Presidential election failure Kamala Harris was trounced by Donald Trump in 2024. Barring a handful of deluded centrist melts, most of us could see it coming. Her insipid campaign inspired few and delivered even less.

Many suspected her silence on Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians was also a factor in the loss. Now there seems to be solid evidence that this was indeed the case. The DNC has refused to release the report, bizarrely arguing that publishing an analysis of why it lost an election would distract it from the business of winning elections.

But parts of the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) secret 2024 election autopsy report have leaked. These sections say the Biden administration’s position on Israel-Palestine did real damage – culminating in a Trump win.

US news site Axios got the scoop:

Top Democratic officials who worked on the party’s still-secret autopsy of the 2024 election concluded that Kamala Harris lost significant support because of the Biden administration’s approach to the war in Gaza.

The report found a split between the left and right of the party (progressive vs moderate in the clunky US terminology):

Progressive and moderate Democrats are particularly divided over Israel, with the left more critical of that nation’s actions against Palestinians in Gaza and many questioning the U.S.’s unwavering support for Israel.

Go figure…

The report claims – rather weakly to be frank – that Harris “sought to strike a balance”

showing strong support for Israel while calling for a ceasefire and expressing sympathy for Palestinians under attack in Gaza as well as the hostages being held by Hamas.

If that sounds anything like a ‘balance’ then American ‘moderates’ need remedial English lessons – but that’s hardly new. Pfft.

A net negative

The IMEU Policy Project gave particularly damning feedback to DNC staffers compiling the report:

The IMEU:

works to educate elected officials, policy-makers, and voters and advocate in Congress and the Executive Branch for US policies that advance Palestinian rights and freedom.

Axios reported:

Activists from the IMEU Policy Project told the DNC that the Biden-Harris administration’s support for Israel was a factor in the party’s losses because it drained support from some young people and progressives.

And Hamid Bendaas, a spokesperson for the IMEU Policy Project, said:

that during the meeting “the DNC shared with us that their own data also found that policy was, in their words, a ‘net-negative’ in the 2024 election.” Two other senior aides at the pro-Palestinian organization also said the DNC had drawn that conclusion.

They also underlined that:

Axios independently verified that Democratic officials conducting the autopsy believed the issue harmed the party’s standing with some voters.

Something of a ‘no shit, Sherlock’ moment then…

The full DNC report remains secret. The IMEU has claimed this is because of these findings:

The IMEU Policy Project is now accusing the DNC of withholding its report in part because of its findings on Israel.

The DNC has denied this. One Harris aide said the failed candidate has admitted the Democrats should have been better on Palestine:

Harris wrote that she privately “pleaded” with Biden to show more empathy for civilians in Gaza. But during her campaign, she declined to publicly break with him over Israel.

That may be the case. Or it may not. But the fact is that Harris didn’t break with Biden over Israel. Trump is now a year into his second term. And what a bloody year it has been.

The truth is if Harris was elected her government would still have been composed of pro-Israel imperialists. And they still would have groveled at the shrine of empire and private capital. The fact remains that but for an ounce of moral courage among a handful of comfortable, elite US liberals, the world could look quite different today.

Featured image via the Canary

Inaccurate, misleading and intrusive press reporting is causing serious and ongoing harm to individuals and deepening tensions between communities. That’s the verdict of the Press Recognition Panel’s (PRP) 10th Annual Report on the Recognition System.

The report illustrates how irresponsible press coverage is being amplified online and across social media platforms. And this continues to stoke divisions and hatred, and lead to community tensions.

Stories circulate far beyond their original context, with misleading headlines repeated and reframed at scale. This is creating patterns of harm that impact a wide range of people, including women and children, and particularly marginalised groups.

More than 35 stakeholders responded to the PRP’s recent Call for Information. These included regulators, publishers, journalists, academics, campaigners, civil society organisations, and members of the public.

