I was born in Poonch (Kashmir) and now I live in Norway. I oppose war and violence and am a firm believer in the peaceful co-existence of all nations and peoples. In my academic work I have tried to espouse the cause of the weak and the oppressed in a world dominated by power politics, misleading propaganda and violations of basic human rights. I also believe that all conscious members of society have a moral duty to stand for and further the cause of peace and human rights throughout the world.
Mossad Director Roman Gofman is seen speaking on June 13, 2026.
(Photo by Israel Defense Force)
The Mossad director’s trip comes amid efforts by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to persuade the US president to abandon diplomacy and resume military strikes on Iran.
The head of Israel’s foreign intelligence agency was in Washington, DC on Friday, reportedly trying to persuade the Trump administration to renew the illegal US-Israeli war of choice against Iran.
Mossad Director Roman Gofman was scheduled to meet with CIA Director John Ratcliffe in the nation’s capital before traveling to Miami for talks with White House Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, according to reporting from Axios’ Barak Ravid.
Other sources, including The Jerusalem Post, confirmed that Gofman was in Washington to discuss the Iran War.
Gofman’s trip comes amid an increasingly public campaign by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to persuade US President Donald Trump to abandon diplomacy and return to military strikes on Iran.
According to Axios, Trump has so far resisted Netanyahu’s demands, instead favoring continued economic pressure and a naval blockade while leaving open the possibility of a negotiated agreement.
“I could end it immediately,” Trump said Thursday of the 258-day war—a claim he has made dozens of times in one form or another. “At the request of the nations that I’m looking to protect, we are doing it a little bit longer… a little bit more civilly.”
The president claimed that leaders of countries including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain said they preferred that the US maintain the current approach rather than resume fighting.
Netanyahu had reportedly been lobbying Trump to resume strikes immediately after the US midterm elections, in which the Iran War played a major role in Republicans’ losing control of Congress, according to exit polls.
Israel’s domestic political turmoil may also be playing a part in Netanyahu’s machinations. His Likud-led far-right bloc lost its parliamentary majority in last month’s election, and opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot has a mandate to try to form a new government.
Some Israeli opposition figures fear Netanyahu could initiate another attack on Iran—or provoke an Iranian response—in an effort to sabotage Eisenkot’s efforts and cling to power. Eisenkot, who met with Netanyahu for two hours Thursday, said Friday that he had warned the outgoing prime minister against taking advantage of the political transition to pursue military objectives.
Trump’s own rhetoric has become increasingly bellicose. On Thursday, he said that he had “no hesitation” about using military force against Iran and that renewed strikes were possible “right now” if he decided to give the order.
In a separate Truth Social post, he declared: “We don’t need a deal with Iran. Those days have long since passed.”
Thousands of Iranians—including more than 3,500 civilians, at least 380 of them children—have been killed and tens of thousands more wounded by US and Israeli attacks since February 28, according to Iranian and international officials. More than 20 US troops and dozens of people in Gulf Arab states have been killed in Iranian counterattacks.
Published date: 13 November 2026 21:06 GMT | Last update:12 hours 36 mins ago
Activists, joined by New York State Senator Jabari Brisport, gathered outside the World Trade Center on Thursday, protesting against the transportation of military-related materials through JFK International Airport (JFK).
The protest, organised under the “Break the Chain” campaign led by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), comes amid reporting from The Intercept that Challenge Airlines cargo flights have transported materials including nitrocellulose, bomb casings and guidance kits from JFK to Israel.
Open-source data documented in the report reveals weapons flown out of JFK are tied to mass casualty attacks in Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran.
Challenge Airlines is an Israel-based cargo airline and logistics company founded in 1976.
The Intercept reported that thousands of pounds worth of parts for “bunker-buster” bombs went through JFK during the height of the US-Israeli war on Iran. The war began on 28 February.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
Break the Chain says that military cargo bound for Israel passes through JFK Airport regularly, sometimes multiple times a week, and that civilian infrastructure should not be used for the benefit of the Israeli military.
Protesters, including members of Jewish Voice for Peace, Palestinian Youth Movement, Democratic Socialists of America, and Brooklyn for Peace called for an end to the shipments and greater accountability from the Port Authority, which has jurisdiction over JFK Airport.
Palestinian Youth Movement activist Ibtihal Aboussad brought up the possibility that the weapons shipments contributed to the recent bombing of Nasser Medical Complex in southern Gaza that killed at least six people, including Dr Rizk Abu Shaira.
“The precision bomb Israel used to strike this hospital now for the seventh time was an American bomb manufactured by Boeing, paid for by American taxpayers, and perhaps shipped out of JFK – an airport that functions mere miles away from us.”
As of March 2025, at least 1,722 healthcare workers have been killed by Israel in the war on the enclave, according to the United Nations. The war has been deemed a genocide by the UN and Holocaust scholars. Over 74,500 Palestinians have been killed since October 2023.
Public safety
Senator Brisport believes civilians travelling through JFK face a public safety risk. Jabari spoke at the Port Authority board meeting on Thursday, with his main concern being the nitrocellulose being shipped through JFK to Israel, according to The Intercept report.
Brisport cited an explosion that involved nitrocellulose in a China port around a decade ago that killed around 170 individuals. He believes that this safety concern should be grounds to halt these shipments.
