France Had a Two-State Solution Too: It Was Called Vichy.

Communists were opposed to the two-state solution for France. It is a mistake for them to accept the two-state solution for Palestine.

9 October 2026

By Stephen Gowans

Pro-Zionist communists, such as the Communist parties of the United States, Canada, Britain, and China, support the two-state “solution,” a euphemism for the colonization of 78 percent of Palestine. Many base their support on the argument that a) communists must allow Palestinians to decide the solution to the problem of Jewish colonization of their homeland and b) that most Palestinians favor the two-state proposal. The first part of the argument is logically flawed. The second part is empirically invalid.

Let’s begin with the second part.

A little over a year ago, The Wall Street Journal reported that “Polls in recent years have shown that only a minority of Israelis and Palestinians support the idea” of a two-state solution. Among Palestinians, “just 28 percent of those interviewed … supported such a plan, while 64 percent opposed it.” A Gallup poll released this month showed that 58 percent of Palestinians interviewed in the West Bank and Jerusalem oppose the two-state proposal. (Palestinians in Gaza, could not, for obvious reasons, be surveyed.) As Mondoweiss, an independent, non-profit news website focused on Palestine concluded, “Most Palestinians disagree with a two-state solution.”

In 1947, when partition of Palestine was proposed by the United Nations General Assembly, Palestinians were dead set against it. It shouldn’t be difficult to understand why. Palestinians were expected to hand over 56 percent of their country to recent immigrants who made up only one-third of the population, while they would keep only 42 percent of their homeland. (Jerusalem, two percent of the territory, was to be internationalized under the UN plan.)

The partition plan sparked a civil war followed by an international war. When the dust had settled, Jewish colonizers had driven 83 percent of Palestinians who lived in what has since become 4 June 1967 (or Green Line) Israel out their homes, and refused their repatriation. At the same time, they expanded their territorial holdings from the 56 percent the UN General Assembly had proposed to 78 percent of Palestine. The colonizers said they had accepted the partition plan, but they implemented not one of the plan’s provisions.

For the next 40 years, Palestinians tried to recover their country, pursuing a vision of one democratic state in all of Palestine.  They met with no success. After decades of struggle, the PLO accepted what has become known as the two-state solution. At the time it appeared that an independent Palestinian state comprising 22 percent of Palestine, as prescribed by the two-state “solution”, had some hope of coming to fruition. But after decades of a failed “peace process” it became obvious to Palestinians that they had been sold a bill of goods. Instead of getting a Palestinian state on one-fifth of Palestinian territory, they were presented with ongoing colonization of the West Bank, the Judaization of East Jerusalem, and a concentration camp in Gaza.

Let’s examine the first part of the argument: Communists must allow Palestinians self-determination to decide the solution to the problem of Jewish colonization of their homeland.

Alain Alameddine and Saman Hasan are active in the Palestinian-led One Democratic State Initiative. They argue that “Standing against the establishment of a democratic Palestinian state in all of Palestine in the name of Palestinian self-determination is a laughable contradiction. Democracy is, by definition, rule of the people. Democratic states are precisely the tool by which people self-determine.”

On top of being a laughable contradiction, opposing the call for a decolonized Palestine is, for communists, an ideological contradiction. Following Lenin’s lead, communists have always favored decolonization, but somehow their support for decolonization has stopped short of Palestine. Lenin didn’t call for the liberation of the world’s oppressed people, except the Palestinians.

Furthermore, no communist would ever have said “The French must be allowed the self-determination to decide whether to accept the partition of their country into a German colony with a capital at Paris (comprising 60 percent of France), and a French state with its capital at Vichy (comprising 40 percent.)  Nor would they have said that the French have accepted that their country should be partitioned, as evidenced by the agreement of their government with the Germans, so we’re going to support the French right to a self-determined “two-state solution.” Any communist who accepted a two-state solution for France would have been justifiably denounced as a collaborator with German colonialism, and hardly a communist at all.

There’s a further contradiction. Pro-Zionist communists say their support for the two-state solution is based on letting Palestinians lead the way, the only true anti-colonial position. The problem with this argument is that pro-Zionist communists have never allowed Palestinians to lead the way.

  1. They supported the transfer of 56 percent of Palestine to Jewish colonizers in 1947, even though Palestinians were vehemently opposed.
  2. Today, they continue to support the two-state proposal despite the fact that most Palestinians oppose it.

The only lead pro-Zionist communists have ever followed is that of Moscow, and today, China and Cuba.  Moscow reversed the position of the communist movement in 1947 from anti-Zionism to pro-Zionism and from support of one secular democratic Palestinian state in all of Palestine to support for the Jewish colonization of the better part of the Palestinians’ homeland. The volte-face was carried out for Soviet geopolitical aims. Stalin believed the Zionists were committed socialists whose opposition to Britain would make them good allies. Leaving aside the question of whether this policy turned out to be an opportunist blunder, it’s absurd that pro-Zionist communists today mimic a policy based on the realpolitik of a state that has been dead for 35 years!

To sum up, many communists think they’re anti-Zionist because they criticize Israel and (say they) stand with the Palestinians (though it’s not clear how they can claim to stand with the Palestinians while supporting a two-state solution the Palestinians oppose.) Anti-Zionism is a rejection of the project of establishing an ethno-supremacist Jewish state in a colonized Palestine. Supporting the two state “solution”, a euphemism for supporting the Jewish colonization of 78 percent of Palestine, is not anti-Zionism. It is the very opposite.

The pro-Zionist two-state “solution” position is clearly at odds with the communist tradition of opposing colonization. It is also at odds with the call for one secular democratic Palestinian state in all of Palestine, the position of the communist movement before the Soviet Union’s 1947 realpolitik volte-face, as well as that of the Palestinian Marxist-Leninist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

Finally, we should recognize the absurdity that lays at the heart of pro-Zionist communist support for the two-state proposal. It assumes that Palestinians would actually prefer the occupation of 78 percent of their land over its liberation. This idea is as absurd as the notion that the French would have preferred a state based at Vichy to the liberation of all of France.

Alain Alameddine and Saman Hasan of the One Democratic State Initiative point out that “A number of movements such as Citizens in a State (Lebanon), the Democratic Popular Unity Party (Jordan), Democratic Socialists of America (USA) [though this is unclear: see comments below, and] Diem25 (Europe)” support some version of one democratic Palestinian state in Palestine. And of course, so too does the Green Party of England and Wales, whose recent support for this position, has been widely covered in the news media.  Ironically, it is reformists, not revolutionaries, who are taking the lead in building anti-Zionist platforms and calling for decolonization of Palestine.

Communists must do more than oppose genocide and accept Israel’s existence as a settler colonial state. As Alameddine and Hasan write “The Israel you have seen over the past three years is the one we have been seeing over the past 78 years. It is the only Israel there is—a danger to Palestine,” the Levant, “and the world. The time for non-solutions is over. We must push forward the dismantling of the settler state and the establishment of its antithesis,” one secular democratic Palestinian state in all of Palestine.

Would Lenin Support the Two State “Solution” or a Decolonized, Secular, Democratic State in All of Palestine?

7 October 2026

By Stephen Gowans

Many Communist parties are pro-Zionist, even if they express solidarity with Palestinians. Their pro-Zionism lies in their support for the so-called two-state “solution,” a proposal to create a Palestinian state in historic Palestine, alongside a Jewish state. What makes this position pro-Zionist is its acceptance of a colonial Jewish state.

Israel, conceived as that part of Palestine colonized by Jewish settlers by the end of the 1948-1949 Arab-Israeli War, is based on the colonization of the greater part (78 percent) of historic Palestine. (What Israel is, in fact, as opposed to in theory, is based on the colonization of all of historic Palestine, plus the Syrian Golan Heights, but for the purposes of this discussion, let’s stick with so-called Green Line Israel, the Jewish state before it took over the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights.). Hence, endorsement of the two-state “solution” is, in part, an endorsement of the colonization of the greater part of Palestine.

Pro-Zionist Communist parties call for a Palestinian state to be created on the 22 percent of the Palestinians’ homeland that Jewish colonizers failed to colonize from 29 November 1947 to 20 July 1949. Even if one were to (incomprehensibly) accept the legitimacy of colonization, why would one accept such a grossly unbalanced division of territory, considering that Palestinians outnumber Israeli Jews? (There are about nine million Palestinians living in historic Palestine and refugee camps versus about 7.4 million Israeli Jews.) Two-state supporters somehow think their proposal is fair, though it’s difficult to see how giving part of one people’s country to another is fair, or how a division that gives four-fifths of the territory to settlers and one-fifth to a greater number of natives is equitable, notwithstanding the fact that giving away any of it to another people is unfair to start.

Some supporters of the pro-Zionist Communist parties say that the parties’ backing of the two-state proposal is based on what Palestinians and their political leaders want, and that they’re only reflecting the aspirations of the Palestinians themselves. This is clearly not the case, since the Communist movement’s support for partition—and hence for the Zionist colonization of a part of Palestine—dates to late 1947, when Palestinians were overwhelmingly opposed to giving up part of their country to Jewish colonizers. (The proposal, which the Soviet Union endorsed, assigned 54 percent of Palestine to Jewish settlers, who made up only one-third of the population, while the Palestinians were allocated 42 percent, even though they comprised two-thirds of the population. Two percent was to be internationalized.) Despite fierce Palestinian opposition, the Communist movement backed the colonialist project anyway because it accorded with the geopolitical goals of the Soviet Union. The views of Palestinians didn’t count. Moscow saw the Zionists as committed socialists whose opposition to Britain marked them out as anti-imperialists and, therefore, potential allies. This position turned out to be, not only a moral and ideological blunder, but a political one, as well. The Zionists, as it soon became evident, were not allies.