Groups including Amnesty International UK, the Runnymede Trust, Imkaan, the Campaign Against Antisemitism, the End Violence Against Women Coalition, Sport in Mind, and Trans Media Watch, reported widespread impacts and a lack of effective routes to redress.

Public wants better press regulation

Public polling reviewed in the report shows strong and consistent support for regulation independent of government and the press industry. Over half (54%) want a regulator independent of both, 22% favouring a statutory model. But only 3% support an industry-run body, an example of which would be the Independent Press Standards Organisation.

More than a decade has passed since the establishment of the Recognition System following the Leveson Inquiry. Yet Impress remains the only regulator to have demonstrated that it is independent, has proper funding, and is able to protect the public. Most major national publishers continue to operate outside this system, relying instead on membership of a trade complaints body or in-house arrangements.

This means that, across much of the press, accountability is not independently assessed, systemic issues are rarely subject to formal investigation, and access to low-cost arbitration is limited. This creates a system in which only the very wealthy can seek redress through the courts.

Legislative incentives designed by parliament to encourage participation in the Recognition System were never commenced and have since been repealed. This leaves the public with uneven access to redress and justice, and with limited protection against modern press harm. The Labour Party was once a staunch supporter of the Leveson framework. But it has yet to articulate a clear policy direction since taking office.

Kathryn Cearns, chair of the Press Recognition Panel, said:

The substantial harm caused by inaccurate, misleading and intrusive press reporting to individuals and communities across the UK is clearly evident. Lives are being destroyed, intruded upon, and marginalised groups in particular face sustained and enduring attacks.

Digital distribution, algorithmic amplification, and AI-assisted production, coupled with weak and inconsistent oversight, are magnifying this problem, sowing division and stoking community tensions.

The existing fully independent Recognition System remains operational. It protects the public through clear and consistent complaints processes, high standards, structural safeguards, and an independently assessed arbitration scheme that offers low-cost redress.

Advertisement

Yet despite this, most news providers have chosen to remain outside the system, overseeing their own output, leaving ordinary people at the mercy of political and industry choices.

The PRP is calling for new incentives to encourage publishers to join a recognised, truly independent regulator, reform existing bodies, or form new bodies that could apply for recognition.

Featured image via the Canary

Andrea Jenkyns, the Reform mayor for Lincolnshire, has corresponded with the head of an American oil and gas giant in the hopes of opening up the UK to fracking. The environmentally ruinous practice was effectively banned in Britain back in 2019 due to questions over its safety.

On 24 February, the Guardian reported that Jenkyns emailed US fracking firm Heyco Energy to ask how she:

could help with your recent gas find in my county.

In 2025, Heyco’s UK subsidiary – Egdon Resources – published a major gas discovery beneath Lincolnshire’s Gainsborough Trough. However, scientists have known of the wider gas field itself for over a decade.

Unfortunately for Jenkyns, she apparently forgot that the majority of the mayoral authority’s emails are a matter of public record. As such, a freedom of information request revealed her courtship of the American fracking giant.

‘Confidential’ (or not)

In spite of fracking’s well-known potential to cause earthquakes, Jenkyns is reportedly keen to frack her own county. Likewise, and in defiance of the de-facto UK ban on the practice, the Reform mayor has met with fracking companies at least four times in the last 8 months.

The Guardian reported that:

In a presentation marked “Confidential”, Heyco downplayed concerns about toxic chemicals found in fracking fluid. It also shared a list of rebuttals to key criticisms of fracking and its benefits over renewable forms of energy, which was tailored to the Gainsborough Trough project, the documents obtained by the Guardian show.

Jenkyns said she was “very supportive of fracking” in her message asking how she could help the company, sent to Egdon’s general inbox in June last year. The company’s CEO, Mark Abbott, responded 11 minutes later, offering to meet her to “discuss the potential for gas in Lincolnshire and the surrounding area”.

In a Facebook post on the same day as this meeting, Jenkyns championed the exploitation of the Gainsborough gas as a “no-brainer.”

