Posted on Leave a comment

The Cracks in the Fortress: How Gaza Exposed the Fragile Myth of the US-Israel “Special Relationship”

Netanyahu boasts of an alliance “as strong as ancient stones,” but the foundation is crumbling beneath his feet. The Gaza genocide has not only isolated Israel—it has begun to unravel the decades-old special relationship with America, revealing it as a partnership built on interests, not values.


The Illusion of Strength

Benjamin Netanyahu stood before the ancient stones of Jerusalem’s Wailing Wall and told Marco Rubio that the US-Israel alliance was “as strong and stable as these stones.” It was a powerful photo op—but a profound lie.

Image 1: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee visit the Western Wall in Jerusalem’s Old City, Sept. 14, 2025. Photo by Chaim Goldberg/FLASH90.

The reality is that the war in Gaza has made Israel more isolated and dependent on the US than ever before, while simultaneously corroding American public support for Israel to historic lows. This isn’t just a diplomatic rift—it is the collapse of a central pillar of post-Cold War US foreign policy.


1. The Data Doesn’t Lie: America is Turning Away

For decades, support for Israel was a rare point of bipartisan unity in the US. No longer.

This isn’t a temporary shift. It is a generational realignment, driven by values among progressives and interests among conservatives tired of funding foreign wars.


2. How Did We Get Here? The Unraveling of a “Special Relationship”

The US-Israel alliance was once described as a blend of shared values and shared interests. Today, neither holds up.


3. Netanyahu’s Fatal Gambit: Betting on Trump, Losing America https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/netanyahu-gambled-on-a-trump-presidency-will-it-pay-off/id1440719849?i=1000675944967

Netanyahu made a strategic miscalculation. He believed that aligning with the Republican Party—especially Trump—would guarantee unwavering US support.

Instead, he politicized the relationship. Democrats now perceive Israel as a hostile actor interfering in US politics, while Republicans see it as a financial burden. By choosing short-term political gains, Netanyahu sacrificed long-term bipartisan backing. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DNOwHSBt7LY/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

4. The “Super-Sparta” Delusion: Israel’s Dangerous Path

Netanyahu now speaks of transforming Israel into a “Super-Sparta”—a militaristic, self-reliant fortress willing to “stand alone.”

This is a dangerous fantasy.

“Standing alone” means becoming a pariah—like apartheid South Africa, but in a far more dangerous neighborhood.


5. What Comes Next? The Unthinkable is Now Thinkable

The next US president—whether Trump or a Democrat—will not abruptly end the alliance. But the ground is shifting in ways that will inevitably alter it.

    • The $3.8 Billion Question: The current military aid deal expires in 2028. Renegotiating it will be fiercely contested—especially if the war in Gaza continues.

      Why Israel fears a US military aid freeze more than anything
    • Recognition of Palestine: Key US allies like the UK, France, and Australia are moving toward recognizing Palestinian statehood—leaving the US and Israel increasingly isolated.

  • The Biden Factor: Biden may be the last US president with a deep, instinctive connection to Israel. Future leaders will be more transactional, less sentimental.

'I am a Zionist': How Joe Biden's lifelong bond with Israel shapes war policy

Conclusion: The Stones are Cracking

Netanyahu was wrong. The US-Israel relationship is not like the ancient stones of the Wailing Wall—enduring and unshakeable.

It is a partnership built on a crumbling foundation of interests and an evaporated myth of shared values. Gaza has exposed the truth: this is an alliance sustained by inertia, not necessity.

When that inertia ends—and American voters demand change—Israel will learn the hard way that no amount of lobbying can replace genuine friendship. And the US will face a choice: continue supporting a liability, or redefine its role in a changing world.

The stones Netanyahu touched have survived millennia. His alliance may not survive the decade.

twitterlinkedininstagramflickrfoursquaremail

Posted on Leave a comment

Ministry of War: Trump’s ‘Peace’ Mask Slips in Symbolic Return to Aggression

Rebranding the Pentagon as ‘War Department’ exposes the true face of US foreign policy—contradictions, crises, and a dangerous new era of militarism.


1. The Symbolic Declaration of War

  • Friday, September 14: Trump officially reinstates the title “Ministry of War” for the Pentagon.

    Image 1: “I’m going to let these people go back to the Department of War and figure out how to maintain peace.”: Trump
  • Immediate Actions: New website (war.gov), Secretary of Defense now referred to as “Secretary of War.”