Communists continued to back a colonial Zionist state in Palestine during a period when all Palestinian political leaders called for one democratic state in a decolonized Palestine, the very same position that, ironically, Communists themselves had staked out prior to reversing course in late 1947. For example, on the eve of the Communist volte-face, Communists of the British Empire called for “the creation of a free, independent and democratic Palestinian state, which will guarantee equal rights of citizenship with full religious freedom and full opportunities to develop their culture to all its inhabitants, Arab and Jewish.” Arab and Palestinian political leaders adopted the same position, but after 1947, their views didn’t matter much to the Communist movement. It continued to accept the Jewish colonization of part of Palestine.

If Communists couldn’t legitimately use the excuse in 1947 that they were docilely reflecting the political preferences of the Palestinians, they still can’t. A Gallup poll released yesterday, shows that six of 10 Palestinians in the West Bank and Jerusalem (Gaza for understandable reasons couldn’t be surveyed) are opposed to the two-state proposal.

The rejection of the two-state proposal meshes with the view of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a Marxist-Leninist party active in the Palestinian armed resistance. It vehemently opposes the two-state proposal and calls, instead, for a single, secular, democratic Palestinian state in all of historic Palestine.

Palestinian opposition to what scholar Khalid Rashidi has called “the two-state illusion” is understandable. In 1988 the PLO dropped its goal of achieving a democratic state in a decolonized Palestine in favor of the two-state proposal. Since then, it has become clear that neither Israel, nor its partners in North America and Western Europe, have any intention of allowing the vision of a Palestinian state to come to fruition.  The two-state proposal has proved to be a mirage, peddled to Palestinians to pacify them with pie in the sky while Jewish colonizers gradually Judaize that part of historic Palestine they have yet to formally annex.

Israel has taken over much of the West Bank, and in ways that make anything remotely resembling a viable Palestinian state impossible to achieve. Even were there a genuine will to create a Palestinian state in the small part of historic Palestine the two-state proposal deigns to grant the Palestinians (and time has demonstrated that there isn’t), the project—never politically or morally acceptable to begin with—is long past feasible.

The Green Party of England and Wales—perhaps hearing the echoes of the British Empire Communists’ call for a single, decolonized, democratic state in Palestine—has recently called for the same. Ironically, a reformist party has staked out an unequivocally Leninist position, while the heirs of Lenin (some of them) have clung mightily to a reformist position.

The Green Party’s call for decolonization has prompted the One Democratic State Initiative to ask what is keeping other left organizations from doing the same. The Initiative is a Palestinian political project aimed at shifting the focus of those involved in the Palestine question from solidarity with Palestinians and criticism of Israel alone, to campaigning for decolonization, much as Communists campaigned for the decolonization of South Africa and the establishment of one, democratic state, where blacks and whites live as equals.  

Communists need to consider what the ODSI asks. Will their involvement with the question of Palestine be limited to rhetorical solidarity with Palestinians and criticism of the Jewish state—undertaken within the framework of the pro-Zionist two-state illusion—or will they reject colonization, as Leninists must, and endorse what the movement once supported: a decolonized secular democratic state in all of historic Palestine, with equal rights for all, regardless of ethnicity or religion?

The Predators: United States, Israel, and Russia and Their Bella Ultra Inferre

1 October 2026

By Stephen Gowans

The UK government claims to have foiled a planned “terrorist” attack on a USAF air base masquerading as an RAF air base in the English countryside, claiming the thwarted attack was likely orchestrated by Iran.   

The Wall Street Journal commented that using “proxies to plot an attack on a U.K. military installation would mark a significant escalation given that Britain isn’t directly at war with Iran”—an acknowledgement that Britain is at war with Iran, even if not directly. It added that “Iran has targeted British bases abroad during the war” “including Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean and Akrotiri in Cyprus.” It failed to mention that the bases were used by US forces to attack Iran. It’s incomprehensible that anyone should expect immunity from attack for a party that materially aids an aggressor.  

Moreover, how can an alleged planned attack on a UK military facility that has been used by Washington to prosecute a bellum ultro inferre (an unprovoked war of aggression) be characterized as “terrorist” without completely rewriting the definition of terrorism to mean an attack on the military of a foe rather than on its civilians?

Whether you want to call RAF Fairford a concealed US military base, or a shared British-US military facility, three things are clear: One, the base is used by the US military. Two, it has been used to carry out an unprovoked offensive war on Iran. Three, it is, as a consequence, fair game for Iranian retaliation. If you’re going to participate in a war, don’t whine if the enemy plans to strike back.

To be sure, the story of the alleged plot is sufficiently turbid to raise questions about whether there actually ever was a plot to begin with. But if the plot is genuine, and it was orchestrated by Tehran, it is perfectly legitimate.

Haaretz columnist Gideon Levy writes that all Jewish parties in Israel are committed to annihilating Gaza

All leaders of the major Jewish political parties in Israel wish to return to war in Gaza, or more accurately, to resume a genocide by means of massive violence preparatory to the expulsion of the Palestinians from Gaza, which means they all favor the total and final annihilation of Palestinian Gaza, or what the Nazis would have called a Vernichtungskrieg, a war of annihilation.

Given that the Israeli orgy of violence started three years ago, and that the aim of resuming it will be to complete the job begun on 8 October 2023, we might call the project the Endlosung, which is to say, the final solution.

I should add that while Israel has inflicted massive violence on the Palestinians, it is not through violence alone that it carries out its genocide. Violence is the means by which Israel has made Gaza uninhabitable. The aim is not to kill all or even a substantial part of the Palestinian population, but to leave Palestinians with no option but to quit Gaza, or die.  

Jewish colonizers have been using both violent and non-violent means to efface the Palestinian natives from their territory and to replace them with a Jewish majority for the last century. Genocide does not depend on violence alone, or even require it. Even so, the Jewish colonizers have, since 7 October 2023, discovered a newfound lust for violence, which they have been able to indulge, thanks to the largesse of the United States and Germany, which provide the Zionist Vernichtungskrieg 99 percent of its military aid. The Zionists could not run a settler colonial apartheid state, subjugate the Palestinians, occupy parts of Lebanon and Syria, bomb Iran, assassinate Iranian leaders and scientists, support pogroms in the West Bank, and reduce Gaza to rubble, without the substantial assistance of the United States and Germany. In return, Israel does the West’s “dirty work“, as Friedrich Merz, the German chancellor, has pointed out.

Soviet support for the Zionism is racism resolution

On 10 November 1975, the UN General Assembly approved resolution 3379, declaring Zionism to be a form of racism.

It was sponsored by the Arab League and Muslim-majority countries, and backed by the Soviet bloc.

The claim that Zionism is racism was a curious stance for the Soviet bloc to take, since it was inconsistent with Soviet support for the two-state ‘solution,’ which in turn, was inconsistent with Lenin’s championing of decolonization.

In backing the two-state ‘solution,’ the Soviets endorsed the Jewish colonization of Palestinian territory, and by implication supported the very Zionist racism they claimed to oppose. At the same time, they rejected Lenin’s anti-colonialism in promoting a colonialist endeavor in Palestinian territory.

Sadly, the contradictions persist in the communist movement today, where support for the two-state proposal is nearly universal, except among many Trotskyist groups. One can’t be a champion of decolonization while backing the colonization of Palestine. Nor can one be against racism while endorsing a racist Zionist state.

An End to Israel Altogether

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz has called for Israel to end its occupation of southern Syria, not because the occupation is predatory and imperialist, but because “it may well push residents of southern Syria into the arms of” what the newspaper calls “the Iranian axis.”

That the occupation may drive occupied people into the arms of a coalition that opposes occupation, evinces clearly what “the axis” is: an anti-imperialist resistance against the predations of the US-backed Jewish supremacist state in the Levant.

The axis comprises Iran, Hezbollah, Ansar Allah (the Houthis), a branch of the Iraqi PMF, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Marxist PFLP. Before its overthrow by rebranded US-backed Al Qaeda forces, Baathist Syria was also a member. The thread that connects these groups is not Islam (for how would we explain the inclusion of the Marxist PFLP and secular Arab nationalist Syria?) Nor is it Twelver Shia Islam (for neither Hamas, Islamic Jihad, or Ansar Allah fit this category.)

The occupation of southern Syria, which is said by Haaretz to represent a tragedy in embryo, is no different, but in its recency, from the US-backed Zionist occupations of Syria’s Golan, southern Lebanon, Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, and the Palestinian territory known as 4 June 1967 Israel (the first territory the Zionists occupied, representing the 78 percent of Palestine supporters of the two-state proposal believe should be reserved for an ethno-supremacist Jewish state. Miko Peled asks why it is that two-state supporters think Zionist colonizers should get over three-quarters of Palestine, while the Palestinians are relegated to less that one quarter of their country. This makes little sense, considering that there are as many Palestinians living in historic Palestine as Jews. We might call the two-state solution a proposal to carve up Palestine into one big state for Jewish colonizers and a reservation for the natives.)