After the meeting, Abbott emailed Jenkyns and other Greater Lincolnshire county officials. He confirmed that they discussed Gainsborough Trough’s shale gas, and methods for building public support for operations in the area.

Egdon Resources and George Yates

Abbott also mentioned the possibility of a US visit for Jenkyns, and offered to set up a meeting with Egdon Resources’ CEO, George Yates. Yates is a major supporter of the Republican Party, a Trump donor, and has links to the ‘climate-sceptic’ Global Warming Policy Foundation.

Inevitably, he’s also previously characterised the concept of net zero as pseudoscience. At the Lincolnshire Energy Conference in February 2025, Yates tried to blame soaring energy prices on the UK’s green energy initiatives. In reality, prices had ballooned due to a worldwide spike in the price of natural gas.

In October 2025, Jenkyns and several other officials met up with Yates. At that meeting, the CEO presented Egdon’s study of the:

potential positive impacts of shale gas development for Lincolnshire.

Jenkyns then held yet another meeting with Heyco itself in 2025.

Fracking – a Ponzi scheme

Jenkyns has positioned herself as an enemy of green energy projects in Lincolnshire. She’s previously lodged complaints about solar farms in the county, and described the concept of net zero as a “con”. This is deeply ironic, given the close resemblance of many US fracking firms to Ponzi schemes.

Back in 2018, the Financial Times investigated the capital generation of 48 major US frackers. It found that the firms are making virtually no real revenue whatsoever. Instead, the companies borrow massive amounts, and buy time by using more loans to pay off the interest on previous debt.

The same rationale would inevitably apply in the UK, as the Brighton Energy Cooperative reported:

1. Gas usage has fallen for years. EU gas demand is 10 percent less than it was in 2007. Indeed, the standard European price of gas is at half its 2013 level. It’s unlikely a gas shortage will manifest to life raft those ailing balance sheets. More and more (non UK) producers have gas on the market – which doesn’t augur well for domestic competitiveness.

2. Renewables are getting cheaper, with large-scale wind and solar 50-60% cheaper since 2013.

3. The UK can’t frack cheaply, since most reserves sit under population centres. Funnily enough, these centres are remarkably unwilling to submit to the various cowboy operations forced upon them and who demand they give up the integrity of their substrata. And all the various conflicts this throws up – legal cases, regulatory obstacles, planning enquiries, public enquiries, public relations men and women – are expensive. Sussex fracker UKOG, for example, maintains it spent £1m on evicting a protest camp two years ago, and that’s only the start of it.

That analysis was published in 2018 – however, the UK’s use of natural gas has only continued to plummet since then.

No comment

Jenkyns and Greater Lincolnshire council refused to offer comment on the Guardian’s exposé. However, Yates himself stated that:

I meet with people of many and varied views on all matters. I am a long-standing Republican supporter, always open and transparent with my political donations, as required by US law. We look to engage with policymakers and politicians of all persuasions to make the case for indigenous resources, which have clear security of supply, economic and environmental benefits compared to increasing reliance on imports.

Meanwhile, the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit’s (ECIU) Alasdair Johnstone stated that:

The public continue to be sceptical about fracking, with polls showing support barely breaks 20%. The Conservatives when in Government learnt to their cost how contentious fracking is as an issue, bringing down a Prime Minister in the process. It is clear that other members of Reform are more wary of the issue, with Reform-led Lancashire and North Yorkshire councils both opposing fracking projects in their areas.

Leaving aside for the moment the fact that Reform can barely even keep its own councillors in line, Jenkyns’ fracking dreams in Lincolnshire are a clear violation of public trust.

The people of the UK are opposed to fracking. Environmental science is opposed to fracking. Even basic economic analysis – that supposed guiding light of the right – is opposed to fracking. Jenkyns is engaged in a blatant cash-grab, and she’s willing to rob the very land of Lincolnshire to do it.

Featured image via the Canary

Prime Minister Keir Starmer posing for a selfie during a visit in Yorkshire last year (Alamy)

3 min read40 min

The reforms are expected to see the New Media Unit (NMU), set up by Labour officials following the party’s 2024 general election victory, given expanded capacity.

