significant popular uprising Iran has seen since 1979, and it is happening right now, under the weight of the war and the blockade.
Trump called on the Iranian people to take their government at the outset of the war. He should not abandon that call as a diplomatic inconvenience. Materially supporting the opposition, providing Internet access to circumvent the regime’s blackout, and making unambiguous public commitments to the protesters that American pressure will not cease while the IRGC shoots demonstrators in the street are actions within the administration’s power. They cost nothing militarily and they impose a political cost on the regime that no bomb can replicate.
A deal that leaves Iran with a five-year enrichment window and underground missile cities under reconstruction is not a deal. It is a countdown. Trump knows what the alternative looks like. He should pursue it.
Amine Ayoub, a fellow at the Middle East Forum, is a policy analyst and writer based in Morocco. Follow him on X: @amineayoubx
Uncategorized
Podcast Hosts and Others Must Continue to Call Out Tucker Carlson for His Hatred
Tucker Carlson speaks on July 18, 2024, during the final day of the Republican National Convention at the Fiserv Forum in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Photo: Jasper Colt-USA TODAY via Reuters Connect
Patrick Bet-David, host of the PBD podcast, made an open video to Tucker Carlson in which he offered to have accountants check Bet-David’s finances as well as his wife’s, to see if Israel has given him money. At the same time, the accountants would look into Carlson and his wife to see if Qatar or other countries have given Carlson money.
Though Carlson will certainly not agree to it, it is a good step to put pressure on Carlson. Carlson’s goal is to turn Christians against Israel — and right now, against Trump. It’s not by chance that he falsely claimed Israeli President Isaac Herzog was on Epstein island. There’s no evidence of it, and Carlson made it up out of his desire to vilify Israel.
Bet-David did an interview with Netanyahu, and didn’t call him a genocider — which was tough for Carlson to handle. Carlson absurdly thought Netanyahu would sit for an interview with him. It will never happen because Carlson, whether motivated by money, revenge, or something we don’t know, has been on the warpath against Israel and Jews, obsessively speaking about these two topics. In addition, he is suddenly buddies with those on the far-left who also hate Israel. Known as the horseshoe effect, those on the far-right and far-left can disagree on everything under the sun, but unite in their hatred of Jews.
Carlson is charismatic and has great delivery, though I’m not sure why his absurd laugh hasn’t thrown people off. In this attention economy, it’s about starting conversations. Bet-David smartly put it out there for Carlson to show transparency, which he will not do. What makes this interesting is that when Carlson was first ousted from Fox News, Bet-David made it publicly known that he was offering Carlson a huge amount of money to work for him. This was before Carlson became anti-Israel.
Bet-David was born in Iran, and fled the country to come to America. Bet-David was also right to question why Carlson was downplaying the harms of Sharia law, and focusing on what Carlson thought were its benefits.
My hope is that this leads to Carlson coming on Bet-David’s show. I doubt he will, although there is a small chance because he may think Bet-David is not as intellectual as Douglas Murray or Ben Shapiro. While that’s true, Bet-David is charismatic, can make good points at times, and his experience seeing the evils of Iran firsthand would make for an interesting conversation with Carlson.
It is hard to understand why people believe the things that Carlson and Candace Owens say, though their personalities can be entertaining, and someone unaware of facts perhaps might think they were correct.
Irrespective of the outcome of the Iran war, Carlson is ready with the narrative that it is a disaster. He said that millions could die if America attacked Iran’s nuclear facilities before Trump took action last June. Of course, that didn’t happen. Being wrong has no consequences in Carlson’s mind; it’s about ratcheting up hatred of Israel and positioning it as an enemy of America. At times, it seems Carlson is the one standing against America. As Bet-David pointed out, Carlson said that Sharia law was leading the Muslim world to thrive, while it was declining under America. Carlson also had everyone believing that he was a big fan of President Donald Trump, until text messages revealed he hated him.