While I agree with Haaretz that Israel should exit southern Syria, I part company with the newspaper on the reasons for calling for the occupation’s end (because it is predatory, and not because it will strengthen the resistance, which is desirable) and also on the scope of what ought to be called for. If one settler colonial occupation is indefensible, so too is every other. Rather than calling for an end to Israel’s occupation in Syria, one ought to be calling for an end to Israel altogether, the decolonization of the Levant, and the demise of the US imperialist project in the region.

The big enemy and the smaller one

While Israeli prime minister Netanyahu and the settler colonial regime he represents are execrable, and while it was encouraging to have witnessed scores of UN delegations walking out on the genocide-leader’s address to the UN General Assembly, Donald Trump and the imperialist regime he leads are doubly repugnant, and yet only two delegations (Iran’s and Cuba’s) walked out on Trump’s belligerent, self-serving, gasconade before the UN.

Worse, even Trump’s threat to inflict a Vernichtungskrieg on Iran—in the grand hall of an organization ostensibly dedicated to saving humanity from the scourge of war—failed to offend the conscience of UN delegates sufficiently to induce them to walk out. Apparently, a man who is carrying out a genocide of a Palestinian population of 7 million offends the conscience of UN delegations more than his enabler who has repeatedly threatened to carry out a genocide of 90 million Iranians.

 The United States ought to arouse, not less indignation than Israel, and not as much, but far more, considering that not only is it the principal patron, armorer, defender, and promoter of the Jewish supremacist state in Palestine, but its own conduct, apart from its support of Israel, is even more repugnant.

Consider, for example, the unprovoked war of aggression on Iran; the thuggish kidnapping of the Venezuelan president; the effort to conquer Cuba, and to do so by reducing the entire population to misery; the ICE-led fascist pogroms against immigrants and the cold-blooded murder of our comrades Rene Good and Alex Pretti; and on and on ad nauseam.

On top of these offences, Washington makes every one of Israel’s crimes—from racism, to apartheid, to colonization, to genocide—possible.

That makes the United States worse than Israel.

To treat Netanyahu and the US-backed Jewish supremacists in Palestine as outliers while blithely accepting the Zionist state’s chief sponsor—and the world’s most predatory country—as a state worthy of respect, is insupportable and evidence of a widespread failure to order our political enemies from greater to lesser.

Of course, the reason why Trump received a polite reception and Netanyahu did not, is because Trump has the power to punish nearly every country, and Netanyahu does not.

So, delegations are careful about how they express their indignation, and whether they express it at all. It depends on the power of the one who provokes it. Which from the perspective of Washington is just fine. Oderint dum metuant. Let them hate so long as they fear.

On the responsibility of citizens to condemn their own country’s imperialism

In a Washington Post op-ed, NHL Hall of Fame goalie Dominik Hasek wrote that the Washington Capital’s star Alexander Ovechkin, a Russian citizen, must condemn “Russia’s imperialist war in Ukraine and the horrific crimes associated with it,” otherwise he acts as “a walking advertisement for” his government’s actions.

Here’s what Hasek wrote:

“Every citizen acts as a representative of their country and serves as a walking advertisement for its actions — unless, of course, they publicly condemn those actions. At present, this means that every Russian citizen, and especially every supporter of President Vladimir Putin, serves as an advertisement for Russia’s imperialist war in Ukraine and the horrific crimes associated with it, including the mass abduction of Ukrainian children. This applies to all Russian citizens.”

Hasek’s argument might be more compelling if he applied the same logic to the support of US citizens for comparable US crimes. Were Hasek to do so, his argument, using his own words with appropriate substitutions, would look like this:

‘Every citizen acts as a representative of their country and serves as a walking advertisement for its actions — unless, of course, they publicly condemn those actions. At present, this means that every US citizen, and especially every supporter of President Donald Trump, serves as an advertisement for the United States’ imperialist war on Iran and the horrific crimes associated with it, including the mass killing of Iranian schoolgirls. This applies to all US citizens.’

Hasek’s logic also fits with US participation in the genocide of the Palestinians. The United States provides Israel with the arms to carry out the genocide, and the diplomatic backing that enables Israel to pursue its heinous crimes with impunity. This means, per Hasek, that unless every US citizen condemns their country’s participation in the genocide, they are walking advertisements for complicity in a horrible crime.

I join Hasek in condemning Russian imperialism. And I invite him to join me in denouncing US and contingent Israeli imperialism and their horrific crimes.

The United States and Russia. Two predatory powers—one obviously much stronger and more predatory— struggling for control of Ukraine

Readers might ask: How can you characterize Russia as a predatory power for its war on Ukraine, without recognizing US predation on Russia? The answer is that I do recognize US predation on Russia, and I denounce it as firmly as I do the raptorial wars of the United States on Iran and the Palestinians. But while the United States preys on Russia—and does so through NATO and its support for Ukraine—this fact in no way gainsays the reality that what Moscow risibly calls its “special military operation” is a bellum ultro inferre, an offensive war. I see the conflict in Ukraine as a war between Russia and the United States for control of Ukraine; what Lenin would have called a predatory war.

When Hidden Enemies Serve the Reaction and Reveal Themselves

“Either the anti-authoritarians don’t know what they’re talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case, they … serve the reaction.” — Friedrich Engels

24 August 2026

By Stephen Gowans

The question of whether the nature of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the conduct of its government in the country’s internal affairs is acceptable is hardly germane at this moment, when a single question has been made immediately relevant by current circumstances: Is the war of the United States and Israel on Iran acceptable and is the resistance of Iran against the imperial marauding of Washington and its Zionist proxy-state, admirable, desirable, and worthy of support?

In an open letter that appeared in The Guardian on August 20, 2026, a group of mainly US intellectuals denounced Iran under cover of rejecting “the false binary of imperialism and hollow anti-imperialism.” It was a transparent effort to change the channel. The signatories—Angela Davis, Judith Butler, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Rashid Khalidi, and Walden Bello, among others—addressed themselves to Iran’s political prisoners, writing that “On one side, you face the domination of the Islamic Republic; on the other, the imperialist forces that republic claims to stand against.” The word “claims” insinuated that the republic doesn’t really stand against US-Israel imperial forces. Furthermore, the qualification slyly intimated that real anti-imperialists should stand against Iran and its “false” anti-imperialism.

 “We invite global civil society and anti-imperialist activists and organizations to extend their unconditional support and solidarity to all incarcerated kin fighting for our collective liberation, to build relationships with Iranian political prisoners and uplift their voices, to put pressure on the Islamic Republic by challenging its narrative, and to call upon that government to immediately stop all the executions and free all political prisoners.”

Why broach this subject now?

We can speculate about the motives of the signatories. A pusillanimous desire to be held in high esteem in polite society? The inability of the beautiful soul to navigate the dilemmas of the real world? Who really knows?

Is the open letter any different in its intended effects from denouncing the ideology of Hamas and the conduct of its internal affairs in Gaza in the middle of a stepped-up US-backed Israeli genocide of the Palestinians? However deplorable the attempt to change the channel might be, one should never lament occasions when those who would throw one to the wolves identify themselves in advance.

Yet to say the signatories are hidden enemies, is hyperbole. They’ve hardly concealed their political orientation as anti-authoritarians.  They described themselves as “former and current political prisoners, activists, and scholars committed to the global project of abolition, anti-authoritarianism and anti-imperialism,” (though, given their suggestion that Iran’s fighting back against US-Israeli aggression is faux anti-imperialism, it’s not clear what their understanding of anti-imperialism really is.)

Anti-authoritarians are always opposed to the state as an instrument of repression, and will, therefore, only ever support revolutions and resistance movements that fail and never the ones that succeed, since those that do succeed must of necessity repress their enemies, including taking political prisoners. Anti-authoritarians are utopian luftmenschen (quixotic characters with their heads in the clouds) who should not, and generally aren’t, taken very seriously by anyone concerned with the way the world really works. The world of politics, especially when it involves war and revolution, is not a world of graduate seminars. The important questions of the day, observed Bismarck, are decided, not by words, but by blood and iron. And as Saint Just once cautioned, those who carry out revolutions by half measures do nothing but dig their own graves. The same can be said of wars. Kill or be killed. Imprison or be imprisoned.

Perhaps the signatories are not at all unlike those Friedrich Engels had in mind when he wrote of the socialists of his day who had “launched a regular crusade against what they call the principle of authority,” and for whom it sufficed “to tell them that this or that act is authoritarian for it to be condemned.”

“Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?”

Replace “the movement of the proletariat” with “the movement against the muscular imperialism of the United States and its tool, Israel,” and Engels’ concluding paragraph to his reflection “On Authority” places the open letter of the US anti-authoritarian intellectuals in perspective. Either “one of two things must be true,” Engels wrote.

“[E]ither the anti-authoritarians don’t know what they’re talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case, they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction.”

None of this is to endorse the repression of all of those the Iranian state counts as its enemies, or to draw an equals sign between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the proletarian movement; they are clearly two entirely different things. But it is to say that, which of Iran’s repressions are justifiable and which are not (a matter which will depend on one’s political goals) is a question for another time and hardly relevant when Iran is under attack and the priority of those who seek to fight, rather than serve, the reaction, is to do what one can to bring about an end to yet another eruption of US-Israeli imperial aggression. That means remaining focused on the immediate aim, not changing the channel to issue quixotic anti-authoritarian proclamations.