Israeli companies linked to Gaza genocide to head to India for tech summits
“In your own airport rules and regulations, Section 13, part A, it states that any material defined by a federal regulation, or the international civil aviation organization, as hazardous, poisonous, explosive, or radioactive, may not be handled without the prior permission, but the port authority. So, I’m asking you to publicly release your agreements related to Challenge Airlines, that is the airline that carried nitrocellulose and other explosives at JFK Airport, as well as any other airline passenger or cargo that is shipping and handling hazardous materials.”
A spokesperson for the Port Authority told Middle East Eye that it is doing all it can to ensure public safety and defers responsibility to individual airlines and the federal government for what is allowed to be shipped on aircraft.
Ibrahim Mossallam, a commercial airline pilot, testified before the Port Authority board on Thursday.
“As a commercial airline pilot, I do not know exactly what is being transported on my passenger flights. Not all military parts and supplies are categorised as hazardous material to be reported. Learning that we are indeed transporting this material, that may also be explosive in nature, to aid one side or another in an active military zone is extremely unsettling.”
Mossallam told MEE that he feels betrayed by the US government and the airlines, saying pilots and passengers are at risk when dangerous materials are transported in the same aircraft.
As a Palestinian and a pilot, the issue hits close to home.
“You almost feel like you’re being forced to be a part of this onslaught that’s being done by our government to our policy and counterparts there.”
Mossallam is demanding that the Port Authority stop allowing airlines to ship weapons through both JFK and Newark Airport on all planes bound for Israel.
As the war widens, growing voices across the region question Washington’s role and its alignment with Israeli strategy. (Photo: Wikimedia. Design: Palestine Chronicle)
Millions of Americans are beginning to recognize that Israel is not a friend of their country, and that this sinister relationship must end once and for all.
On the very morning of the critical US midterm elections, President Donald Trump made what seemed like a shocking announcement: no more aid to Israel.
“Bibi Netanyahu and I have made a deal that we give Israel $4 billion a year, and we made a deal months ago that we’re stopping,” Trump told Fox News’ Fox & Friends.
He goes on to make two seemingly contradictory assertions: “We won’t be paying Israel,” and “We’ll help Israel if they need it.”
In truth, there was little euphoria among those who have long campaigned against US funding of Israel. The lack of enthusiasm can be explained by two factors: few take Trump’s pledges seriously, and his remarks were widely understood as a desperate attempt to stave off what was shaping up to be a disastrous election outcome.
The election ultimately delivered one of the most humiliating defeats in Republican Party history, with Democrats capturing both the Senate and House of Representatives and making sweeping gains across the country.
Republicans quickly turned against Trump, who made the unusual admission that the war on Iran had contributed to their defeat.
Vice President JD Vance, widely considered a potential presidential contender in 2028, was more explicit. “The reason we lost is the war,” Vance tweeted on November 4, calling for Republicans to “change our relationship to Israel.”
Though Vance was criticized by some within his party for naming Israel, the clearest indication that unconditional US support for Israel had become a major political liability came from Trump himself.
First, his rushed Election Day announcement was an unmistakable attempt to influence voters before they cast their ballots. Trump failed, but in doing so, he revealed that he and his party understood Israel had become a major factor in their political predicament.
Indeed, Trump described the $4 billion payment as “a bad talking point,” complaining that critics were using it against Republicans.
Second, Trump’s acknowledgment that the Iran war had hurt Republicans exposed the very Israel connection that Vance was prepared to articulate more openly.
The war on Iran was not America’s war. It was Netanyahu’s war, pursued as part of his longstanding quest to dominate the Middle East, with Washington paying the military, economic and political price.
This is hardly hyperbole. Netanyahu has repeatedly presented Iran as an existential enemy, while his far-right allies have openly celebrated American military involvement.
Ironically, Washington’s own 2026 National Defense Strategy had identified defending the US homeland and asserting American interests throughout the Western Hemisphere as its foremost priorities. Yet the administration plunged into another devastating Middle Eastern war.
Thanks to independent journalists and analysts operating outside mainstream media, Americans have become increasingly aware of the damage this relationship has inflicted on their country’s economy, military standing and international reputation.
According to Quinnipiac University, 48 percent of registered American voters now believe the US is too supportive of Israel, compared with just 16 percent in January 2017.
This growing awareness, coupled with the seismic shift in Congress following the midterms, is still not enough to guarantee tangible and irreversible change.
The midterm results nevertheless offer a major ray of hope that America is not a lost cause after all, and that ordinary people possess enough knowledge and determination to challenge the powerful interests, mega-donors and shadowy agendas shaping their country’s foreign policy.
There is a fundamental lesson here: Americans can no longer be satisfied with empty promises. And this brings us back to Trump’s announcement.
Israel has been the largest cumulative recipient of US foreign assistance, with the Council on Foreign Relations estimating that American aid since 1948 has exceeded $300 billion, adjusted for inflation.
That staggering figure, however, hardly tells half the story. Washington has consistently found ways to finance Israel’s wars beyond the declared annual military assistance of $3.8 billion.
For example, in April 2024, President Joe Biden signed emergency legislation providing Israel with an additional $8.7 billion in direct military assistance, separate from the regular annual allocation. The money included $3.5 billion in additional Foreign Military Financing and $5.2 billion for missile defense programs.
These extraordinary funding mechanisms demonstrate how Washington can continue financing Israel’s military even when regular assistance becomes politically controversial.
