Most people you know will use Meta applications. But do they know the corporate giant is also paying Israeli extremists amid the ongoing genocide in Gaza and illegal settlement expansion in the West Bank?

Meta incentivising hate, violence, and illegality

Digital rights group 7amleh has released a new report showing Meta isn’t just failing to remove or limit “violent, racist, and inciting content against Palestinians” but is:

financially enabling it through monetization programs

7amleh doesn’t see this as:

a technical flaw or procedural gap, but rather a practice that incentivizes harmful content, normalizes violations, and amplifies their impact

Meta owns Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. But it’s Facebook that’s the focus of the report, which documents:

dozens of Israeli extreme right wing and settlement related Facebook pages that are actively monetized by Meta

Such pages, it clarifies:

promote or legitimize military operations and violence against a protected civilian population

And Meta’s monetisation, which has apparently “failed to assess or mitigate the human rights risks associated”:

functions as a mechanism that rewards and supports the settlement expansion movement

As a result, the corporation:

risks contributing to internationally wrongful acts

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories is illegal. There is also an overwhelming consensus among experts that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza. And although the ICJ will take time to make an official ruling, it accepted in 2024 that this was plausible and called for action.

Breaking its own rules

Meta very clearly took sides early on in the genocide (as did other major global corporations). And as 7amleh’s report explains:

Hebrew content that includes incitement, dehumanization, and explicit calls for violence has been allowed to circulate widely, with limited enforcement

Palestinian content creators, on the other hand, have been:

structurally barred from accessing monetization tools solely because they are based in Palestine

Meta, a report summary says, has essentially created:

a dual system: on one hand, Palestinian digital and economic participation is suppressed; on the other, pages that promote settlement activity, violence, and incitement against Palestinians are financially rewarded.

The company has monetised:

Israeli right-wing pages and accounts, including those linked to the settlement movement, far-right public figures, and media outlets known for incitement.

But it also seems to have gone against its own rules, as the report:

documents cases involving entities that should be ineligible for monetization under Meta’s own policies, such as government bodies.

7amleh wants Meta to stop excluding Palestinians from monetisation, end the monetisation of pages and accounts inciting hatred and violence, and enforce its policies fairly. It also calls for independent audits and a fair appeals process.

Featured image via the Canary

By Ed Sykes

Source link

The world has abandoned, not forgotten, people in Sudan, a top UN official has said. UN coordinator for Sudan Denise Brown said the country was “on repeat”. The war is in its fourth year. Some estimates say 150,000 people have died as a result of the war with over 10 million displaced.

Human rights violations, widespread sexual violence, and sundry other war crimes have been normalised as the UAE-backed Rapid Support Forces (RSF) fights the national government.

As Sudan’s war moves into a fourth year, civilians are still being killed, displaced and subjected to widespread sexual violence.

"We are on repeat in Sudan", the UN’s top humanitarian official in the country warned on Monday, calling for urgent action to stop the fighting. pic.twitter.com/4U29nPFIFS

Advertisement

— UN News (@UN_News_Centre) April 13, 2026

And although the world’s great power have failed to help, many of them are involved – pursuing their own interests at the expense of the Sudanese population. Neighbouring states have also become entangled.

Brown told journalists:

We are on repeat in Sudan. Please don’t call this a forgotten crisis. I’m referring to this as an abandoned crisis.

The UN website said:

Humanitarians in Darfur have treated close to 2,500 survivors of sexual violence over the past year. Ms. Brown said the impact goes far beyond the immediate survivors, affecting families, communities and children born as a result of sexual violence.

She also highlighted mass killings around El Fasher, where she said 6,000 people were killed in three days according to verified information, while the real number could be higher.

Brown asked:

What more has to happen for everyone to sit up and pay attention, to find a solution?

And:

She urged Member States to focus on the forces driving the war, including the flow of weapons and the wider war economy. She also referred to questions around the Darfur arms embargo and whether enough is being done to enforce it.

Arms flows into Sudan

As the Canary has reported, the UAE has been a major backer of RSF in its war with the Sudanese government. Turkey, Egypt, Israel and many more countries are pursuing their own interests in Sudan too. British military components has also shown up on the battlefield in RSF hands. The UK is a major arms supplier to UAE.