Post script

In March of this year a group of ‘left’ academics, including Gilbert Achcar, a man Lenin would surely have characterized as a “social parson and opportunist,” issued a petition which said “No to war and no to the Islamic Republic.”

The petitioners proclaimed that “We, the beautiful souls of humanity, courageously oppose all things foul and rotten and bravely support all things sweet and good.” Since the petition was aimed at no decision-maker, and was merely a statement, it was clear that its goal was to announce to the world how morally admirable its signatories are.

Among the the world’s foul things, the beautiful souls identified Iran’s “anti-Western rhetoric, slogans calling for the elimination of Israel,” and “support for proxy forces,” which is to say, allies, like Hezbollah, with which Iran shares a common enemy in US imperialism and its instrument, Israel. Slogans calling for the elimination of Israel are surely a terrible thing. It is inconceivable that anyone of a high moral standing could ever want to see the end of settler colonialism, ethnic supremacy, and apartheid in Palestine, much less an end to the genocide of the Palestinians.

At least two of the signatories–Angela Davis and Robin D. G. Kelley–later signed the Guardian open letter.

Kelley has since retracted his signature from the Guardian piece, saying the letter wasn’t what he thought it was. However, given his apparent penchant for endorsing communications that excoriate Iran at the moment it is under attack by the United States and Israel, his retraction has deservedly been met with a fair degree of skepticism.

The Real Reason Trump is Lashing Out at South Korea

It’s not widely known that South Korea is the world’s fifth ranked military power—more powerful than even Japan, Germany, France, or the UK. By contrast, its foe, North Korea, is ranked thirty-first. Trump is lashing out at South Korea, not because it free-rides on the Pentagon (it doesn’t), but because the Lee administration doesn’t want to become embroiled in Trump’s wars, either against Iran or China.

21 August 2026

By Stephen Gowans

Irritated that South Korea had declined to send warships to the Persian Gulf to help the United States open the Strait of Hormuz, US president Donald Trump lashed out at Seoul, accusing the US ally of free-riding on the United States.  The US “can’t go around and protect all of these countries, especially when they’re not there to help us,” complained Trump. “I said, ‘Wait a minute. We have 39,000 soldiers over there, guarding you from Kim Jong-un, your next-door neighbor, and you’re not going to help us on a very easy military operation in Iran?’” [1]  

The United States has 28,500 soldiers in South Korea, not 39,000. And opening the Strait of Hormuz is the antithesis of an easy military operation. But lay Trump’s arithmetical lapse and military ineptitude aside. Does the United States have to guard South Korea from Kim Jong Un because the country is incapable of defending itself, as Trump alleges? The answer turns out to be fairly obvious and non-controversial.  “South Korea could almost certainly defeat a North Korean invasion on its own.”  [2] That’s the view of Elbridge Colby, the US undersecretary of defense for policy.  So, if Trump thinks the Pentagon has to guard South Korea from Kim Jong Un, he must have slept through meetings with Pentagon staff.

In his 2021 book The Strategy of Denial: American Defense in an Age of Great Power Conflict, Colby wrote that “South Korea can … defend itself from a North Korean invasion on its own or with modest US support.” He pointed out that in terms of military expenditures, South Korea spends “more than twenty-five times what North Korea spends” and that “the South Korean military also benefits from an advanced economy and access to US equipment and expertise.” In contrast, North Korea’s conventional military “is antiquated, even decrepit.” South Korea could, Colby concluded, “almost certainly defeat a North Korean invasion on its own.” [3]

This too is the view of South Korea’s defense minister Ahn Gyu-back. In May he said that “we wouldn’t have much trouble defending ourselves.” The country’s president Lee Jae Myung was more emphatic. “Actually, we wouldn’t have any trouble at all.” [4]

Colby’s, Ahn’s, and Lee’s assessments are backed by the numbers. South Korea’s population is twice as large as North Korea’s. Its GDP is 58 times larger. Seoul’s military budget alone is bigger than all of North Korea’s economy—40 percent larger. Its military expenditures are at least over five times as large as Pyongyang’s military outlays (25 times larger according to Colby). South Korea has 4.1 million soldiers (600,000 active-duty troops and 3.5 million reserves), more than twice as many as North Korea, which has 1.9 million soldiers (1.3 million active-duty troops and 600,000 reserves.)   

Of US allies, South Korea is the most powerful militarily—more so than even Japan, Germany, France, and the UK. South Korea’s military is ranked fifth in the world, behind only the United States, China, Russia, and India. North Korea, in contrast, ranks thirty-first, weaker even than tiny Greece. [5]

Currently, South Korean troops make up 99 percent of combined US-South Korean forces in South Korea, 95 percent of the naval forces, and 90 percent of the air forces. [6] In a war with North Korea, almost all of the fighting would be done by South Koreans. Americans would play a peripheral role.

Far from being a security burden, the world’s fifth ranked military power is a formidable US military asset, one Washington would like to use to check its top rival, China. The People’s Republic, according to the leading US military official in Korea, General Xavier Brunson, could “deny American access to vital global markets,” the rationale for dubbing Zhongguo America’s top security threat. [7] The “China problem” in the US view, is not that the country poses a military threat to the US homeland (it doesn’t) but that it could squeeze corporate America and wealthy US investors out of lucrative markets in East Asia.

Brunson heads three military commands.

  • US Forces Korea (USFK), the contingent of 28,500 US troops stationed on the Korean peninsula.
  • The United Nations Command, established by the UN Security Council in 1950 to evict North Korean forces from South Korea. While active hostilities ended on 27 July 1953 with an armistice, the belligerents have never signed a peace treaty and remain technically at war.  For this reason, the UN Command continues. Its current mission is to manage the armistice.
  • The Combined Forces Command. “Combined forces” refers to the South Korean military and USFK together. It is worth repeating that the combined forces are 95 percent South Korean. In peacetime, South Korea’s military is under the control of the the country’s top general. In wartime, it falls under Brunson’s command.

The mission of the UN Command is straightforward: to deter North Korean aggression and “uphold peace and security on the Korean peninsula.” But the missions of the two other commands are broader. Like the UN Command, both aim to defend and protect South Korea. But they are also pledged to “maintain stability in Northeast Asia,” according to the USFK website. As the Pentagon understands it, Brunson’s mission extends beyond the Korean peninsula to all of Northeast Asia. That means that US forces could use South Korea as a base of operations against both China and Russia. It also means that the world’s fifth ranked military power could be pressed into service under Brunson’s command to wage war against either or both of these US rivals. Needless to say, these interpretations raise serious concerns among some, though not all, South Koreans. Conservatives generally favor submitting to US leadership, even if it means becoming entangled in wars with China or Russia. Progressives, in contrast, worry about Washington embroiling South Korea in a military contest with a great power.

Brunson has done little to allay South Koreans’ concerns about the United States enmeshing them in a war that would inevitably have devastating consequences for their lives. South Koreans are not unaware of the fate of the United States’s Persian Gulf allies in the Iran War, countries which, like South Korea, host US military bases in the neighborhood of a US enemy.  Brunson has referred to the Korean Peninsula as “a key strategic terrain vital to … advancing American interests in the region.” [8] When one considers that the key American interest in the region is checking China, and more specifically, preventing it from asserting sovereignty over Taiwan, then South Koreans can be understandably apprehensive about the role the Pentagon foresees them playing in pursuit of US objectives.

A year ago, Brunson told an audience, “If you were to draw a triangle from Tokyo to Seoul to Manila, about 52% of global trade comes through that area. And I think there’s a recognition that we all ought to have that if something happens in the region, there’s going to be a call for nations to react accordingly.” [9] The South Korean newspaper, The Hankyoreh, reported that Brunson was “advocating for building the capacity for the US and [South] Korea to respond to common enemies,” the most important of which, in the US view, is China. [10] Brunson has “repeatedly defined [South] Korea as a military hub for the US containment of China” and believes “that [South] Korea, the US and Japan should join forces to hem in China.” [11]

Washington is modernizing its alliance with South Korea, as part of the Trump Administration’s 2025 National Security Strategy. The strategy seeks to prevent China, Russia, and Iran from becoming hegemons in their respective regions. If any of these powers become regionally dominant, they will, in the strategy’s assessment, be in a position to deny US investors and business-owners access to their regional markets. US strategy and war-planning documents almost invariably cite the need to safeguard US access to foreign markets as a key security aim. The Pentagon and US foreign policy establishment plan wars around the pursuit of business and investor interests.

The plan goes on to assess that the United States does not have the resources to fight more than one potential hegemon at any one time. It must therefore prioritize its efforts and focus on the largest region and most significant potential hegemon: China.

If China is not contained, the plan’s authors write, it will use force to dominate its neighbors, beginning with Taiwan, and achieve regional supremacy. If it achieves regional supremacy, it will be in a position to deny US businesses and investors access to Asian markets.