And that is only part of the picture.
Congress has been considering proposals to expand US-Israeli defense technology cooperation, potentially shifting more spending into Pentagon research, development and procurement accounts.
In essence, Israel could continue benefiting from billions in American military spending without those expenditures being labeled conventional foreign aid.
What Trump appears to be offering, therefore, is a sleight of hand: remove the politically damaging label of aid while preserving, and potentially expanding, the military relationship itself.
A Democratic-controlled Congress could block some of these initiatives. But many Democrats remain committed supporters of Israel, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, AIPAC, will continue to spend heavily to influence congressional elections.
True, association with the lobby has become a political liability for some candidates. But AIPAC and its allies can be expected to seek alternative strategies, political vehicles and alliances to preserve their influence.
The election results are certainly a major step in the right direction, but America’s political civil war is only beginning: progressive Democrats against the party establishment, disillusioned Republicans against MAGA loyalists, independent media against mainstream institutions, and so on.
The good news, for now, is that the tireless work of generations of conscientious Americans are finally paying off. Thanks in no small part to their efforts, millions of Americans are beginning to recognize that Israel is not a friend of their country, and that this sinister relationship must end once and for all.
– Dr. Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of eight books. His latest book, ‘Before the Flood,’ was published by Seven Stories Press. His other books include ‘Our Vision for Liberation’, ‘My Father was a Freedom Fighter’ and ‘The Last Earth’. Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA). His website iswww.ramzybaroud.net
Published date: 13 November 2026 08:00 GMT | Last update:58 mins 40 secs ago
Several Israeli firms whose military equipment has been used in the genocidal war on Gaza are heading to India later this month to explore partnerships with local firms, Middle East Eye can reveal.
Twenty Israeli companies are expected to attend a start-up event in Hyderabad, Telangana, on 16 November, organised by T-Hub, which describes itself as “the world’s largest startup hub”, supporting founders through programmes, partnerships and access to global markets.
A further 25 Israeli companies are expected at the Bengaluru Tech Summit, billed as Asia’s premier platform for technology, commerce and innovation, which runs from 17 to 19 November.
The companies include XTEND, whose drones have been deployed by Israeli forces in Gaza, including one allegedly used to track and film the killing of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar on 16 October 2024.
Also attending are Dagan-Optics, a supplier of equipment to Israeli military units, and Netzer Precision, whose sensors are incorporated into Israeli tanks and armoured personnel carriers.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
The summits are intended to provide opportunities for technological collaboration and commercial partnerships between Israeli tech companies and local firms.
An MEE analysis of the companies scheduled to attend has found that several are either directly involved in Israel’s military operations in Gaza or materially connected to the country’s wider military-industrial complex, including its occupation infrastructure in the occupied West Bank.
‘India’s police and investigative agencies are buying surveillance and forensic tools from abroad faster than Parliament is writing rules for them’
– IFF spokesperson
At least 250,000 Palestinians have been killed or injured over the past three years, with more than 1,600 killed since a so-called ceasefire went into effect in October 2025.
The events come at a sensitive time in India, following revelations by the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) that the central government and several state governments had cleared to purchase mobile phone extraction technology from Israeli firm Cellebrite.
Cellebrite technology is reported to have been used to extract information from Palestinians detained by Israel, many of whom have been tortured.
The company also has a record of its technology being used by governments around the world to access devices belonging to activists and journalists.
India has witnessed a wave of protests in recent months, and activists fear authorities may have used the technology to unlawfully extract data from the phones of people detained during demonstrations.
The IFF investigation also found that states governed by the main opposition Congress party had purchased the technology, underscoring the bipartisan nature of India’s ties with Israel.
“India’s police and investigative agencies are buying surveillance and forensic tools from abroad faster than Parliament is writing rules for them,” an IFF spokesperson told MEE.
“In India, the people on whom such tools get used first are protesters, journalists, Kashmiris and Adivasi communities, because they have the least ability to find out and push back,” the spokesperson said.
Complicity in genocide
The summits scheduled for mid-November are the latest in a series of interactions between the business communities of India and Israel, spanning electronics, technology and cyber security, since the genocide began in October 2023.
The events will showcase a broad range of Israeli companies working in artificial intelligence, robotics, semiconductors and defence technology, several of which have links to Israel’s military operations in Gaza.
Dagan-Optics, which manufactures thermal imaging and targeting equipment, has said it donated products to the Israeli military, including armoured units, paratroopers and infantry.
“In return, we only asked for feedback and opinions about the products from the users,” the company’s founder, Rafael Dagan, said in an advertorial published in Haaretz in August 2024.
XTEND, meanwhile, has supplied the small drones deployed by Israeli forces in Gaza.
The Hyderabad event has been heavily promoted on social media platforms (LinkedIn)
Several reports have claimed that XTEND drones were used to track down Sinwar and film him during his final moments.
Reuters reported in January 2025 that XTEND was “one of many to get a boost from Israel’s war needs”.
Months later, Israel’s Defence Ministry Procurement Directorate announced that the company had won a tender to “supply thousands of FPV (first person view) drones to the IDF Ground Forces”.
Another firm heading to India, Netzer Precision, has supplied sensors for several Israeli weapons systems, including Merkava tanks used in Gaza, as well as armoured personnel carriers.