As the Canary has said in our previous coverage of this poorly understood genocidal war:

The war in Sudan is theoretically between RSF and the Sudanese government. But foreign states pursuing their own interests are backing the combatants. The United Arab Emirates (UAE), for example, backs the RSF with arms and equipment. Egypt backs the government, alongside Russia, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. Israel has backed both sides at different times.

The mounting death toll is similarly mindboggling:

RSF has killed Sudanese civilians in vast numbers. And some estimates say 150,000 people have died and over 10mn have been displaced by fighting.

You can read more of our reporting on RSF and Sudan here.

Beyond time for action

On 9 April, a Yale forensic human rights thinktank reported how vehicles modified for paramilitary use was flowing into Sudan via Ethiopia And, as in war zones all over the world, drones have become a deadly factor in the fighting. France 24 reported on 14 April that UN aid chief Tom Fletcher claimed nearly 700 people had been killed by drones so far in 2026.

Fletcher said:

We need action now – to stop the violence, protect civilians, ensure access to communities in greatest danger, and fund the response.

This grim and chastening anniversary marks another year when the world has failed to meet the test of Sudan.

Sudan’s plight is truly hideous but it barely seems to register amid various other wars raging around the world. Yet it is an inescapable fact that the killing there is taking place on a scale which likely exceeds that in Gaza and, for example, Iran – so far, at least. Like those conflicts it is a result of centuries of imperial intervention by regional and global powers – not least, Britain. The horrors in Sudan should be reported with the same vigour.

Featured image via the Canary

By Joe Glenton

Source link

Kuwait has arrested journalist Ahmed Shihab-Eldin in an aggressive social media crackdown. The Gulf state accuses Shihab-Eldin of publicising damage to infrastructure caused by Iranian retaliation to the unprovoked and illegal US-Israeli war.

Prominent Journalist Ahmed Shihab-Eldin Has Been in Jail for Six Weeks in Kuwait, Faces Trial in Special Tribunalhttps://t.co/6u8QeUpMUU

— jeremy scahill (@jeremyscahill) April 14, 2026

Kuwait crackdown

Drop Site News reported on 14 April:

Prominent journalist Ahmed Shihab-Eldin was arrested six weeks ago in Kuwait where he remains in detention and faces prosecution in a special tribunal over social media posts related to the Iran war. His detention comes as part of a wider crackdown on online speech in Kuwait and other Gulf countries during the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran that has engulfed the region.

CPJ calls on Kuwaiti authorities to immediately and unconditionally release Kuwaiti-American journalist Ahmed Shihab-Eldin, detained under new security and fake news laws.

Read more: https://t.co/H1qBu1OCFg#FreeAhmed #FreeAhmedEldin pic.twitter.com/aCUtmw6i9l

— Committee to Protect Journalists (@pressfreedom) April 14, 2026

Advertisement

The US-based outlet described Shihab-Eldin as “an American born Kuwaiti citizen” and:

award-winning journalist with more than two million followers across social media platforms.

Human rights organisations have condemned his detention. Sara Qudah, the Middle East and North Africa Director for the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), told Drop Site:

We are seeing escalating censorship of journalists and news outlets across the world in relation to the Iran war, including in the Gulf. National security is being used as a pretext to crack down on freedom of speech and Shihab-Eldin’s detention is emblematic of that. He must be freed immediately.

He was reportedly arrested on 3 March 2026, five days after the illegal assault on Iran began, and has had little contact with his legal counsel. Drop Site said:

There has been little transparency around his case, but the charges he faces are reported to be related to his social media posts, including a video showing a U.S. fighter jet crash near a U.S. air base in Kuwait, according to CPJ, which stressed that the videos and images he shared had been publicly available.

Adding:

The charges Shihab-Eldin faces may include allegations of spreading false information, harming national security, and misuse of a mobile phone.

Press freedoms

Kuwait, like UAE, has enacted a ban on reporting details of war damage. Only a month ago Shihab-Eldin spoke to Pullitzer-winning reporter Chris Hedges about how the legacy media had capitulated to the US and Israel’s genocidal impulses:

Drop Site said dozens of other people had been detained in similar circumstances. Kuwait has created new courts designed to deliver rapid judgements:

The courts were established to “resolve cases with high speed,” and the Kuwaiti government claimed they were “necessary due to the extreme danger terrorism poses to national stability and peace,” according to Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Wasat.

Authoritarians are carrying out a global assault on press freedom and truth telling. This has only been exacerbated by the genocide in Gaza and the US-Israeli attack on Iran. The Canary stands in solidarity with Ahmed Shihab-Eldin. And with our fellow journalists all over the world who are under attack. He should be freed immediately to continue his vital work.