In order to prioritize China, the strategy calls on the United States to:

  • Offload responsibility for preventing Russia from seeking hegemonic status in Europe to its NATO allies;
  • Transfer resources for defending Ukraine to defending Taiwan;
  • Contain Iran by arming Israel;
  • Modernize its alliance with South Korea. [12]

Modernizing the US-South Korea alliance means shifting command of the officially ongoing war with North Korea from Washington to Seoul. This will free up US resources to concentrate on preventing China from seizing control of Taiwan, and ensure that if China and North Korea initiate concurrent military actions—China against Taiwan and North Korea on the peninsula—that US forces can remain focused on China, while South Korea holds down the Korean front.  As we have seen, Washington recognizes that the world’s fifth ranked military power can easily take on the thirty-first. But for South Korea to assume its new responsibility, authority to command its own forces in wartime must pass from Brunson and the Combined Force Command, where it currently sits, to a South Korean general. The process of carrying out this transition is called OPCON (operational control) transfer.

South Korea regained peacetime OPCON in 1994, and Washington has promised at various times to transfer wartime OPCON. Its promises, however, have always proved empty. South Korean progressives have been in favor of regaining sovereignty over the country’s armed forces and most conservatives, being strongly inclined to philodespotia (love of their imperial masters) have opposed it.  South Korea’s Ministry of Defense has been pushing for the transfer to take place next year but Brunson favors delaying until 2029. [13]

Along with OPCON transfer, Washington has also been pursuing the idea of strategic flexibility: the notion that US forces in Korea should be deployed to missions throughout Northeast Asia, rather than being limited to action on the Korean peninsula. “Colby thinks that USFK’s primary role shouldn’t concern North Korea but China, and has consistently referred to the possibility of either withdrawing or redeploying US troops in Korea.” [14] In Brunson’s words, having the USFK “moored in place is not militarily expedient.” [15] If strategic flexibility means the exit of US forces from South Korea, this would be a boon for all Koreans, even if the exit would be vigorously opposed by conservatives. US forces remaining on the peninsula is quite a different matter. If Washington intends to use South Korea as a platform from which to attack China or Russia, South Koreans will end up as pawns sacrificed in a great power game of international chess.  

The Lee Jae Myung administration “has drawn a line in the sand, holding to the position that the potential for USFK to intervene in the event of a conflict over Taiwan is not up for discussion.” [16] This may be one of the top reasons Trump has lashed out at Seoul. Recently, the Pentagon sent a questionnaire to NATO members, outlining what Trump expects from US subordinates: Support for US foreign policy; access to their military bases; and purchases of US weapons. [17] Lee’s clear opposition to the Pentagon using South Korea as a platform from which to attack US rivals has very likely agitated Trump. Chiding Seoul for failing to assist the United States in the Iran War debacle, and falsely accusing South Koreans of free-riding on the Pentagon, reflects his frustration over the refusal of Seoul to sacrifice South Koreans for US, and Trump’s own, self-serving interests. In short, Seoul is balking at the possibility of South Koreans being used as cannon fodder in a US war against China whose aim is to prevent wealthy US investors and business owners from possibly losing access to lucrative Asian markets.

Stephen Gowans is the author of Patriots, Traitors, and Empires: The Story of Korea’s Fight for Freedom.

1. “Korea latest casualty of Trump’s misplaced frustration over mess in Iran, says US media outlet,” The Hankyoreh, 2026-08-19.

2. Elbridge A. Colby, The Strategy of Denial: American Defense in an Age of Great Power Conflict, Yale University Press, 2021, p. 263.

3. Colby, p. 263. 

4. “Lee calls sovereign defense ‘fundamental’ amid rift with US over OPCON transfer timing,” The Hankyoreh, 2026-05-27.

5. 2026 Military Strength Rating, Global Firepower,https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.php; “N. Korea ranks 34th in global firepower ranking; S. Korea 5th,” The Korea Times, Jan 14, 2025; “Kim Jong Un Wants a Military That’s More Than Just Nukes—and Russia Can Help,” The Wall Street Journal,  Sept. 23, 2025; “USFK commander sets early 2029 as target date for OPCON transfer,” The Hankyoreh, 2026-04-24; “Lee says Korea must be able to defend itself without foreign troops, states resolve to reclaim OPCON by 2028,” The Hankyoreh, 2026-04-29.

6. “Korea is more than ready to regain OPCON. Is the US ready to relinquish it?” The Hankyoreh, 2026-06-24.

7. Statement of General Xavier T. Brunson, before the 119th Congress Senate Armed Services Committee, April 22, 2026.

8. Ibid.

9. “USFK commander hints at changes to US troop presence in Korea,” The Hankyoreh, 2025-08-11.

10. Ibid.

11. “Why does the USFK commander keep butting heads with Seoul?” The Hankyoreh, 2026-06-29.

12. National Security Strategy of the United States of America, November, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf

13. “Lee calls sovereign defense ‘fundamental’ amid rift with US over OPCON transfer timing,” The Hankyoreh, 2026-05-27.

14. “Korea mulls how to respond if US demands ‘strategic flexibility’ of USFK at summit,” The Hankyoreh, 2025-08-20.

15. “USFK commander stresses changing geopolitical environment in pitch to ‘modernize’ alliance,” The Hankyoreh, 2025-08-11.

16. “Korea mulls how to respond if US demands ‘strategic flexibility’ of USFK at summit,” The Hankyoreh, 2025-08-20.

17. “Korea latest casualty of Trump’s misplaced frustration over mess in Iran, says US media outlet,” The Hankyoreh, 2026-08-19.

Antisemitism on Canadian Campuses: Debunking a New Report by the Government of Canada

By Stephen Gowans

August 9, 2026

A Canadian-government-sponsored report has concluded that antisemitism is widespread on Canadian university campuses. Some media outlets have picked up on the report. According to the CBC, the new report shows that “Antisemitism on campus is ‘systemic’ and going unaddressed.” Israel’s Haaretz reports that the research found that “95 percent of Jewish Students on Canadian Universities Have Encountered Antisemitism.” Meanwhile, The Canadian Press let its readers know that the study reveals that “Jewish students on Canadian campuses report pervasive antisemitism.”

But what the report really shows is that there is a growing wave of anti-Zionism and pro-Palestinian activism on Canadian campuses—hardly a revelation. The authors, whose political biases and methodological lapses will become evident in a moment, have turned this commonplace into an alarming trend by a slight of hand: They have defined criticism of Israel as hatred of Jews.

It’s difficult not to conclude that the motivation behind the report is to discredit pro-Palestinian activists by smearing them as antisemites, with the clear intention of shutting down criticism of Israel at Canadian universities. Once you consider who sponsored the report (a pro-Israel, pro-Zionist Canadian government); who wrote it (the lead author is a Zionist who was once the executive director of pro-Israel organization); and who was surveyed (Jewish students who identify Israel and Zionism as important parts of their lives), it becomes clear that the report is not to an honest attempt to gauge antisemitism on campus but a politically motivated effort to discredit students who have organized against Israeli atrocities in Gaza as Jew-haters.

All of this starts to become clear when the report reveals that it “uses the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism,” a definition that has been widely discredited for falsely conflating antisemitism with antizionism.  The Government of Canada’s “Handbook on the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism” (Ottawa adopted the definition in 2011) cites the following as examples, among others, of antisemitism:

  • Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
  • Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
  • Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
  • Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

All these examples refer to attitudes toward Israel, a state, and Zionism, a political movement, not Jews as an ethnoreligious group. The action depicted in the third example—using antisemitic images to denote Israel—may be crude, stupid, and intolerable, but the target is Israel, not Jews. This illustrates the problem with the IHRA definition, and why it’s considered invalid. If it were true that hatred of an ethnocratic movement (Zionism) or ethnocratic state (Israel) was the same as hatred of an ethnoreligious group (Jews), then it would be true that anti-fascism represented anti-Italian hatred, that anti-Nazism equaled anti-German animosity, and that opposition to South African Apartheid amounted to intolerance of white people.

The report’s pro-Zionist orientation is further evidenced by its definition of antizionism as “a movement that calls for the erasure of Israel and denies the Jewish people the right to self-determination in part of their ancestral homeland.” In defining antizionism this way, the report’s authors make the claim—which would hardly be accepted by pro-Palestinian students on campuses—that the Jewish people have a right to dispossess the Palestinians of their country, land, homes, and property.

The report’s authors argue further that antizionism relies “on libel and distortion to claim that the Jewish collective, Israel, rather than the individual Jew, is uniquely evil. It further asserts that Jews, who have thousands of years of history in this place, are fabricating a legitimate claim to their ancestral homeland. Antizionism claims that Israel, exceptionally, is the one state that must be eradicated.”

These claims are false. First, antizionism is not a doctrine concerned with definitions of evil, let alone unique evil. Second, it doesn’t deny that many, though not all, Jews claim Palestine as a homeland, only that Jews are not the only peoples who have lived in Palestine, and that prior residency or what the Pentateuch says Yahweh promised to Moses do not justify the colonization of Palestine and the dispossession of its inhabitants. Finally, antizionism is only anticolonialism specific to Palestine. Anticolonialism has opposed other settler colonial states, including Algeria, Rhodesia, and Apartheid South Africa, declaring that these states too needed to be eradicated as ethnocratic political orders. Much as Israel’s supporters like to think the Zionist state is being singled out, it is not.

The report’s lead author, Jack Jedwab, served as Executive Director of the Quebec branch of the Canadian Jewish Congress, from 1994-1998. The CJC became the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (note the priority of ‘Israel’ in the title), a pro-Israeli outfit that “educates Canadians about the central role Israel plays in Jewish life and identity” and which monitors “issues that affect the Canada-Israel friendship”—like the growing disapproval of Israel in Canadian society, owing to its connections to genocide, apartheid, and settler colonialism.