According to an advert, Merkava tanks, considered Israel’s premier tank, have been used “in urban raids and to support infantry in densely built environments where ambushes, improvised explosive devices (IEDs), and anti-tank threats are constant”.
All three companies are scheduled to attend both the Hyderabad event and the Bengaluru summit, which is organised by Karnataka’s Department of Electronics, IT and Biotechnology among others.
MEE found that besides these three companies, several other firms with close links to Israel’s military-industrial complex and occupation infrastructure will also participate.
These include: Jeen.ai, an AI software company that provides critical AI infrastructure to the Israeli security establishment; Orca Security, a cyber security firm that says 90 percent of its team has a military background; and Magal Solutions, an Israeli security and technology firm that installed intrusion detection systems and sensors along the fence around Gaza and sections of Israel’s separation barrier in the occupied West Bank.
Magal has also been linked to the installation of sensors along the fence on the de-facto border with Pakistan in Indian-controlled Kashmir.
Another company making the trip is Ruby AI, a robotics firm that developed a “mechanical octopus” to clean Israeli army tanks.
The Jerusalem Post reported that the company was seeking to develop “a robot capable of performing a task that is extremely dangerous for a soldier: clearing underground tunnels”.
Accelerating collaborations
Over the past three years, cooperation between India and Israel has extended beyond government departments and technology companies.
Several Israeli universities have also deepened ties with their Indian counterparts, as student-led campaigns at universities in the West have put pressure on academic institutions to sever links with Israel.
Second Israeli soldier accused of Gaza war crimes leaves India after complaint
In March 2024, Indian Institute of Technology-Delhi and Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) signed an applied research agreement, while several other Indian Institutes of Technology across the country have continued discussions with Israeli institutions of higher education.
Meanwhile, thousands of Israelis continue to travel to India on holiday after completing their military service. Indian authorities were urged to initiate arrest proceedings against two former Israeli soldiers accused of war crimes in Gaza while holidaying in the country.
Both men subsequently left India, with New Delhi showing little interest in pursuing the allegations.
The Indian government and the private sector have also been implicated in supplying weapons to Israel during the genocide.
In July, Amnesty International documented at least 2,596 shipments of weapons, ammunition, parts and components exported from India to Israel between 7 October 2023 and 30 November 2025.
“Before any Indian agency signs with these vendors, it should publish what it is buying, the law it relies on to use it, and who will audit that use,” the spokesperson with the IFF added.
“At the moment none of those three things exists.”
MEE reached out to T-Hub, XTEND, Dagan-Optics, Netzer Precision, Magal Solutions and the organisers of the Bengaluru Tech Summit for comment, but did not receive a response by time of publication.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth speaks during a press conference at the Pentagon in Washington, Tuesday, Nov. 10, 2026. [AP Photo/Nathan Howard]
On Tuesday evening, one week after midterm elections that delivered a massive popular repudiation of the Trump administration and its war against Iran, the Democratic Party saved War Secretary Pete Hegseth from impeachment.
The House voted 211-204 to refer to the Judiciary Committee a resolution containing eight articles of impeachment against Hegseth, killing the measure for the remainder of the lame duck session. Every Democrat who voted opposed the referral, but 11 Democrats did not vote. Had they all cast their ballots, the motion would have failed 215-211, and the House would have been compelled to vote on impeachment itself.
Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi left Washington hours before the vote to fly back to San Francisco to receive a “Lifetime Advocate for Veterans Award.” Four others blamed traffic. Representative Haley Stevens of Michigan offered no explanation at all. Nine days earlier, Stevens endorsed Trump-backed Republican candidate Mike Rogers for Senate, against the party’s nominee, Abdul El-Sayed, in particular over the latter’s criticism of the Gaza genocide.
All claims that the missing 11 Democrats were the product of unfortunate traffic patterns or important “lifetime” awards are rubbish. Had the vote been for funding Ukraine, the members would have been raised from their death beds if necessary.
This was a political decision made in coordination with the White House and the first major political test since the midterms. Under the banner of “bipartisanship,” the Democrats chose not to inflict a political defeat on the administration over the war in Iran, in the midst of their discussions with the White House on Russia and the military budget.
The Republicans understood what they had been given. Trump hailed the outcome as an “EXONERATION of a Great American Patriot” and declared that the impeachment had “miserably FAILED!” Hegseth, for his part, answered the impeachment effort at a press conference earlier in the day by calling it “sabotage” and implying those who backed it were traitors.
The calculation behind the vote was spelled out the following day in a Newsweek analysis headlined “The 11 Missing Democrats Saved Pete Hegseth—and the Party From Itself.” Its author, senior editor Shane Croucher, argued that Democrats “don’t need the chaos of impeachment to scrutinize Hegseth.” What “chaos” means here is anything that might encourage popular opposition to the war or disrupt the bipartisan operations of American imperialism.
The maneuvering around the impeachment was thoroughly cynical. Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries declared himself a “hard yes” on impeaching Hegseth, and the party then made sure the vote would fail. Meanwhile, toward the criminal at the head of the government, Trump, the Democrats’ opposition to impeachment has been absolute.
The resolution the Democrats allowed to die was itself introduced by Thomas Massie, not the Democrats themselves. Massie is a libertarian Republican, but the content of the resolution is significant in that it sets down as formal charges what the Democrats would not say. It charges that the war against Iran was “unlawful” from its inception. It describes the US strike on an elementary school in Minab on the first morning of the war, which killed at least 120 children, and charges that Hegseth “effected the murder of civilians.”