For several months, senior officials have been developing plans to improve the government’s digital communications operation, amid a belief that the way departments promote their messaging is slow, antiquated, and failing to keep pace with how people increasingly get information.

James Lyons, who recently served as Keir Starmer’s director of communications in Downing Street, said soon after leaving government that Whitehall communications had “barely changed” since the turn of the century, and that “too many teams” are not equipped for the “modern media environment”.

The work to modernise government messaging has been led by David Dinsmore, a former editor of The Sun who was appointed as the permanent secretary for government communications in November. In December, The Guardian reported that Dinsmore had addressed Starmer and his cabinet on the proposed changes.

PoliticsHome understands that the restructure is essentially finished and is set to take effect in the next few weeks.

It is expected to centre on bolstering the NMU, with staff and resources being redeployed from elsewhere in Whitehall, according to government sources. Based within the Cabinet Office, the NMU was set up by Labour officials soon after entering office to help the government reach voters on new forms of media.

The overhaul includes strengthening digital capabilities, coordinating messaging across departments, and reaching voters across an increasingly fragmented media landscape.

PoliticsHome understands that the government’s communications budget is not expected to increase as part of the renewed online push, but there will be a drive to make output more efficient by streamlining and reducing the number of digital campaigns.

The reforms also reflect rising concern within the government about the spread of false or inflammatory far-right content on social media and the need to better combat it.

A government source told PoliticsHome: “Government needs to keep up with the times and reach people where they are — especially when the likes of Tommy Robinson are dominating so much space online.

“There’s plenty of scope to do things more efficiently in a way that creates more engaging content for both traditional and social media at the same time.”

PoliticsHome revealed last year that the government had started posting on Reddit as part of its effort to use more modern forms of media to get cut-through. A government TikTok account was set up in 2024, followed in December by the Prime Minister joining the platform.

The government has also stepped up its collaboration with content creators, with influencers increasingly being invited to interview ministers and attend press conferences and ministerial visits. PoliticsHome revealed that No 10 hosted its first-ever reception for online influencers in Downing Street last year.

Kanishka Narayan, the minister for artificial intelligence, told PoliticsHome in October that the government had to do “a lot more to win the battle of content online”.

Empire Magazine‘s Amon Warmann has spoken out over the scandal of the BBC’s censorship of filmmaker Akinola Davies Jr’s expressions of solidarity with Palestinian people during the recent BAFTAs ceremony – and ITV’s censorship of Warmann’s own support for Palestine.

The BBC cut out Davies Jr’s “Free Palestine” from his acceptance speech for a BAFTA awarded for his film My Father’s Shadow. The censorship is yet another example of state and media censorship of support for Palestine and opposition to Israel’s Gaza genocide and occupation.

With a two-hour delay, the BBC could’ve removed the N-word slur from its BAFTA coverage, and chose not to.
Meanwhile, it cut Akinola Davies Jr saying “Free Palestine”. A clear editorial decision driven by fear of pro-Israel lobby groups. Shame on them.

The BBC cut the whole ending of Davies’s speech, preventing viewers hearing his solidarity with refugees as well as with Palestinians:

To the economic migrant, the conflict migrant, those under occupation, dictatorship, persecution and those experiencing genocide, you matter and your stories matter more than ever. Your dreams are an act of resistance.

To those watching at home, archive your loved ones, archive your stories yesterday, today and forever.

For Nigeria, for London, Congo, Sudan, free Palestine. Thank you.

Shame on the BBC indeed.

Featured image via the Canary

Labour MP Dawn Butler has written to the BBC following its recent decision to air an involuntary racist slur. Tourette’s campaigner John Davidson shouted the N-word at the BAFTAs, and both Black actors visibly shuddered when they heard it before composing themselves and continuing. Butler has now asked for an “urgent explanation” from the broadcaster. Their choice to air the slur led to widespread hurt against both the Black and disabled community.