Citing the report, the CIJA is urging “university leaders and governments at every level to carefully consider this report and the recommendations by the Network of Engaged Canadian Academics.” NECA recommends that Canadian universities formally adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism, a gambit that would allow university administrators to suppress pro-Palestinian activism on campus by labelling it as antisemitic. The body also recommends that universities define Zionism as a part of a Jewish student’s identity. In this way, antizionist activism can be proscribed and punished as antisemitic speech and conduct.

Survey Results

If the authors’ overly broad definition of antisemitism leaves much to be desired, so too does their survey methodology and treatment and reporting of the results.

Below are the percentages of surveyed Jewish students who say they have experienced or witnessed various instances of what the authors call “antisemitic” incidents.

Over the past 12 months, how often have you experienced or witnessed the following on your campus?

(Scale: Often or Occasionally)

  • Hateful or discriminatory treatment of Zionists. (81%)
  • Vandalism of school property motivated by antisemitism. (71%)
  • Hateful or discriminatory treatment of Israelis. (67%)
  • Antisemitic remarks/gestures directed at others. (59%)
  • Hateful or discriminatory treatment of Jews. (56%)
  • Intimidation or threats directed at Jews. (54%)
  • Exclusion from an event or group (on campus). (36%)
  • Antisemitic remarks/gestures directed at you. (34%)
  • Physical violence directed at Jews. (22%)

Notice that two of the incident types concern Jews as Zionists and Jews as Israelis, not Jews as Jews. Second, the most frequently reported incident of hate or discrimination concerns Zionists, followed by Israelis. Jews, as a group, come last. This says that more of what Jewish students report as antisemitism is anti-Zionism and anti-Israeli conduct than antisemitism.  

Who were the Jewish students the study surveyed? According to the report, they were recruited “through Jewish student organizations, community networks, and related channels.” Nine of every 10 said that attachment to Israel was important to them and nearly as many said the same about Zionism. Since pro-Israel, Zionist Jews have long been inclined to label criticism of Israel and Zionism as antisemitism, it comes as no surprise that these students would view the growing wave of pro-Palestinian activism and opposition to Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians, apartheid, and settler colonialism as a sign of rising Judeophobia.

A final remark on the results. The study used a four-point scale of often, occasionally, rarely, or never.  The percentages sum two points—often and occasionally. This invites the question or whether the answers leaned more to “occasionally” than “often”, or whether results based on the percentage saying “often” alone would tell a different story—one less likely to arouse media interest? Not that it would matter much. When a government that officially equates antizionism with antisemitism hires researchers who equate antizionism with antisemitism to survey students who equate antizionism with antisemitism about their experiences with antisemitism, it would be naive to think that the findings would claim anything other than campuses that are bursting with antizionist activism are hotbeds of antisemitism.

Conclusion

The report is a transparently dishonest attempt to shut down pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist activism on campuses by misrepresenting opposition to Israel as Jew hatred. It was sponsored by the Canadian government, which supports Israel and has adopted the discredited IHRA definition of antisemitism. Its first author is a Zionist, who once held an executive position in a pro-Israel organization. The study surveyed overwhelmingly pro-Israel, pro-Zionist students—students inclined to see opposition to Israel as antisemitism. Likewise, the study’s authors accept a discredited definition of antisemitism, which conflates opposition to Jewish ethnocracy with hatred of Jews as an ethnoreligious group. Additionally, the results, for what they’re worth, show that incidents labelled as antisemitic tend most often to be directed at Jews as Zionists and Jews as Israelis than Jews as Jews.

Based on the study’s evident political bias, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the aim of the research was to paint pro-Palestinian activists as antisemites. It would appear the study pursued this goal in order to support the Zionist and pro-Israel project of pressuring governments and university administrations to prohibit and punish campus campaigns against Israeli apartheid, genocide, and settler colonialism.  This is a study with a clear pro-Israel agenda. It cannot be taken seriously as a measure of antisemitism on Canadian campuses.

The Meaning of the US-Iran MoU

18 June 2026

By Stephen Gowans

Below are my brief comments on some aspects of the 14-paragraph Memorandum of Understanding between Washington and Tehran.

Paragraph 1

In the first paragraph “The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran” indicate that they are making commitments on behalf of themselves and “their allies in the current war.”  

The language of the MoU is ambiguous throughout, and the ambiguity is evident here. Who are the signatories’ allies? It’s clear that “allies” covers Israel in the case of the United States and Hezbollah in the case of Iran, but it’s notable that this isn’t spelled out, and that no effort is made to define who the allies are.

A further ambiguity: The paragraph says that military operations will end “on all fronts, including Lebanon.” The document, however, doesn’t define the fronts, other than Lebanon. Are the Persian Gulf countries fronts? Iraq? Jordan?

Implied in the definition of Lebanon as a front, is that Hezbollah’s current military operations are actions taken on behalf of Iran, rather than, or, in addition to, actions specifically related to Israel’s ongoing occupation of south Lebanon and its campaign to destroy the Shia organization. Are Hezbollah’s military operations a necessity of self-preservation in the face of Israeli efforts to annihilate the organization and empty south Lebanon of its Shia population, or are they aid to Iran, or both?

More significantly, the fact that both parties make pledges on behalf of their allies, indicates that Washington and Tehran consider themselves the senior partners and their allies subordinates.

This shouldn’t be controversial in the case of the United States and Israel, but has become so owing to a ridiculous popular fallacy that Israel, a country of 10 million people with a GDP of $720 billion, controls the foreign policy of the United States, a country with 34 times the population and 44 times the GDP, and which is a state, moreover, on which Israel depends for its survival.

No matter how ridiculous the idea is on the surface, legions of Americans have found some comfort in scapegoating Israel for their own government’s actions. It is much easier to blame Zionist Jews, working in the shadows, manipulating world events—a trope much beloved of reactionaries throughout history—than to recognize that murder, genocide, invasion, occupation, and conquest are the very hallmarks of US foreign policy. The US government was vicious and bloodthirsty long before there was an Israel and the Israel lobby.

It is instructive to recall that in 1895 US Senator Henry Cabot Lodge hailed the United States as unequalled in conquest, colonization, and territorial expansion in the nineteenth century.  Its record in the eighteenth century was no less unattractive, and the tens of millions slaughtered and burned to death in US colonial and neo-colonial wars of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries recall that sanguinary imperialism is embedded in the history and character of the United States.  

To believe that wars of aggression and support for colonial and apartheid regimes are somehow alien to the fundamental values of the US state – as John Mearsheimer and his votaries do – is to blind oneself to US history, even recent history, and to be ignorant of the fundamental nature of the US state.

Bernard DeVoto once remarked that US history “began in myth and has developed through three centuries of fairy stories.” The notion, conjured by Mearsheimer and his followers, that the United States wouldn’t be involved in wars of aggression, wouldn’t be participating in genocide, and wouldn’t be supporting a repressive, racist, and anti-democratic regime, were it not for the influence of Israel and its lobby, is yet another fairy story, added to the mountain of comforting illusions that make up US historiography and Americans’ sense of who they are—or who they wish they were—as a people.

In any event, “the Jews made us betray our fundamental values” theory of US foreign policy has been decisively refuted by events, no less by the MoU. The agreement:

  • Was negotiated without the involvement of the fantasized Israeli motive force of US foreign policy;
  • Achieves none of Israel’s war aims;
  • Is universally opposed by Jewish Israeli leaders across the entire political spectrum;
  • Is reviled by the Israel lobby.

On top of implicitly defining Israel as a US vassal state that marches to the beat of a US drummer, the first paragraph commits both parties and their allies to “refrain from the threat or use of force against each other,” (my emphasis). No sooner had Trump signed the MoU, than he violated it, warning the Iranians that “if they don’t behave, we’ll go right back to dropping bombs right smack in the middle of their head.” He added: “It’s amazing what bombs can do.”

On two occasions, as US and Iranian negotiators were meeting to work out the terms of the MoU, US war secretary Pete Hegseth equated negotiation with bombing.

In March he said: “We negotiate with bombs.” He repeated himself this month. “If we need to negotiate with bombs, we’ll negotiate with bombs. And we’re very good at it. Nobody better in the world.”

Hegseth’s threats, however, didn’t rise to the barbarity of Trump’s 7 April vow to annihilate “a whole civilization” if Tehran didn’t submit to his demands.

For their part, the Iranians could reply (but haven’t) that “We negotiate by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz and striking US Persian Gulf allies with ballistic missiles and drones.”

Paragraph 4

The fourth paragraph states that “The United States of America further undertakes to remove its forces from the proximity of the Islamic Republic of Iran within 30 days after the final deal.”

In keeping with the MoU’s ambiguity, no definition is offered of what “proximity” means or whether the United States will remove its forces permanently, or only temporarily. These questions are deferred to negotiations scheduled to take place over the next 60 days, or longer, if mutually agreed.

The United States will likely make withdrawal of its forces contingent on Iran meeting front-loaded commitments to scale back its nuclear program.  In this way, once Iran satisfies US demands, Washington can renege on the deal, a danger not to be taken lightly, given US conduct in the past, and Trump’s track record. Indeed, the reason Iran began enriching uranium to near military grade, was to pressure the United States to return to the JCPOA, after Trump disavowed the agreement, and after Biden declined to re-enter it, trying instead to coerce the Iranians into accepting new conditions.  