Featured image via the Canary

By Joe Glenton

Source link

Every few months, a weight loss story captures attention online.

Recently, it was a woman who reportedly lost around 10 stone in just six months. The story was framed around discipline, routine, and a dramatic transformation. The kind that inevitably sparks the same reaction:

“How did she do it?”

And more importantly:

“Could I actually stick to that?”

According to the report, her results were not just down to a traditional restrictive diet. They were supported by the use of prescription weight loss injections, alongside changes to her eating habits and lifestyle. These treatments work by reducing appetite and helping people feel full on much smaller portions, which can make it easier to maintain a calorie deficit without relying purely on willpower.

That detail matters.

Because behind most of these stories sits a familiar assumption that losing weight means strict rules, repetitive meals, and cutting out anything remotely enjoyable.

Chicken. Rice. Salad. Repeat.

But for many people using weight loss injections today, that idea is starting to look increasingly outdated.

The old model of dieting

For years, weight loss advice has followed a similar pattern.

• Cut calories as much as possible
• Stick to “clean” foods
• Avoid anything seen as a treat
• Rely heavily on willpower

For some people, that approach works in the short term.

But for many others, it leads to a cycle of restriction, burnout, and eventually slipping back into old habits. Not because they lack discipline, but because the approach is difficult to maintain in everyday life.

Why things are starting to change

Weight loss injections are shifting the experience in a way that is less about forcing discipline and more about reducing friction.

By lowering appetite and helping people feel full sooner, they change the starting point. Instead of constantly fighting hunger, people are working with a body that is not pushing back as hard.

That is why treatments such as mounjaro weight loss injections are becoming more widely discussed.

But one of the biggest misunderstandings is what this means for diet.

Because while appetite is reduced, that does not mean people are suddenly following extreme or highly restrictive meal plans.

You don’t have to eat like a bodybuilder

One of the most persistent myths around weight loss is that your diet has to look perfect to be effective.

Endless meal prep. Cutting out entire food groups. Eating the same meals every day.

In reality, many people using weight loss injections find the opposite.

Because their appetite is lower, they are not constantly dealing with cravings or hunger spikes. That often leads to:

• Smaller portions without strict tracking
• More flexibility in food choices
• Less focus on “good” and “bad” foods

Food becomes less of a battle and more of a background part of the day.

So what does eating actually look like?

Instead of following rigid rules, most people settle into a more balanced and realistic approach.

That might include:

• Eating when they are genuinely hungry rather than on a strict schedule
• Having smaller versions of normal meals instead of separate “diet food”
• Including foods they enjoy without feeling the need to overdo it

There is still a structure to it, but it is not built around restriction for the sake of it.

For anyone trying to understand how to approach this properly, guidance around what to eat on mounjaro can help turn that flexibility into something more practical without falling back into overly strict dieting habits.

Why extreme diets are losing their appeal

Stories of rapid weight loss still tend to focus on discipline because that is what people expect.

But the reality is shifting.

More people are moving away from the idea that weight loss has to feel punishing to be effective. Instead, the focus is starting to move towards approaches that are easier to live with long term.

That does not mean there is no effort involved. It just means the process does not have to rely entirely on restriction.

A different way to think about weight loss

Rather than asking how strict a diet needs to be, a better question might be how sustainable it is.

Can you actually keep eating that way for months, not just weeks?

Does it fit around your life, or does everything have to revolve around it?

For many people, that is where traditional dieting falls short.

The bottom line

Weight loss stories will probably always highlight dramatic transformations.

But the way people get there is changing.

For some, it no longer looks like repetitive meals and constant restriction. It looks more flexible, more balanced, and far more realistic to maintain.

And for anyone who has struggled with strict diets in the past, that shift might be the most important change of all.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Weight loss treatments, including prescription injections, should only be used under the guidance of a qualified healthcare professional. Always consult your GP before starting any new diet, medication, or weight loss programme. Individual results may vary.

By Nathan Spears

Source link

The Green Party have announced measures to tackle the ‘affordability crisis’ and to end the ‘normalisation’ of food banks.

The Greens have called for a raft of measures that will support all people who are affected by the crisis. Though it’s more commonly known as the cost-of-living crisis, it’s clearly more about the fact that people can’t afford the inexplicably rising bills.