The BBC successfully, and conveniently, cut any mention of Palestine from the broadcast. This demonstrates it’s ability to axe or censor content, so why the double standard? This BAFTA incident would suggest they simply didn’t want to, raising questions once again about whose interests the broadcaster serves.

The @BBC should never have aired the N-word racist slur, directed at @michaelb4jordan & @authenticdelroy.

It had a two-hour delay!

This is painful & unforgivable.

Advertisement

I’ve requested an urgent explanation. pic.twitter.com/PuZuD6UI9e

— Dawn Butler ✊🏾💙 (@DawnButlerBrent) February 23, 2026

“This is painful and unforgivable”

The offensive moment in question came as two Black actors, Michael B. Jordan and Delroy Lindo, were on the BAFTA stage to present an award for ‘special visual effects’. Microphones then clearly picked up John Davidson shouting the N-word, a deeply painful racist slur for the Black community.

Butler, acknowledging that Davidson’s disability causes involuntary verbal and physical tics, questions why BBC producers aired the moment, knowing the harm it would cause.

Has BBC learned nothing from the whiplash of the Trump panorama saga…

Butler also makes the point that BBC refused to broadcast an acceptance speech from British writer Akinola Davies Jr for uttering “free Palestine”. BBC, it seems, has an allergy to anything anti-Zionist, showing no concern for minoritised Black and disabled communities.

Commenting on this in her letter, Butler stated:

The BBC could have prevented this, given that the programme was aired on a two-hour delay. It is disappointing that this language was not removed prior to transmission, particularly when other content was edited out. Now we need to understand why.

I understand that the BBC has since edited the iPlayer version to remove the racist slur, I would appreciate a written explanation as to why this was not addressed before the delayed broadcast, who was in the editing room, who made the overall decision and why Mr Davies Jr’s remarks were deemed unsuitable while the racist slur was initially left in.

Advertisement

It can’t be denied; Black people were on the receiving end of a racist slur, intended or not, carrying the weight of decades of colonial savagery and indignity. Davidson in return has faced accusations of racism for an involuntary verbal tick entirely out of his control, enraging the disabled community.

The BBC has let down both in this instance – an entirely avoidable mistake.

Compassion where the right-wing breed division

We wrote earlier today that both minoritised groups have every right to feel upset, with our own Lyndon Mukasa commenting:

While arguments about the need to understand Tourette’s syndrome have validity, this incident is very revealing about the presence of racism in our culture.

Tourette’s syndrome is defined as a motor disorder characterised by involuntary tics. It is very likely that John Davidson’s Tourette’s is classified as coprolalia which is expressed in the form of tics that are involuntarily obscene, derogatory and offensive.

Advertisement

He added that:

It is not known if Davidson is racist or not and it probably doesn’t matter, because his Tourettes drew on a social artifact to express itself as a racist outburst. What John Davidson’s Tourette’s syndrome tells us is that racism exists very much in our society and culture and if it didn’t then Davidson would have likely said something else that would not be rooted in an anti-Black racism.

According to the Guardian, Black British film maker Jonte Richardson decided to quit as a BAFTA judge, over “utterly unforgiveable”  actions.

Expressing his disgust with BAFTA’s (mis)handling, Richardson said:

After considerable soul-searching, I feel compelled to withdraw from the Bafta emerging talent judging panel. The organisation’s handling of the unfortunate Tourette’s N-word incident last night at the awards was utterly unforgivable. I cannot and will not contribute my time, energy and expertise to an organisation that has repeatedly failed to safeguard the dignity of its Black guests, members and the Black creative community.

This is particularly unfortunate given that this year’s cohort boasts some incredible Black talent, especially one of my favourite shows of 2025, Just Act Normal.

Advertisement

However, when an organisation like Bafta, with its own long history of systemic racism, refuses to acknowledge the harm inflicted on both the Black and disabled communities and offer an appropriate apology, remaining involved would be tantamount to condoning its behaviour.