Paragraph 6

In the six paragraph Washington “undertakes with regional partners to develop a definitive, mutually agreed plan with at least U.S.D. 300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development.”  

Based on press reports, Washington sees this program as an investment opportunity, not reparations. We destroy your infrastructure and rebuild it at a profit for us, rather than repairing it at our expense.

Paragraph 7

In the seventh paragraph Washington pledges “to terminate all types of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran … in an agreed-upon schedule as part of the final deal.”

This means that the United States agrees to lift sanctions contingent on Iran satisfying US demands regarding Iran’s nuclear program. It’s very unlikely that Washington will offer sanctions-relief before Iran eliminates its stockpile of highly enriched uranium or satisfies whatever other demands Washington makes regarding Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

There is a very real danger that if Iran complies with US demands, Washington will fail to honor its commitment to lift sanctions. If the Trump administration follows standard US operating procedure, it will either claim that Iran is cheating, and that sanctions therefore won’t be lifted, or will invent new reasons to impose new sanctions on Tehran for some new Iranian trespass. Or Trump could change his mind and decide he’s not going to honor the deal. He has done it before.

Paragraph 11

In the eleventh paragraph, Washington “undertakes to make fully available for use the frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran.” The assets will be unfrozen according to “procedures” to be “mutually agreed on” over the next 60 days. The fact that procedures to release the assets remain to be negotiated, means Washington could slow-roll negotiations of the procedure to hold up release of the assets in order to exert leverage on other issues.

In endlessly lambasting Obama for sending “pallets of cash” to Iran, Trump created the impression that Obama paid a ransom to get Tehran’s signature on the JCPOA. Of course, Obama was doing what Trump himself has pledged to do in the MoU: return to Iran what is rightfully Iran’s.

Having agreed to unfreeze Iran’s assets, Trump did a volte-face and came clean, explaining that: “We have taken a lot of their money, and we have their money. We have taken their money, it’s not our money, it’s their money, and we froze it. At a certain point in time I guess we’re going to have to give it back.”

The idea that in unfreezing Iran’s assets the United States is paying Iran a ransom is an inversion of reality. Meeting US demands to scale back its nuclear program will be the ransom Iran pays to Washington to recover its stolen assets.

Conclusion

Au fond, the MoU is an agreement to pause the war, open the Strait of Hormuz, and lift the US naval blockade, while Washington and Tehran negotiate a final agreement to scale back Iran’s nuclear program in return for sanctions relief, reconstruction, return of Iran’s stolen assets, and withdrawal of US forces from some undefined part of West Asia, either permanently or temporarily.  

Strictly speaking, the MoU does not commit the parties to only pause the war, but to end it. By signing the agreement, Washington and Tehran “declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts” (my emphasis.) Trump voided the declaration immediately, when he pledged to return to war if the parties fail to arrive at a final agreement, calling to mind the words of Otto von Bismarck: “Great questions of the time are decided not by words but by blood and iron.”

The Via Crucis of John Mearsheimer

John Mearsheimer developed the theory of the Israel lobby because the facts contradicted his Realist theory of international relations. Now the facts are contradicting the very same Israel lobby theory he developed to plug the holes in his IR theory.

15 June 2026

By Stephen Gowans

It’s difficult to argue that Israel and the Israel lobby control US foreign policy when Washington arrives at an agreement with Tehran:   

  • That Israel had no say in;
  • Achieves none of Israel’s war aims;
  • Is universally opposed by Jewish Israeli leaders across the political spectrum;
  • Is met with skepticism by pro-Israel hawks in the US.

Even if the agreement falls apart, it is still the case that Washington has acted in a manner that is hostile to what Israelis perceive as their interests.

“The Israel lobby” is a category of explanation invoked to account for the failure of certain theories to explain US actions (e.g., some Realist IR theories, or the theory that US foreign policy is fundamentally benign in its intentions if not always its actions.)

The problem lies with the theories. They don’t explain what they set out to explain.

John Mearsheimer is a Realist IR theorist, and the most vocal exponent of the theory that 1) Washington acts against US interests in West Asia and in favor of Israel’s and 2) it does so because its foreign policy has been hijacked by the Israel lobby. He readily acknowledges that his IR theory doesn’t explain US behavior in West Asia.

Steve Walt and I, who are both card-carrying Realists, wrote this book called the Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy. And lots of people over the years have delighted in pointing out, in a “got-ya!” moment, that the Israel Lobby book contradicts our Realist theory. Because the Israel Lobby book says that domestic politics causes the United States to act in non-strategic ways. This is what the Israel Lobby book says. It says that when it comes to Israel, the United States is not behaving in a way a Realist would expect American policy-makers to behave. It’s because of the Lobby; domestic politics. And people expect us, when they level that charge at us, to be defensive and say ‘Oh no, the Lobby book really fits in with our theory.’ But our response is, ‘You’re absolutely correct. The Israel Lobby contradicts my basic theory of international politics.’ [1]

You may notice that Mearsheimer engages in some question-begging here (question-begging in the sense of assuming the truth of what he’s trying to prove in his premise.)  He says “that when it comes to Israel, the United States is not behaving in a way a Realist would expect American policy-makers to behave,” and then adds “It’s because of the Lobby.” An alternative explanation is that the United States is not behaving in a way a Realist would expect American policy-makers to behave because the theory is wrong. Instead, he assumes the theory is correct, and that something else must be going on to obscure its validity. Presto, the Israel lobby theory is born.

The problem, however, is that the Israel lobby theory has as many holes in it as there are holes in the original theory it was designed to plug. That’s evident in the obvious rift that has developed between Washington and Tel Aviv over the question of how to proceed on Iran.

Apart from being an add-on to save Mearsheimer’s IR theory, the Israel lobby theory is also a political tool used by some activists to mobilize support for pro-Palestinian positions by deliberately fostering a misunderstanding that a foreign power has hijacked the US state and that US citizens are paying for wars fought in Israel’s interests and not US interests.

The truth is that US citizens are paying for US wars—and the wars are being fought in the overlapping interests of US billionaires and Israeli colonizers. They may not want to face up to the fact that their government’s conduct is vicious and tyrannical, and may prefer, instead, to see the United States as a fundamentally benign but helpless giant manipulated by an Israeli Svengali, but this is nothing more than a comforting illusion.

The reality is that the domestic billionaire class that shapes US foreign policy goals has set objectives that, for the most part, mesh with the settler colonial project of Israel. Broadly speaking, the overarching US objective is to prevent the emergence of an independent regional hegemon in energy-rich West Asia.

Owing to its cultural, ethnic, demographic, and economic connections with the West (Israel sees itself as part of the West, a Western outpost in the East), and its complete dependency on Western support to survive, Israel is uniquely placed to act as a US janissary—a protector of US interests in the Land of the Five Seas [2] and elite combat force equipped and motivated to assert US interests. Guardian of the interests of great powers in the Arab and Muslim worlds has, from day one, been the role sought by Zionists for a Jewish state. The quid-pro-quo has always been understood as: We look after your interests in the region against those of local forces of independence, and you guarantee our survival.

A troubling aspect of the Israel lobby theory is its resonance with a Nazi theory.  

Hitler did much the same as Mearsheimer in explaining why something didn’t happen that he thought should have happened.  

Mearsheimer says the United States is not behaving in a way a Realist would expect American policy-makers to behave because policy-making in Washington has been taken over by decision-makers who are committed to Israeli goals and Israeli goals are inimical to US interests.

Similarly, Hitler said Germany should have won the First World War and didn’t because Jews penetrated German policy-making circles and took over German decision-making and pursued Zionist goals that were hostile to German interests. How else could one explain, asked Hitler, that no enemy troops had ever set foot on German soil, and still Germany lost the war? In this, Hitler anticipated Mearsheimer’s wondering how Realist IR theory failed to account for US behavior in West Asia. For both, a Zionist take-over offered a ready explanation of failed expectation.

Overlapping interests, not Israeli colonization of foreign policy decision-making in Washington, account for why US and Israeli decision-makers are so often in sync. Occasionally, however, the goals of the two states depart, as they do, now, on Iran. Israel wants to finish off Iran, destroy Hezbollah, and continue its expansion into Lebanon. Washington wants to prevent the world economy from going off an oil- and fertilizer-scarcity cliff, and is prepared to make concessions to Iran that Israel doesn’t like in order to avoid a world-wide calamity.

When US and Israeli interests fail to align, the US asserts its greater strength, and Israel tries to maintain some degree of autonomy by negotiating the terms of its subordination. But it remains, as always, a subordinate state and instrument of US policy. For its part, the US remains, as always, the guarantor of its janissary Jewish state’s survival.

1. John Mearsheimer in Athens: Why Realism Explains Better than Alternative Theories, Address to the Council for International Relations and the Institute of International Relations, Athens, Greece, 2 June, 2026. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVuZbW4qKNY

2. The territory bounded by the Mediterranean Sea, Black Sea, Caspian Sea, Arabian Sea, and Red Sea.

Whether the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, or Israel, It’s All Stolen Land

By Stephen Gowans

13 June 2026

According to the Israeli daily Haaretz, “left-wing UK leaders” are “slamming” an Israeli real-estate event, alleging that it seeks to sell properties to Jews on stolen West Bank land.