It accuses him of the “extrajudicial killings” of at least 243 people in the boat strikes in the Caribbean and Pacific, including “secondary strikes against shipwrecked survivors.” It calls the January seizure of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro “an act of war against a sovereign country,” carried out to “assert U.S. control over Venezuela’s oil reserves,” and charges that the bombing of Yemen last year killed an estimated 224 civilians in less than eight weeks.
It also records that on June 3 and June 23, both houses of Congress passed a resolution under the War Powers Act directing the president to withdraw US forces from Iran, the first such action since the law was enacted in 1973. The administration ignored it, and for nearly five months the Democrats did nothing to enforce Congress’s own decision.
None of this language figured in the Democrats’ election campaign. To the extent that Democrats referred to the war, it was almost entirely in terms of its cost.
In fact, the Democrats support the aims of the war and have ensured that it has been funded since its inception. In June 2025, when Al Green introduced articles of impeachment against Trump over the bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities, 128 Democrats, including the entire leadership, voted to table them. In January of this year, 149 House Democrats voted for the $839 billion military appropriations bill that paid for the assault on Iran launched five weeks later.
Their main complaint has been that Trump has failed to realize the objectives of the war and thereby strengthened the position of Iran, including over the Strait of Hormuz. As Senator Gary Peters of Michigan told Hegseth at a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on July 21, “You don’t have a strategy. You don’t have a long-term plan to actually win this war. Win the war!”
However, in their conflicts with the administration, the issue that has animated the Democratic Party’s leadership is the war against Russia in Ukraine. Senator Adam Schiff has said that Hegseth should be brought before the Senate to testify not over Minab or the Caribbean boat strikes, but over the throttling of Starlink satellite service to the Ukrainian military. At the same July hearing, Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois objected to spending on Iran when “we’re in a moment in history where we can win the war in Ukraine.”
According to Senate sources cited by the Hill, Senate Democrats have floated Hegseth’s removal as the price of their cooperation on defense legislation during the lame duck session, with Pentagon funding set to expire December 11. The Democrats prefer to keep the threat in reserve for January, when they will hold majorities in both houses, and to use it in their maneuvers with the White House over Ukraine and the military budget.
The Democratic Party is a party of Wall Street and the military-intelligence apparatus. Its differences with Trump are over how best to defend the global interests of American imperialism, not over whether to wage war.
The faction of the party most directly bound up with this orientation is what the World Socialist Web Site has termed the “CIA Democrats,” candidates drawn from the military and intelligence agencies. The Democrats ran 67 of them for Congress this year. Of these, 23 won House seats, as 13 new members joined 10 re-elected incumbents, more than doubling the faction’s ranks.
The Democratic Socialists of America and its representatives in Congress provide the political cover. Their central claim, that the election has shifted the Democratic Party to the left and that it can be pushed further, is a fiction.
Since the election, from the New York Times editorial board to Bernie Sanders and Zohran Mamdani, the chorus has been for “bipartisanship.” What this means is collaboration with Trump and the Republicans: an agreement on war, and a joint assault on social programs and the working class to meet the dictates of Wall Street. The DSA’s function is to direct the opposition to war and inequality back behind a party controlled by Wall Street and the intelligence agencies, in which the CIA Democrats count for far more than the self-styled socialists.
The midterm elections expressed the deep opposition of the working class to the war, to social inequality and to the drive toward dictatorship. The sentiments expressed in the vote are on a collision course with the entire political system. This conflict must and will find its expression in the class struggle. The fight against imperialist war and dictatorship can be waged only on this foundation: the independent mobilization of the working class, internationally, against the capitalist system that is the source of both.
Global capitalism has moved on since 1916, but Lenin’s Imperialism remains a foundational text, one of the most influential analyses of the world order today, writes the Marx Memorial Library and Workers’ School
‘England and the War in South Africa. War and Capitalism, or the Transmutation of Human Blood into Gold,’ cartoon by A Gabriele Galantara, aka Rata Langa in Der wahre Jacob (The True Jacob) satirical magazine, 1899 [Pic: Public domain]
Eyes Left/11 November 2026LENIN wrote his Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism in 1916, while living in exile in Switzerland during the middle of WWI. It remains one of the most influential Marxist analyses of international capitalism and continues to shape our understanding of globalisation, international political economy, dependency, and the struggle between the “imperial core” and the global “periphery” of international capitalism.
In his preface to the first 1917 edition (published in April, before the October Revolution) Lenin declares that his pamphlet originally titled Imperialism, the Latest Stage of Capitalism “was written with an eye to the tsarist censorship.”
He, therefore, “was not only forced to confine myself strictly to an exclusively theoretical, specifically economic analysis of facts, but to formulate the few necessary observations on politics with extreme caution, by hints, in an allegorical language.”
Despite this, Lenin’s text was significantly sanitised by its publishers, removing polemics against individuals and diluting his revolutionary terminology.
In the preface to the next edition, published in 1921 with his original text reinstated, Lenin declares that he’d not been able to revise the whole, which had anyway been written to present “a composite picture of the world capitalist system in its international relationships at the beginning of the 20th century — on the eve of the first world imperialist war.”
But the pamphlet is much more than a theoretical analysis of capitalism.