It wouldn’t be far-fetched to presume that the BBC’s decision, just maybe, intended to stir the pot, and deepen divisions between embattled communities.

If so, it did a bloody good job of it. That said, the general public should rise above it – we mustn’t pick sides – especially if you don’t belong to either community. A hierarchy of compassion should not prevail, so as to not play into the hands of the far-right.

Featured image via the Canary

Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) seafarers will take strike action on 5-6 March. The dispute is over pay, transparency and compliance with minimum wage legislation.

The RFA provides operational and logistical support to the Royal Navy. However, the crews are civilian seafarers and they can be members of the RMT union.

Strike action will take place from 00:01 hours on Thursday 5 March until 23:59 hours on Friday 6 March 2026.

If the ship is in port, members must not book on for any duty commencing during that period.

Seafarers to strike but ensure ship safety

During the strike, members will maintain the safety of the ship at all times, including moorings and gangways.

The action follows a strong ballot result in which members voted by nine to one to reject the latest pay offer and back industrial action.

RFA members met after the ballot result and agreed there was a clear aspiration to use the mandate immediately to send a strong message to the RFA and the Ministry of Defence that they must take this situation seriously.

RMT has welcomed the overwhelming vote for strike action after management failed to make a decent pay offer or show it was complying with minimum wage legislation.

Seafarers can routinely work up to 12 hours a day. However, there remains no clear or transparent formula setting out how to calculate pay against those hours.

RMT General Secretary Eddie Dempsey said:

RFA members want a decent pay offer and for the employer to show it is complying with all minimum wage legislation.

Our members, who are the most highly trained seafarers, perform incredibly difficult tasks in often dangerous circumstances, supporting their colleagues in the Royal Navy, whilst spending months at a time away from their families.

Years of real terms pay cuts have left dedicated RFA seafarers worse off, demoralised and this latest offer falls well short of expectations, and significantly below comparable employers within the sector.

Advertisement

The Royal Fleet Auxiliary and the Ministry of Defence must now get around the table with us to address our members’ immediate concerns and tackle the crewing crisis.

That means a clear long-term commitment on pay and conditions, including National Minimum Wage compliance, if they are serious about retention and want to maintain credibility.

This dispute can be resolved, but only if there is a commitment from those with decision making powers to take these matters seriously.

Featured image via the Canary

Ahead of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Israel tomorrow, India ordered X to block access to writings by Middle East Eye journalist Azad Essa. Moreover, this arm-twisting move was justified by the legal prohibition cited by India’s government.

Azad Essa, a US-based South African journalist and senior reporter with MEE, has said that he believes his account was blocked due to his reporting on India-Israel ties. For Essa, the move reflects India’s iron-fisted clampdown on journalistic freedoms in India, accusing X of complicity and censorship.

India blocks Middle East Eye journalist’s X account

Azad Essa, a senior reporter with Middle East Eye, says he has been routinely targeted by right-wing elements in the country

— Middle East Eye (@MiddleEastEye) February 23, 2026

Advertisement

Essa is the author of “Hostile Homelands: The New Alliance Between India and Israel” published in 2023. The book chronicles India’s and Israel’s blossoming love affair. Additionally, it describes their deepening military and ideological ties.

The book argues that while India and Israel only restored diplomatic ties in 1992, they maintained surreptitious military ties long before the 90s. In fact, Essa’s research suggests that Israel supplied weapons to India during its wars with China (1962) and Pakistan (1965 and 1971).

The alliance between India and Israel, he argues, promulgates aggressive nationalism to suppress Palestinian and Kashmiri aspirations.

Modi’s Israel visit slammed

Over the weekend, India’s prime minister Modi, taking to X, gushed about Netanyahu, calling him a friend, and expressing how he’s looking forward to meeting Netanyahu tomorrow.

These sentiments aren’t shared by the broader Indian public, as Al Jazeera notes:

Activists in India are protesting PM Narendra Modi’s planned visit to Israel, saying it goes against the values of a nation that once endured British colonial occupation.