While efforts to impede the ongoing Judaization of Palestine are commendable, there is a fundamental problem that lurks in the campaign’s understanding of what is and isn’t stolen Palestinian land. The reality is that all the land in historic Israel that is claimed by Jewish settlers—both within the 1967 borders and outside—is stolen.

Failing to acknowledge this reality implicitly legitimizes Israeli colonialism and all earlier thefts of Palestinian land. While it identifies land stolen in 1967 as Palestinian, it tacitly accepts land stolen in 1948 as legitimately belonging to Zionist settlers.

Of course, it can’t be true that land taken from Palestinians by Zionist violence in 1967 is Palestinian land, while land taken from Palestinians by Jewish settler violence in 1948 is not.

All the same, the illogic is concealed behind the claim that the violent transfer of Palestinian land to the new Israeli state in 1948 was legitimized by the UN partition plan.

This view, however, is wrong for a number of reasons.

1.) The plan was legally invalid, since it was based on a General Assembly resolution, and

1a.) General Assembly resolutions are non-binding, and

1b.) the General Assembly didn’t have the authority to partition Palestine. (Indeed, the UN Charter accords to neither the General Assembly or the Security Council the authority to create new states);

2.) The Palestinians rejected the plan;

3.) The Zionists also rejected it, as evidenced by the fact that:

3a.) They didn’t implement it; and

3b.) They conquered territory in excess of what the plan allocated to them.

The plan apportioned 56 percent of Palestine to one-third of the population that was Jewish (mainly settlers), and only 42 percent to the Palestinians, who comprised two-thirds of the population. (Two percent was allotted to what was to be an internationalized Jerusalem.)

By early 1949, the Zionists—keen to control as much of Palestine as they could—had conquered 78 percent of the territory (versus the 56 percent they were supposed to have under the plan.)

Still, even if the partition plan had been legally valid, it remained flagrantly colonial, since it endorsed the expropriation of the territory of the existing inhabitants by a group of settlers animated by the project of expelling as much of the Palestinian population as possible and them imposing a regime of Jewish ethnoreligious supremacy on those that remained.

The partition plan has become embedded in international law, but colonialism does not become just by virtue of its inclusion in international law. International law is the instrument of the colonial powers that formulated it. They formulated it to defend and promote their interests—not to protect weaker peoples and states.

The great powers make, and have made, international law, and when it doesn’t suit their purposes, they break it. So it is that they have read the partition plan into the global legal order, even though the plan was invalid under the very same order.

There exists today one Jewish supremacist state in all of historic Palestine. All the land, both within and beyond the 1967 borders, is stolen. The ineluctable conclusion is that home sales to Jewish settlers anywhere in historic Palestine, (not only in the West Bank), are auctions of stolen land.

The competing view that only settlements in the West Bank represent confiscated Palestinian land, endorses the colonial fiction that Jewish settlement within the 1967 borders is not colonial and has not taken place on the dispossessed land of the Palestinians. On the contrary, all the territory controlled by the US-backed colonial settler regime is colonized and stolen.

The solution to colonization is not colonization of all but 22 percent of a people’s territory—what’s proposed in the two-state “solution”—but decolonization, the creation of one democratic state, in which all people are equal, regardless of their ethnicity or religious identity.

That’s what Palestinians proposed from the very beginning. It is a multidimensional solution, one that remedies both the problems of settler colonialism (by creating its antithesis, the democratic state of all its citizens) and the problems of anti-Semitism and anti-Palestinianism (by depoliticizing ethnic and religious identity and thereby establishing the full equality of individuals, regardless of the religion they practice or the people they identify as.)

From the 22 percent of historic Palestine that the two-state proposal envisages for a Palestinian state; to Jawlan (called the Golan Heights by Israelis; conquered by the US-backed colonial settler regime in 1967; ethnically cleansed of its Syrian population; settled by Jews; and annexed by the Israeli state in 1981); to Israel itself: it is all stolen land. Failing to recognize this reality perpetuates an injustice and blocks implementation of the only fair and democratic solution to the multiple problems at the center of the Zionist colonization of historic Palestine and Jawlan.

The Billionaire Plan to Cut Social Services and Insert NATO Forces Directly into a War with Russia

By Stephen Gowans

12 June 2026

The United States and NATO are urging Europe to significantly increase its military spending to defend the continent from what we’re led to believe is an inevitable Russian invasion that will take place sometime in the not-too-distant future.

Mark Rutte, the NATO Secretary General, has told Europeans that “we must be ready for the scale of war our parents and great-grandparents endured.” [1]

To prepare, he is urging Europeans to accept cuts in spending on health care, education, and other social services, in order to free up revenue for military expenditures (much of which will benefit wealthy people with investments in weapons makers.)

Rutte told Britons that if they didn’t agree to significant increases in military spending, they would be able to keep their National Health Service, but they had better start learning to speak Russian. [2]

Rutte is a shameless lickspittle (he called the megalomaniacal chairman of the billionaire-backed US imperialist state “daddy,” much to Trump’s delight) as well as a shameless fear-monger who is peddling a lie. The idea that Russia has any intention of invading a NATO state is implausible.

  • Moscow is four and half years into a war with a much smaller Ukraine that it just can’t seem to defeat.
  • NATO countries in Europe already outspend Russia militarily by more than a factor of three—and the gap is on track to grow larger.  Europe plans to significantly increase its military spending by 2035.

The Wall Street Journal [3] notes that:

  • “European countries’ spending on the military collectively dwarfs Russia’s and has overtaken China’s.”
  • “Military spending by European Union member states, the U.K. and Norway could reach up to about $890 billion to $1 trillion in 2030.” (Russia is currently spending $173 billion on its military.)
Military spending, 2025
 $ billions% of GDP
NATO states in Europe5592.3
Germany1142.3
Russia1736.3
Sources: Max Colchester and Alistair MacDonald, “U.K. Defense Secretary Quits Over Lack of Military Spending,” The Wall Street Journal, June 11, 2026 Ivan Nechepurenko and Constant Méheut, “Why Russia Is Gaining Ground in Ukraine,” The New York Times, July 19, 2025.

What’s more, consider the following:

  • Europe enjoys “a significant hard power advantage over Russia by almost every measure,” according to the 2025 US National Security Strategy.
  • “A senior NATO official said Russia doesn’t have the troop numbers or military capability to defeat the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in Europe,” according to The Wall Street Journal [4].

Based on the above, it’s clear that the campaign to increase NATO military spending has less to do with deterring a Russian invasion (which appears to be a fear-monger’s fantasy) and more to do with building a NATO capability to overwhelm Russia while wrecking Europe’s social safety net.

To this end, the German government is making Kriegstüchtig, meaning “ready for war,” its rallying cry. It is trying to galvanize support for building Europe’s largest conventional army—one ready to lead Europe into a land war against Russia. [5]

The price Europeans will pay for Kriegstüchtig include:

  • The dangers and destruction of a major war;
  • Austerity to pay for the new militarism.

The campaign to boost NATO spending has “no basis in reality,” says former U.S. Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder. Confirming the figures in the table above, he notes that European NATO members already spend three times as much on their militaries as Russia does on its armed forces. The campaign to boost NATO spending is aimed, he says, at outspending Russia 10 times. [6] 

Does NATO need to outspend Russia 10 times? Is this a goal that warrants further reductions to already strained and starved public services?

I said the plan to cut social services and start a war with Russia is a billionaires’ plan. Why?

Because the plan comes from the Trump administration, which issued an edict commanding NATO states to hike military spending to five percent of GDP. Virtually all NATO states say they will comply. Trump’s administration teems with billionaires and centi-millionaires. The plan was put together by the Heritage Foundation, a think-tank funded by billionaire families and major corporations. It’s impossible to say the plan isn’t billionaire-backed.

The rich have long been hostile to social services, both because they don’t want to pay taxes to fund them and because social services make people less vulnerable and therefore less desperate to submit to exploitation by wealthy business owners.

Billionaire investors and major corporations are also keen on military spending (especially if it’s paid for by others), because it involves investments in weapons-makers in which they have a financial interest, and because a strong military can be used to defend and expand trade and investment abroad. A military able to dominate Eastern Europe, and therefore to secure the region’s profit-making opportunities for North American and European investors at the expense of Russian ones, is attractive to the NATO-area business community.

For these reasons, the plan to wreck social services and go to war with Russia deserves the title “made by billionaires for billionaire interests.”

For these reasons, it also deserves to be rejected.

1. Laurence Norman and Daniel Michaels, “For Ukraine’s Allies in Europe, a Bad Deal With Russia Is Worse Than No Deal,” The Wall Street Journal, Dec. 16, 2025.

2.  Mark Landler, “NATO Chief Urges Members to Spend Far More on Military,” The New York Times, Jun. 9, 2025.

3.  Alistair MacDonald, Cristina Gallardo, and Robbie Gramer, “The Phantom Stealth Fighter That Exposes Europe’s Deep Divisions Over Defense,” The Wall Street Journal, February 26, 2026.

4.  Matthew Luxmoore and Robbie Gramer, “Marathon Russia-U.S. Meeting Yields No Ukraine Peace Deal,” The Wall Street Journal, December 2, 2025.

5. Christopher F. Schuetze, “Lithuania, Once Occupied by Germany, Is Glad German Troops Are Back,” The New York Times, May 30, 2026.

6. Mark Landler, “NATO Chief Urges Members to Spend Far More on Military,” The New York Times, June 9, 2025.