Imperialism had several aims. One was to provide an analysis of a new historical stage in the political economy of capitalism, showing why it appeared more resilient than Marx had predicted but arguing that internal changes could no longer solve its contradictions.
Socialist revolution had become not just historically possible but necessary.
Importantly, Lenin also argues that revolution might begin in relatively “backward” countries (such as Russia), not only in the most industrialised states. This was an important elaboration of insights that Marx and Engels were beginning to develop towards the end of their lives.
The war had created a crisis for the international socialist movement.
Before 1914, most socialist parties affiliated with the Second International had pledged to oppose war. However, when it started many socialist parties supported their own national governments’ war efforts, abandoning international working-class solidarity.
Imperialism insists that the war was an imperialist conflict; a struggle between capitalist powers over colonies, markets, raw materials and investment opportunities.
It also builds on the political economy of Marx and Engels and on Lenin’s own earlier works, including The Development of Capitalism in Russia (1899). It incorporates the insights of other Marxists, not least Rudolf Hilferding, whose Finance Capital (1910) analysed the merger of banks and industry.
It borrows heavily from the empirical observations of John A Hobson (not a Marxist) whose Imperialism (1902) argued that wealthy elites promoted imperial expansion because of domestic underconsumption and surplus capital.
Lenin rejects the conclusions of both Hilferding and Hobson that imperialism could be reformed and insists that a new, monopoly stage of capitalism, dominated by finance and focused on the extraction of wealth from its colonies is structurally inherent to mature capitalism.
His text overlaps with (but doesn’t mention by name) Rosa Luxemburg whose The Accumulation of Capital (1913) argued that capitalism continually required non-capitalist regions for expansion into external markets, and with Nikolai Bukharin’s Imperialism and World Economy written in 1915 to which Lenin wrote the introduction.
For Lenin, imperialism is characterised by a number of key features, all of which are interrelated.
First, competition leads to the concentration of production. Successful firms absorb weaker competitors, leading to a small number of giant corporations with associated trusts, cartels, and syndicates.
Production in entire industries such as oil, steel, railways and shipping increasingly becomes dominated by monopolies or oligopolies.
This is facilitated by, and results in, the merging of banking and industrial capital.
Ownership becomes interconnected. Investment decisions increasingly determine national policy. “Finance capital” concentrates economic power among financial elites, who gain enormous political influence.
Increasingly, the export of capital — “foreign investment” — becomes more important than domestic production and the export of goods.
Capital seeks higher returns in less-developed regions which offer cheaper labour, land and raw materials. Colonies become economically essential locations for profit and capital accumulation.
Huge corporations together with their host nations, “partition the world […] into a handful of usurer states and a vast majority of debtor states.”
As a result of imperialism, oppressor states economically and militarily subjugate whole areas of the world, creating oppressed states.
However, the process is uneven. Economic power shifts, leading to international conflicts.
War becomes built into imperial capitalism, the consequence of capitalist competition over territory and investment opportunities, aided by confected nationalism.
The imperial nations (Lenin uses the term “Great Powers,” today increasingly known as the “imperial core”) become “rentier” states of “parasitic, decaying capitalism.”
Lenin adds that “unevenness also manifests itself, in particular, in the decay of the countries which are richest in capital (Britain).”
The composition of the working class itself changes.
A “labour aristocracy” based on “superprofits” from colonial expansion make it “possible to bribe the labour leaders and the upper stratum of a labour aristocracy.”
This helped explain why socialist revolutions had not occurred first in Britain or Germany, where it made the struggle against imperialism of critical importance for revolutionaries.
In the oppressed countries, imperial exploitation created the possibility of class alliances around the demand for national independence. If these struggles were led by the growing working classes in alliance with the mass of peasants (in what were often largely pre-capitalist societies), they could not only weaken imperialism but interact with struggles in states with more developed working classes.
Finally, Lenin places imperialism in a broader historical framework. Far from being a confected or arbitrary policy adopted by particular governments it arises from the development of capitalism itself.
Imperialism represents a higher and later phase of capitalism; its contradictions creating conflicts between states but also the possibility of international class solidarity.
Today we can see all these dynamics at work albeit in new forms. International monopoly capitalism is simultaneously enormously productive and profitable for its investors but also increasingly unequal and crisis-prone, creating the material conditions for revolution.
Lenin’s Imperialism was hugely influential when it was published and it remains a foundational text; one of the most important analyses of the world order today.
Lenin’s Imperialism can be read online, or downloaded as a pdf from the Marxists Internet Archive onwww.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/. It will be the focus of the next Introducing a Marxist Classic online seminar on Wednesday November 18 at 7pm. Register on the Marx Memorial Library’s websitewww.marx-memorial-library.org.uk/where you can find details of a rich ongoing programme of events and courses. There are links onhttps://tinyurl.com/FullMarxList/to an earlier Full Marx Q&A on imperialism (number 77) and to others, on, war, financialisation, superprofits, dependency, the labour aristocracy and much else.
A new poll from Reuters/Ipsos has found that a majority of US adults, including the majority of Republicans, want Congress to pass legislation to end the Iran war, a conflict that’s been extremely unpopular among the American people.
The poll asked if respondents would support or oppose the incoming Democrat-led Congress passing legislation to end the Iran war, and 71%, including 51% of Republicans, said they would support the effort.