Activists in India are protesting PM Narendra Modi’s planned visit to Israel, saying it goes against the values of a nation that once endured British colonial occupation. pic.twitter.com/hPK3oJrhpp

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) February 24, 2026

Underlining brewing opposition inside India to the Modi-Netanyahu alliance, People’s Dispatch also reported that:

Rallies were organised in different parts of India on Feb 15 to protest against the upcoming visit of far-right PM Narendra Modi to Israel, as it continues its genocide in Gaza in complete violation of the ceasefire it agreed to in November.

Rallies were organized in different parts of India on Feb 15, to protest against the upcoming visit of far-right PM Narendra Modi to Israel, as it continues its genocide in Gaza in complete violation of the ceasefire it agreed to in November.https://t.co/vHrE7pEYhC

— Peoples Dispatch (@peoplesdispatch) February 18, 2026

Advertisement

Whereas Vox Ummah, commenting on the impact of Modi’s visit, wrote that it:

formalises a security partnership built on arms sales and shared control practices, with consequences visible in Gaza and Kashmir. Ya Allah protect our Ummah

Yesterday, officials of the occupation confirmed that Narendra Modi will travel later this month to meet Benjamin Netanyahu. The visit takes place as the confirmed death toll in Gaza has passed 72,000. While announcing Modi’s visit, Netanyahu said, “Israel is enormously popular… pic.twitter.com/u9D5ASBa8l

— VoxUmmah (@VoxUmmah) February 16, 2026

The Infamous Previous Visit and the Epstein Files

As the Canary has previously reported, India’s elite is also known for rubbing shoulders with Epstein – as the paper trail of Epstein files, released by the US DOJ, shows.

On July 9, 2017, three days after Modi’s official visit to Israel, Epstein wrote an email saying that Modi had “danced and sang” in Israel for the benefit of US president Trump. However, the irony, which escapes Modi fanboys, is that the Indian leader’s 2017 visit to Israel coincided with Pegasus spyware attacks on Indian activists.

#WATCH: PM Narendra Modi and his Israeli counterpart Benjamin Netanyahu at Dor beach in Haifa, Israel #PMModiInIsrael pic.twitter.com/6h5BXqxYAW

— Republic (@republic) July 6, 2017

Just three days before, on July 6, Modi and Netanyahu shared a “romantic walk” along Haifa beach – from which countless Palestinian families have been ethnically cleansed. It was the first time an Indian Prime Minister had visited Israel. Consequently, this smashed any possibility of solidarity with Palestine. Odd, one might think, for a country grappling with the shadow of Western imperialism.

Modi is also mentioned in another email suggesting that, in 2019, Epstein encouraged Steve Bannon to meet with him to counter China. He told Bannon that Modi was a strategic opportunity. Furthermore, he mockingly asked him to “look at your underwear” to see if it was made in China or India.

#WATCH: PM Narendra Modi and his Israeli counterpart Benjamin Netanyahu at Dor beach in Haifa, Israel #PMModiInIsrael pic.twitter.com/6h5BXqxYAW

— Republic (@republic) July 6, 2017

Advertisement

Modi and Netanyahu’s adulterous love affair is smothering popular struggles, from Palestine to Kashmir. Indifferent to the suffering of Palestinians and India’s indigenous communities, they shake their blood-stained hands over fresh, secret military deals. Azad Essa, it seems, won’t be the first or last journalist to be iced out.

Featured image via the Canary

Israel has used the F-35 jet throughout the Gaza genocide, as well as in airstrikes against Iran, Lebanon and Yemen. And now Israel’s ambassador to the US, Yechiel Leiter, has confirmed the number of flight hours Israeli pilots have on the Lockheed Martin stealth fighter:

is greater than that of all the pilots of the other foreign countries that were partners in developing the aircraft.

These comments are completely at odds with the UK government’s insistence that Israel is a “minor customer” of the global F-35 jet programme.