Green policies to support all, not just the rich

Leader Zack Polanski and deputy leader Rachel Millward announced the plans at a Community Fridge in Sussex.

The measures will include universal support with energy bills this winter, rent controls, free school meals for all, and for the UK to join a customs union with the EU to reduce costs to businesses.

Though it shouldn’t be controversial, one part of the plans will be talked about far more than the others: the Greens have proposed to introduce a 10:1 pay ratio. This would mean the highest-paid person in a company couldn’t earn more than ten times what the lowest-earning employees do.

In practice, minimum-wage employees would get a pay rise, but crucially, we would also see the end to sky-high executive salaries and ridiculous bonuses.

This will no doubt be met with criticism from the ruling class, but it’s also causing a furore on social media. Annoyingly, some criticism is coming from those in the working class who are desperate to suck off those with a foot on their neck. This is despite the average FTSE 100 CEO earning around 113 times more than the average worker.

There’s always the argument that if we tax the billionaires, they’ll leave, but many of them already have their assets tied up offshore to save money anyway. It’s more important right now that we make lives easier for those who are struggling than do what the rest of the parties are doing and appease billionaires.

Approximately 6.5 million people a year are forced to turn to foodbanks. One in five of these are from a working household. In 2025, the Trussell Trust provided over 2.6 million food parcels. Recent research found that, whilst supermarket prices rise, 40% of people are left with less than £25 at the end of each week.

Policies for real people

As Canary reporter James Wright said recently, while Labour have come up with cost-of-living policies, they’re certainly not new. They’re just the same old tired Labour and Tory policies reheated – something Labour does best.

Polanski was keen to impress that everyone should be able to access support, because it’s far easier to fall into poverty than become a billionaire.

Polanski said:

The affordability crisis is something affecting nearly everyone, from the most vulnerable to people in work and comfortable, where any change in circumstance can push people over the edge into requiring a foodbank.

This crisis is totally avoidable and down to choices made by this Labour government and previous Tory governments. The Greens have a plan which would make different choices, taking on corporate power and vested interests to give ordinary people a way out of this crisis

Rachel Millward pointed to how much wealth there is in the UK, which is being hoarded by a few to the detriment of others:

The UK is the sixth largest economy in the world where the 50 richest families hold more wealth than the poorest 50% of the population. Yet millions face food insecurity, food poverty and turn to foodbanks to prevent them going hungry. A high proportion of these are people from working households.

Millward continued:

It’s time to end the normalisation of food bank use and the scourge of food and energy poverty affecting so many families.

It’s very easy to praise this ambitious policy, but it must also be pointed out that now is a convenient time to announce it. We’re just weeks away from local elections, yet councillors won’t have the power to implement any of this if elected. The Greens have rightly criticised Reform for running with national policies in the same manner.

It remains to be seen whether the Greens will follow through with all of their policies, but its definitely refreshing to see policies that aren’t wishy washy as fuck.

Featured image via the Canary

By Rachel Charlton-Dailey

Source link

Afghan women fleeing one of the world’s most extreme systems of gender persecution are being denied safe asylum in the UK. And this is undermining the UK’s commitments on Women, Peace and Security, a new briefing warns.

Published by Amnesty International UK and the Gender Action for Peace and Security network, the briefing finds that asylum policies framed as restoring “control” are instead designed to deter people from seeking protection, shutting out women and girls escaping Taliban repression.

Sharp drop in successful Afghan asylum claims

Recognition rates for Afghan asylum claims have fallen sharply from 96% to 34% since the current government took office. At least 370 Afghan women and girls had asylum claims refused in 2025 alone.

Campaigners say the consequences are stark. A country that claims global leadership on women’s rights is turning away women fleeing systematic oppression.

Afghanistan is one of the most extreme examples of gender persecution in the world. Women and girls have been erased from public life, barred from education, excluded from work, stripped of autonomy, and silenced by sweeping restrictions on their movement and expression.

Many are effectively confined to their homes under threat of punishment. This is the reality women are fleeing. Yet current UK asylum policies are denying protection to many of them.

Karla McLaren, Amnesty UK’s head of government affairs, said:

Afghanistan is one of the worst places in the world to be a woman. Women have been systematically erased from public life, denied education, autonomy, and even the most basic right to be seen or heard.

Yet as the Taliban tightens its grip, the proportion of women granted safety here is falling. That is indefensible.