The poll was conducted in the days following the midterm elections, which saw a major Republican defeat, and the war and the increase in the cost of living as a result of it were identified as the major factors in the Democrats’ victory.
USS George Washington conducts operations in the Arabian Sea amid the US blockade on Iran, October 14, 2026 (US Navy photo)
Both Vice President JD Vance and President Trump have acknowledged that the war cost the GOP the midterms, though Trump continues to defend his decision to launch it and continues to escalate the ongoing blockade and sanctions campaign against the Islamic Republic.
The current Congress has already passed a War Powers Resolution directing President Trump to end the war, but it’s been ignored by the administration.
Democratic leadership has threatened to use the “power of the purse” to end the war by potentially blocking funding for the federal government until the conflict ends. The issue could become a major battle before the new Congress is sworn in, as lawmakers must pass a continuing resolution by December 11 to keep the government funded.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi says no meeting is planned between Mohsen Rezaei and JD Vance, stressing that ending the conflict requires Washington to accept Tehran’s conditions.
Listen
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has ruled out any planned meeting between Supreme National Security Council Secretary General Major General Mohsen Rezaei and US Vice President JD Vance, reiterating that an end to the conflict depends on Washington accepting Iran’s conditions.
Araghchi said on Tuesday that military aggression and economic sanctions would not resolve the conflict, insisting that diplomacy requires the United States to abandon its policy of pressure and address Tehran’s demands.
“The solution lies in diplomacy and compliance with Iran’s conditions,” he said.
The Iranian foreign minister also warned that US President Donald Trump would eventually recognize the failure of economic coercion, adding that “it will not be long before Trump realizes that he has taken the wrong path with economic pressure, and that he must use the language of respect and respond to our demands.”
Araghchi stressed that Trump must respond to the conditions Iran presented in its “two-day plan,” confirming that the proposal “remains on the table.”
Rezaei had reiterated earlier today that Washington should surrender to Tehran’s seven conditions, saying that the war on Iran “has already destroyed the US government,” and described Washington as “floundering like a desperate gambler.”
He urged the US administration to “withdraw from the game, stop fabricating false news about imaginary negotiations, and stop denying the new order in West Asia.”
“The time has come to surrender to the seven conditions Iran has announced repeatedly,” he stressed.
Araghchi’s statements come as regional mediators intensify efforts to prevent the US from restarting its aggression and revive negotiations between Tehran and Washington.
As part of these efforts, Trump met with Qatari Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani at the White House. Their discussions covered the latest developments concerning Iran and diplomatic initiatives aimed at ending the conflict.
The meeting highlights Qatar’s continued engagement in efforts to contain tensions, as regional mediation proceeds alongside Iran’s insistence that any diplomatic resolution must take its conditions into account.
From left, Rep. Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., chair of the House Democratic Caucus. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, (D-NY) and Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.)chair of the DCCC, conduct a news conference at the DCCC after the Democrats took control of Congress in the midterm election, on Wednesday, November 4, 2026.
(Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
Voters did not reject Republican extremism just to see Democratic leaders continue pouring billions into wars and corporate interests while families struggle to afford housing, healthcare, and basic necessities.
Now that Democrats have swept the House, a key question is: Who should lead it?
Hakeem Jeffries is in line to become the first Black Speaker of the House, which would be a historic milestone. But members of Congress must examine Jeffries’ record, his priorities, and the kind of leadership he would bring to this moment.
Here are ten reasons why Jeffries should not be Speaker.
1. He has abandoned Medicare for All
At a time when millions of Americans struggle with unaffordable health insurance, medical debt, and the threat of financial ruin from illness, Jeffries has distanced himself from one of the most important progressive reforms: Medicare for All.
Jeffries co-sponsored Medicare for All legislation from 2013 through 2021. But in an August 2026 interview on NBC’s Meet the Press, he said it is no longer legislation he supports or cosponsors. Ironically, he made that statement on the same day a CBS poll found that 90 percent of Democratic voters back the idea.
This reversal puts him at odds with party voters, but also with a majority of Democratic representatives in the House. As of late October, Rep. Pramila Jayapal’s Medicare for All Act had 118 Democratic cosponsors. A “leader” who won’t back what his own caucus and voters want is not a leader.
2. He refuses to break with Israel
Perhaps nowhere is Jeffries more out of step with the progressive base than on Israel.
For decades, Jeffries has been a staunch defender of the U.S.-Israel alliance. At a pro-Israel rally in 2014, during Israel’s military assault on Gaza, Jeffries proclaimed, “Israel today, Israel tomorrow, Israel forever!.” In 2020 he told an AIPAC conference that New Yorkers consider Jerusalem their “sixth borough,” totally disregarding the plight of Palestinians living under Israeli occupation.
Even as Israel’s genocide in Gaza sparked worldwide outrage, Jeffries continued to resist calls to end U.S. military support.
In July 2026, 103 House Democrats voted to cut $3.3 billion in military aid to Israel, including the party’s second-ranking House leader, Katherine Clark. But Jeffries joined 97 other Democrats and nearly every Republican in voting to preserve the funding.
In a May 2024 60 Minutes interview, when asked whether Israel’s bombing of Gaza had been indiscriminate, Jeffries said no. By then, nearly 35,000 Palestinians had been killed. When the interviewer pressed him, saying, “You seem reluctant to criticize Israel at all,” Jeffries responded, “I’m dealing with the facts on the ground.”