Valuable feedback for Lockheed Martin

In an interview Leiter said:

The feedback from our pilots reaches Lockheed Martin. When I visited there a few weeks ago, their CEO told me that Israel’s information and developments ‘are worth many billions to my company.’

Leiter was speaking with Israel Hayom daily, and the Times of Israel reported it on 16 February.

The UK makes 15% of the F-35 jet. The US is the lead partner and the UK is the only Tier 1 partner. The other partners to the programme are Australia, Canada, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands and Norway.

Israel has 48 F-35I jets, with 27 more jets on order. On 20 January, the Canary shared news from Lakenheath Alliance for Peace that three new F-35Is left the UK air base, RAF Mildenhall, bound for Israel.

Israel is also involved in the production of the F-35 programme. In February 2026 Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) celebrated the delivery of its 350th fighter jet wings to Lockheed Martin for production of the F-35 fighter jet.

UK government comments

The UK government has been provided with extensive evidence of Israel’s use of the F-35Is by Al-Haq and GLAN throughout their legal case in the UK High Court.

Despite an Israeli ambassador and the CEO of Lockheed Martin confirming Israel’s central role in the F-35 programme – both as a user and developer of the F-35 jet – the UK government has repeatedly attempted to downplay Israel’s use of the jet and role in the programme.

In a letter to Dame Meg Hillier MP on 19 February, minister for the Middle East Hamish Falconer MP wrote:

The UK Government has stopped direct exports of F-35 parts for use by Israel. The only exception is for the global programme, of which Israel is a minor customer [emphasis added].

In a letter to Sarah Champion MP, chair of the International Development Committee, on 1 September 2025, former foreign secretary David Lammy wrote:

We are unaware of any possible breaches of IHL having been linked to the limited evidence of F-35 use in Gaza and it is worth remembering that, where UK-produced F-35 parts go to the global spares pool, Israel operate a very small proportion of over 1,000 F-35s in the global fleet [emphasis added].

Use of F-35s in Gaza

As early as November 2023 it was reported that Israel was making heavy use of its modified F-35I Adirs. Former IDF chief of staff Lt Gen Herzi Halevi confirmed F-35Is were providing close air support to ground troops 200 metres away in Gaza. He stated:

We never did anything like this. With very heavy munitions, a very good connection between what the [ground] force needs and what the plane knows to give.

In December 2023, US officials confirmed they were rushing spare parts and additional capabilities “at breakneck speed” for the F-35 to Israel from October 2023. Officials stated Israel’s F-35Is have performed “absolutely outstanding” in Gaza, and that the programme could “learn a lot” from seeing F-35s used in combat.

The Israeli Air Force has modified its F-35Is, in partnership with Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon’s F-35 programme, to operate in so-called “beast mode”, which allows them to carry four 2,000lb bombs. The IAF said that its aircraft are the “only F-35 to conduct strikes with this design.”

Danish NGO Danwatch revealed that in July 2024 an F-35 dropped three 2,000 lb bombs in an attack on a so-called “safe zone” on Al-Mawasi in Khan Younis, killing 90 Palestinians.

A spokesperson for Campaign Against Arms Trade said:

Israel is plainly not a minor customer for the F-35 programme, if it has flown more hours than any other partner country in the programme, and if the data it has generated though its genocide in Gaza is worth billions to Lockheed Martin. No other country has used the F-35 jet at near the rate that Israel has, let alone in two years of active combat. This cannot be overstated.

The comments made by Lockheed Martin and US and Israel officials over the last two and half years go beyond illustrating passive greed. Israel’s attack was immediately identified as an unprecedented opportunity by the F-35 programme to collaborate with the IDF and take the data generated by Palestinian suffering and death to test, develop, market and sell the jet.

We call on the UK government to correct the record, and admit that Israel is the key customer of the F-35 programme. We call on the government to immediately halt all transfers of F-35 parts to Israel.

Featured image via YouTube / Military Aviation Channel