While I have my criticisms of Bet-David for not asking tougher questions to idiotic and Jew-hating guests, he deserves credit for calling out Carlson and outing him under the microscope. Because when that is done, what we find is quite ugly. Carlson, through charisma and absurdity, is trying to mainstream the idea that Israel is the enemy of America. He is hoping to reel people in on the lie that Israel bullied America into the war. That’s not the case — and everyone who knows that must continually question Tucker on it.
The author is a writer based in New York.
Uncategorized
The Media Is Biased Against Israel; What Should We Do About It?
The New York Times building in New York City. Photo: Wikimedia Commons
Where do we turn when we want to understand Israel as it actually is? Many people still instinctively answer with confidence: newspapers.
It feels rational, grounded, almost automatic. Yet the deeper you look into the global media landscape, the more that confidence begins to erode. What appears to be information often carries something more subtle beneath the surface. It carries intention, framing, and sometimes an agenda that quietly reshapes reality.
Across Israeli media alone, the range is undeniable. Haaretz represents a distinctly left-leaning voice, often sharply critical of Israeli policy and identity. Israel Hayom stands firmly on the right, reflecting a more nationalist perspective. Between them sit publications with all kinds of views.
Diversity in the media is often celebrated as a cornerstone of democracy. In theory, it should strengthen understanding. In practice, it can create confusion when the same reality is presented through completely different lenses. The problem is not that perspectives differ. The problem is that language itself becomes a battleground, shaping perception long before facts are even considered.
Words define the limits of thought. When certain terms are repeated often enough, they stop being questioned. They become accepted truth. The choice between “West Bank” and “Judea and Samaria” is not simply semantic. It reflects history, identity, and legitimacy. One term suggests a modern political construct, the other connects to thousands of years of Jewish presence. The same applies when Jewish communities are labeled as settlements while Arab communities are described as towns. These are not neutral distinctions. They carry implicit judgments that influence how readers interpret reality.
There is a third category: outlets that challenge the normalization of narratives that undermine Israel’s legitimacy. News outlets that refuse to adopt language that distorts historical context do not eliminate bias, but make their perspective transparent rather than disguising it as objectivity.
The broader issue extends beyond terminology. In much of the global media, there is an undercurrent that frames Israel as an outsider, a disruptor, even a colonial presence. This framing is rarely stated outright, yet it appears through emphasis, omission, and tone. Running negative stories about Israel, and positive stories about Gaza is one example that shapes how a country is perceived. Over time, repetition turns suggestion into assumption. Readers absorb these narratives without realizing how deeply they have been shaped.
At the same time, the boundaries of acceptable speech have shifted. On social media platforms, expressing certain criticisms can lead to immediate consequences. Yet hostility toward Israel often circulates freely, sometimes crossing into open antisemitism without similar repercussions. This imbalance does not create fairness. It creates distortion.
Education, which should serve as a safeguard against such distortion, is not immune either. In parts of Europe, including the Netherlands, concerns have emerged about how Holocaust education is approached in increasingly diverse classrooms. When historical truth becomes something to be softened or avoided, the consequences extend far beyond the classroom. Memory fades, context disappears, and space is created for narratives that would otherwise be challenged.
Against this backdrop, the role of media becomes even more critical. Journalism should not be about shaping reality to fit a narrative. It should be about presenting facts with clarity and context. Yet when neutrality becomes a mask for selective framing, trust begins to erode.
This is why clarity matters. Not forced neutrality, not artificial balance, but honest positioning. Readers are not misled by perspective. They are misled by the illusion of objectivity when it does not truly exist.
The responsibility does not lie solely with journalists. Readers must also engage actively, questioning what they read, recognizing patterns, and seeking context beyond headlines. Passive consumption allows narratives to take root unchecked. Critical thinking challenges them.
Standing for Israel in today’s information landscape is not simply about defending policies or decisions. It is about defending the integrity of language and the accuracy of history. It is about refusing to accept distortions simply because they are repeated often enough.
Sabine Sterk is the CEO of Time To Stand Up For Israel.