Advertisement

The fact that Afghan women are being denied refuge here, despite clear evidence of the brutality they face under the Taliban, shows the extent of the moral and practical collapse in the UK’s asylum decision-making.

Denying protection to women who so clearly should be recognised as refugees, preventing them from rebuilding their lives with dignity, and deliberately subjecting them to years of uncertainty is not strength, but cruelty.

Ministers cannot claim international leadership on women’s rights while turning away women fleeing persecution. The UK’s treatment of Afghan women seeking protection is a total betrayal of the principles it claims to stand for.

A system designed to deter, not protect

The briefing identifies a pattern of policies making it harder for refugees to secure safety in the UK, with disproportionate harm to women and girls. These include:

• Rising refusal rates, including for Afghans despite well-documented persecution.
• Plans to cut refugee status from five years to 30 months, increasing instability.
• Proposals that could delay settlement for up to 20 years, trapping refugees in prolonged insecurity.
• Ending refugee family reunion, closing a vital safe route used predominantly by women and children.

Taken together, campaigners warn these measures amount to a system designed to deter people from seeking asylum rather than protecting those entitled to it.

The UK is the UN Security Council penholder on the Women, Peace and Security agenda. This means it’s responsible for leading global efforts to protect women and girls affected by conflict.

However, the organisations warn that current asylum policies directly undermine these commitments. Denying protection to women fleeing gender-based persecution, including forced marriage, sexual violence, and exclusion from education and work, contradicts the UK’s stated leadership on the global stage.

At a time of rising global conflict and displacement, campaigners say the UK should be strengthening protection, not restricting it.

The organisations behind the briefing call on the UK government to:

• Reinstate refugee family reunion rules.
• Repeal restrictive asylum decision-making provisions.
• Abandon plans that weaken protection for recognised refugees.
• Expand safe routes for women and girls fleeing conflict.

Featured image via the Canary

By The Canary

Source link

The Zionist new owners of the Telegraph — already a hard-right, pro-Israel rag — have made support for Israel compulsory among its staff. Despite claiming ‘free speech’ as a core value, support for Israel is also “core” and non-negotiable — and second on its list of priorities.

Germany’s Axel Springer media is taking over the paper after the Labour government of ‘Zionist without qualification’ Keir Starmer approved the buy-out. Group boss Mathias Döpfner has told staff, including journalists, that the values of the group’s founders are:

1. …freedom, freedom of expression, the rule of law, and democracy.
2. …the right of Israel to exist and oppos[ing] all forms of antisemitism.
3. …advocat[ing] the transatlantic alliance between the United States and Europe.

For good measure, Döpfner made clear that he expects his writers to toe this partisan line completely, telling them that there is “no such thing as neutral journalism”. He expects the Telegraph’s ‘journalism’ to be “pluralistic and surprising, fair, and fact-based” — but clearly it must always be pro-Israel.

The Telegraph rejects both discrimination and Palestinians

A journalist at the rag told Owen Johns that:

To be firmly told by our new parent company-to-be’s CEO that the second most important guiding principle is affirming the right of a country committing genocide and ethnic cleansing is more than a little concerning. It also raises the question of how any reporting from the paper can be considered factual if that is our core principle.

While the paper’s principle list says it “rejects” “all forms of discrimination”, this is not compatible with support for an apartheid ethno-supremacist state still attacking, and stealing land from, its neighbours as well as committing genocide against the Palestinian people that it openly wants gone. The list also says it rejects “political and religious extremism”, but that is not compatible with the ethno-fascism of an occupation that has just passed a death penalty law that only applies to Palestinians and routinely rapes and tortures the thousands of civilians it holds in indefinite detention.

Rather, as Jones notes:

Instead, “oppose all forms of antisemitism” is fused directly with “support the right of Israel to exist.” That conflation matters. Because we know that defenders of Israel have repeatedly blurred the line between antisemitism and opposition to the actions of the Israeli state.

The group’s late founder made explicitly clear how he expects his companies — and indeed European society as a whole – to apply this ‘support’ for Israel. Axel Springer — in a quote still featured on the corporation’s website — said that Israel is “not just any state” and that:

It is the task of our generation to stand firmly by Israel’s side, even if this causes difficulties for our policies elsewhere… [Israel] does not need encouragement, but advocacy… [this is] a German duty.