    Image 2: From defense to war
  • Legal Loophole: Congress retains the official name (“Department of Defense”), but the propaganda shift is complete. (In defense of the War Department, The Washington Post)

Why It Matters:
Language shapes perception. This isn’t a bureaucratic tweak—it’s a declaration of intent.


2. The Contradiction: “Peace President” or Warmonger?

Image 3: Donald Trump at “Fort Bragg,” NC on June 11, 2025. ( https://whowhatwhy.org/international/trump-tries-out-being-a-warmonger-and-likes-it/)
  • Trump’s Narrative: Claims he “ended 6 wars in 6 months” and deserves a Nobel Peace Prize. CBS News

  • Reality:

    • Orders strikes on Iranian soil (violating sovereignty). WILIPEDIA

    • Threatens military action in Venezuela. REUTERS

    • Increases Pentagon budget while preaching “America First.” NBC NEWS

  • Verdict: A calculated deception to mask escalating aggression. Trump tells Qatar: Won’t happen again


3. The Global Message: Arson, Not Diplomacy

To Adversaries (Iran, Russia, China):

  • “The US is embracing confrontation, not deterrence.”

  • Google AI: The statement “The US is embracing confrontation, not deterrence” suggests a shift in US foreign policy from preventing conflict to actively engaging in it, a claim that is debated but has some recent evidence, such as the potential symbolic impact of restoring the “Department of War” name and rhetoric from some within the current administration emphasizing strength and countering threats from nations like China. However, the concept of “deterrence through denial” still actively shapes US strategy, and the administration’s overall goal remains to avoid war and maintain stability through a strong military and capable defense industrial base. 

    Arguments for “embracing confrontation”
    • Rhetoric and actions:
      Some government officials, like Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, have emphasized the need for strength and capability in the Indo-Pacific, which could be seen as a less defensive posture than pure deterrence. 

    • Symbolic shifts:
      The reported restoration of the “Department of War” name is presented as a signal that the United States is openly acknowledging its role as a war-making power, rather than a reactive one.
       

    • Focus on counteracting threats:
      The new administration is seen by some as focusing strategic attention on countering threats from China, which could be interpreted as a more confrontational approach. 

    Arguments against “embracing confrontation”
    • Deterrence remains a core goal:
      The official mission of the Department of Defense is still to “deter war and ensure our nation’s security”. 

    • Integrated deterrence strategy:
      The US has a strategy of “integrated deterrence,” which includes economic, technological, military, and ideological elements, as well as the role of allies and partners. 

    • Emphasis on peace and stability:
      While acknowledging increased tensions, the goal is still to build a constructive relationship and restore peace and stability. 

    • Building capability for deterrence:
      Efforts to increase defense spending, revitalize the defense industrial base, and improve military capabilities are intended to end conflicts and restore stability through deterrence. 

    Conclusion
    The assertion that the US is embracing confrontation over deterrence is a strong claim. While some actions and rhetoric might be interpreted as more confrontational, the stated goals and broader strategic framework still include deterrence as a central pillar of US foreign policy, particularly in the Indo-Pacific. The distinction often lies in the interpretation of how to best achieve deterrence in a complex, competitive environment. 

To Allies (NATO, Gulf States):

  • “Washington is unstable, unreliable, and hungry for conflict.”

To the World:

  •  “The rules-based order is dead. Welcome to the era of open imperialism.”

    Image 4: Palestine, genocide, and the imperialist lie of the ‘rules-based international order’

4. The Historical Parallels

  •  WIKIPEDIA1947: Last use of “War Department” before rebranding to “Defense Department” post-WWII. WIKIPEDIA(United States Department of Defense)

  • 2024: Trump revives pre-Cold War terminology, signaling a return to unchecked militarism.


5. The Inevitable Fallout

  • Escalation Risk: West Asia (Iran-Israel), Latin America (Venezuela), and Eastern Europe (Ukraine) are tinderboxes.

  • Loss of Trust: Allies question US motives; adversaries prepare for conflict.

  • Legacy: Trump’s presidency may be remembered not for “peace,” but for normalizing war as policy. NEWSWEEK


Call to Action

*“Share this article. Tag media outlets. Demand answers:

  • Why is a ‘peace president’ rebranding for war?

  • Will Congress block this dangerous shift?

  • Is the world ready for Trump’s militarized America?