So committed was Springer to the cause of the ethno-state that his company still boasts, on the same page, that if it wouldn’t have had an adverse impact on sales, he would have “print[ed] his papers in Hebrew”. In case the point isn’t clear enough, it then adds:

At the end of the 1960s, a research institute discovered that there was one single topic on which Axel Springer’s newspapers all took the same stance – namely Israel. Axel Springer dealt confidently with such accusations: “Does anyone want to turn that into an accusation? That’s something I carry with great composure.”

His successor Döpfner, clearly cut from the same cloth, told employees at the group’s German companies that anyone who had an issue with the company flying the Israeli flag should “look for a new job”. But even that was too wishy-washy. Döpfner later said that his political worldview was:

Zionism über alles

which means, “Zionism above everything”.

‘Palestinian’ is ‘antisemitism’

He also described support for Palestine and opposition to Israel’s Gaza genocide as “an almost global wave of antisemitism”, and condemned TikTok’s users for posting millions of comments supporting the Palestinians but only a few tens of thousands “standing by Israel”. “Free Palestine”, said Israeli Presidential Medal of Honor recipient Döpfner, equated to “pro-Hamas”. Döpfner has also amplified false atrocity propaganda about the events of 7 October 2023, including the long-debunked ‘beheaded babies’ lie.

His reference to TikTok is significant. When the US Israel lobby realised that TikTok’s mostly young user base was using the platform to share information about Israel’s genocide and crimes against humanity, its first reaction was to have the US government ban it.

However, it then solved the issue by the ultra-Zionist billionaire Ellison family buying its operations outside China — along with US news outlet CBS. No more pro-Palestinian ‘problem’ in either of them. The purchase of the Telegraph was not necessary to quell any pro-Palestinian output — there was none. But it forms part of the lobby’s push for control of UK ‘mainstream’ media and this country’s political narrative.

Far-right media moves further right

It also bodes ill for freedom of speech in the UK. Keir Starmer is already waging war on pro-Palestinian speech, journalism and activism, but the Springer purchase of the Telegraph will only push that even further. German tabloid Bild, one of the company’s main media outlets, has — as Al Jazeera reported — relentlessly demonised anti-genocide demonstrators as “antisemites”, “mobs” and “Israel-haters”, both in Germany and in the US. Germany’s state enforcers treat peaceful anti-genocide protesters even more brutally and dishonestly than in the US and UK.

For the Telegraph, the buy-out means “business as usual, but even more intensely”. For what survives of free speech and democracy in the UK it is a very bad sign indeed.

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

Source link

Source link

A top Israeli university has found that Israel’s leaders and press have emptied the term antisemitism of meaning by using the it as a cheap tool to attack those critical of the settler-colonial state. Tel Aviv University’s global antisemitism report is truly damning — though not without its limitations in regard to Israel’s demonstrably genocidal actions. The assessment even called Israeli government and media behaviour “absurd”.

The study, titled ‘Antisemitism Worldwide; report for 2025‘, said:

Israeli politicians and media have, particularly in recent months, continuously expanded the scope of what qualifies as antisemitism, at times in absurd or hasty ways. In doing so, they do not win arguments or silence critics, as they perhaps believe; rather, they discredit a crucial fight by politicizing it and emptying it of analytic meaning.

The authors stipulated:

The label of antisemitism is harsh and should be applied only after careful consideration and based on solid criteria.

From an elite Israeli university this is particularly damning — even more so when you read the next passage:

The war crimes committed by Hamas justified an unwavering military campaign as well as
retribution against those responsible, including their accomplices. This, foremost, as a matter
of serving the cause of justice.

This historically dubious framing indicates strongly that the authors still hold to Israel’s colonialist state ideology. Claiming a genocidal assault on Palestinians is qualified by the 7 October attack as a pursuit of “justice” is beyond the pale. Yet even these scholars — with these views — concede that the Israeli press and media have diminished the term antisemitism to the level of absurdity.

Shut down the ministry!

In another section, the scholars blast the government of Israel for “draining” the term of meaning to such a degree that they caused harm to the fight against antisemitism:

The government did not carry out even a single significant and effective action and often caused harm. Israeli politicians at the highest levels steadily expanded the scope of the term ‘antisemitism,’ including through cynical and hasty declarations, drained it of meaning, and damaged the struggle against Jew-hatred.

They urged that the ministry for combating antisemitism, which has “failed in its mission”, should be closed:

and its authorities and budgets transferred to Israel’s embassies and consulates, because only ongoing contact, on the ground, with Jewish communities, law-enforcement authorities, and educators, carried out by professionals and based on attentive listening and determined activity, can contribute to the security of the communities.

There is strong sense that the report authors are liberal Zionists attacking the far-right Benyamin Netanyahu regime. But this arguably adds to its power given the withering tone of its findings. And the report also lays into the antisemitism of supporters of Netanyahu’s most high-profile backer: US president Donald Trump.

Trumpian antisemitism

The report’s framing is once again coloured by the author’s apparent commitment to Zionism. For example they say:

The Middle Eastern policies of Trump’s two administrations have so far been, as opposed to a number of careless and dangerous statements he made, by and large commendable.

By this they mean, for example, Trump’s first-term recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and his aggression towards Iran. Yet they still found:

Trump is also the president who has tolerated, as no contemporary president has, deep seated, loathsome antisemites within his camp, and continues to do so for cynical political reasons.

Adding:

The result is a new culture of everything-goes that is undermining the sense that Jews have had for decades that their future in America is secure.

The report shows us several things. One is that the Gaza genocide and Israeli aggression have caused a crisis at the heart of Zionism. Scholars like these are being forced to tie themselves in ideological knots to stay afloat. And it looks bloody obvious. Zionism’s worst enemy is itself. Because like any colonialist ethnonationalism, it cannot help but contradict itself.

Another is that, as many of us have long suspected, Zionists in Israel and their fellow travelers abroad have reduced a term which should be carefully and properly used to describe a vile form of racism to catch-all slur. And in doing so they have made it harder to face real antisemitism head-on — putting Jewish people in more danger.

Featured image via the Canary

By Joe Glenton

Source link

Far-right propaganda outlets are salivating over a new immigration report from an investment bank – that’s mainly because it fearmongers about the Green Party, which has been surging in recent months and presenting a real challenge to Reform UK.

Because the actual report isn’t public, it can’t face proper outside scrutiny. But as a Green spokesperson insisted:

These figures are made up nonsense and we’ve been given no idea how they are calculated.

Green Party: ‘we won’t scapegoat migrants’

The report comes from Simon French, the “chief economist at Panmure Liberum”, which calls itself “the UK’s largest Independent Investment Bank”. And it claims that a Green election win in 2029 would push the country’s population from around 71.5 million to 75.9 million by 2034 (via net migration of about 900,000 a year).

French is a Times columnist who previously worked in government and “had a central role” in pushing through cuts. And he once wrote about “taking a chainsaw to red tape”. But right-wing rags hope we’ll just accept his estimates on immigration numbers without any scrutiny (as they did themselves).

The Green Party has refused to do so, though. Because a spokesperson told the Telegraph that, while it’s “not at all clear” how French got his figures, it looks like he based them:

apparently, on an ‘open borders’ approach, which is not our current policy

They stressed that:

The Greens support a fair and managed migration system – successive governments have presided over a broken and unjust system.

Responding to the Mail, meanwhile, a Green spokesperson placed the focus firmly on economic injustice, saying:

People are concerned about the impacts of immigration because of a massive affordability crisis, but unlike other parties we won’t scapegoat migrants for the unfairness created by our rigged economic system.

An investment bank wouldn’t want you railing against the economic system, would it?

Despite not knowing where French got his numbers from, we do know that even the Tories brought net migration up to 944,000 in 2023. So even if we believed French’s prediction, it wouldn’t be the kind of number the UK has never seen before.

It’s important to remember, of course, that people from other countries contribute strongly to our economy (something the Green Party has openly insisted). It’s also important to remember why immigration happens at all. Because as the Canary has previously explained, the UK has:

• An ageing population.
• Low birth rates.
• Skills shortages.
• A massive underinvestment problem.
• A longstanding addiction to destructive interference abroad which has played a big part in pushing people out of their homes in the first place.

As Green Party leader Zack Polanski has made completely clear, the focus of our rage should not be on ordinary people seeking a new life in the UK. It should be on the putrid economic system that, for at least five decades, has been decimating communities across the country via public spending cuts, with devastating consequences.

In December 2025, Polanski insisted:

We shouldn’t have a race to the bottom on migration. We should have a race to the top on public services!

He’s absolutely right. But investment banks and elitist propaganda outlets are happy with the way the current economic system works, so it shouldn’t surprise us in the slightest that they prefer to spread hate and fear rather than compassion and hope.

Featured image via the Canary

By Ed Sykes

Source link