#MinistryOfWar #TrumpHypocrisy #EndlessWar”*

twitterlinkedininstagramflickrfoursquaremail
Posted on Leave a comment

The ‘Middle East’ is a Eurocentric Myth: It’s Time to Decolonize the Name

Why does a region spanning from Morocco to Iran get labeled the ‘Middle East’—who exactly is it ‘east’ of?

Here is a briefly explanation; The term “Middle East” is rooted in a Western, specifically European, perspective of the world, and perpetuates a Western-centric worldview by defining the region based on its location relative to Europe rather than its own distinct characteristics. This framing, developed during the colonial era, positions Europe as the central point from which other regions are defined and categorized. (Google search)

Image 1: Map of West Asia
image 2: Middle East

 

1. The Colonial Origins of “Middle East”

  • History: Coined by British imperialists in the 19th century (e.g., Alfred Mahan) to describe the area between “Near East” (Balkans) and “Far East” (Asia). Read British colonialism, Middle East

  • Problem: Framed from a London-centric perspective, ignoring local identities. E.g., How they removed Mossadegh from Iran

  • Quote:
    “The ‘Middle East’ exists only in relation to Europe—it’s time to call it by its own names.”

    Image 3: 19th-century British colonial maps

    2. Alternative Names & Their Meanings

    A. West Asia (Most Neutral)

    • Used by the UN, academic institutions, and many Asian countries.
    • Includes: Arab states, Iran, Turkey, Israel/Palestine.
    • Pros: Geographically accurate, avoids colonial baggage.
    • West Asia description by WikiLeaks

    B. The Arab World (For Arab-Majority Nations)

    Image 4: The Arab World West Asia World Map
    • The 22 countries of the Arab League (Morocco to Iraq).
    • Pros: Emphasizes linguistic/cultural unity.
    • Cons: Excludes non-Arab nations (Iran, Turkey, etc.).

    C. Mashriq (Historical & Cultural Term)

    • Arabic for “where the sun rises” (traditionally the Levant + Iraq).

      Image 5: The levant; source Wikipedia
    • Pros: Indigenous term, rich historical weight.

    D. Southwest Asia (Less Common but Accurate)

    • Used in some academic circles as an alternative to “Middle East.”

      Image 6: Southwest Asia, subregion of Asia, bounded on the west by the Mediterranean Sea, the Sinai Peninsula, and the Red Sea and on the south and southeast by the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf. The region reaches the Caspian Sea and the Black Sea to the north. Southwest Asia is often, but not always, coterminous with the Middle East; the latter is a more variable term that often includes parts of the African continent, while the term “Southwest Asia” is restricted to the continent of Asia(Britannica)

    3. Why Language Matters: The Politics of Naming

    4. Who Resists the Change—And Why?

    • Western Media/Academia: Habit, inertia, and subconscious imperialism.
    • Local Divisions: Some Arab nationalists prefer “Arab World(1),” while others advocate “West Asia.(2)”
      1. Arab World:

      This term is rooted in pan-Arabism, a nationalist ideology that emphasizes the cultural and political unity of all Arab people. It highlights shared language, history, and culture as unifying factors. The “Arab World” typically includes countries in North Africa and West Asia where Arabic is the dominant language. 

      2. West Asia:

      This term is a more geographically-focused label, often used in international relations and political analysis. It can be seen as a way to discuss the region without necessarily invoking the political and cultural connotations associated with “Arab World”. 

      Image 8: A map of the Eastern Hemisphere from Adams Synchronological Chart or Map of History. “The bright colors denote those countries that are the Subjects of history, previous to the discovery of America”. – Wikipedia

    5. The Way Forward: What Should We Call It?

    • For Geopolitical Accuracy: “West Asia” (includes all nations, neutral).
    • For Cultural Unity: “Arab World” (when referring to Arab-majority nations).
    • For Historical Context: “Mashriq” (for deeper cultural discussions).
    • Call to Action:
      “Next time you read ‘Middle East,’ ask: Who benefits from this outdated term?”

    Conclusion

    • Reiterate that decolonizing language is a small but crucial step in challenging imperial narratives.
    • End with a powerful question:
      “If we can’t even let a region name itself, how can we claim to respect its sovereignty?”

    Worlds Atlas with their own names

    Additional Resources (For Links)

     

twitterlinkedininstagramflickrfoursquaremail