Jeffries has also refused to cosponsor the Block the Bombs Act, which would restrict transfers of some of the deadliest offensive weapons to Israel, including 2,000-pound bombs, bunker busters, precision-guidance kits, and tank and artillery rounds. As of November 2026, the bill has 82 Democratic cosponsors and the endorsement of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Caucus Chair Greg Casar has pledged to push for a floor vote if Democrats regain the majority. Yet Jeffries has not signed on, and as Speaker, he would have enormous power to determine whether the bill ever receives a vote.
While Jeffries has acknowledged that U.S. policy toward Israel needs to change, he continues to support Israel’s military superiority and joint missile-defense programs. He has also refused to condemn Section 219 of the NDAA, which would further integrate U.S. and Israeli military research, technology, and production.
Ironically, both Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu have recently suggested that the U.S. should stop giving Israel nearly $4 billion a year because “Israel doesn’t need it.” Whether or not we believe them, it is striking that we have yet to hear a similar call from Hakeem Jeffries.
3. He has failed to champion major cuts to the obscene Pentagon budget
At a time when Americans are struggling to afford basic necessities, Trump is demanding a staggering $1.5 trillion military budget—an increase of nearly $600 billion, or 66 percent, over the previous year’s base funding. Yet Jeffries has not made substantially reducing Pentagon spending a central priority of Democratic leadership.
Yes, he has opposed funding for Trump’s war in Iran but he is a staunch advocate of continued U.S. military aid to Ukraine and has sharply criticized Trump for failing to provide sufficient support. He said “America is stronger when Russia is weaker.” In September 2026, he pledged that Democrats would continue backing Ukraine “until victory is won,” signaling his commitment to greater U.S. involvement and military assistance instead of a commitment to a diplomatic solution that would end that terrible war.
Jeffries is also an enthusiastic defender of the aggressive alliance NATO, which should have dissolved when the Soviet Union fell apart in 1991. He has called NATO “the most successful military and diplomatic alliance in the history of the world.” NATO, at Trump’s insistence, has called for all members to dramatically increase their military budgets to 5 percent of their GDP (the US is presently at 3.1 percent).
Jeffries’ ties to the military-industrial complex are particularly troubling. During the 2026 election cycle alone, Jeffries’ campaign reportedly received approximately $212,000 from military PACs.
Democrats cannot simply promise better healthcare, affordable housing, quality education and climate action while supporting a massive military budget. Real change requires shifting resources from weapons and war to the needs of ordinary people. The next Democratic Speaker must be prepared to challenge the military-industrial complex.
4. He continues to accept pro-Israel lobby money
Jeffries’s position on Israel cannot be separated from his longstanding political relationship with the AIPAC lobby.
At a time when AIPAC funding has become toxic and so many Democratic candidates rejected AIPAC money, Jeffries has maintained his ties to the organization.
According to Track AIPAC, Hakeem Jeffries has received more than $1.5 million in campaign contributions from AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobby groups over his congressional career. During the 2026 election cycle alone, his campaign received nearly $300,000 in contributions from pro-Israel PACs.He has also taken five AIPAC-sponsored trips to Israel since arriving in Congress.
Following the November elections, AIPAC publicly celebrated Jeffries as one of the candidates it supported.
How can congressional Democrats be led by someone so closely tied to AIPAC, a lobby increasingly toxic to their own voters?
5. His Backroom Dealings with Jared Kushner Raise Serious Questions About His Judgment
At a time when Americans are demanding investigations into the Trump family’s financial dealings, Hakeem Jeffries chose to sit down privately with Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and influential adviser.
In August 2026, reports revealed that Jeffries had met with Kushner to discuss possible cooperation on housing, immigration and affordability. Yet Kushner, who holds no official government position, continues to wield influence over U.S. foreign policy while maintaining lucrative financial relationships with Gulf governments through his investment firm.
House Judiciary Committee Democrat Jamie Raskin has already launched an investigation into Kushner’s foreign financial entanglements, demanding documents and communications about his dealings with foreign governments. So why was Jeffries meeting with him behind closed doors?
With Democrats taking control of the House in January, they need a speaker committed to untangling the dirty web of corruption committed by Trump and his inner circle.
6. He Has Elevated Warhawks to Key Foreign-Policy Positions
You can tell a political leader’s priorities by whom they put in power. And Jeffries’s choices speak volumes.
In August 2026, Democratic leaders elevated Rep. Jared Moskowitz, one of the House’s most outspoken pro-Israel hawks, to the top Democratic position on the powerful House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa. Moskowitz has been an unwavering defender of Israel’s genocide in Gaza, continued U.S. weapons shipments, and Israel’s brutal military operations in Lebanon. He has also openly supported both Israeli attacks on Iran and Trump’s 2025 bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities, and initially opposed congressional efforts to prevent the 2026 war before later backing War Powers restrictions.
With Democrats in control of the House, Moskowitz will be positioned to chair the Middle East and North Africa Subcommittee, wielding significant influence over congressional oversight and policy toward Israel, Palestine, Iran, and the entire region.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Wesley Bell, two other staunch defenders of Israel, were added to the Foreign Affairs Committee. Bell had defeated progressive Rep. Cori Bush in 2024 after massive spending by AIPAC’s super PAC. Progressives are still steaming over the role of Wasserman Schultz in undermining Bernie Sanders during the 2016 Democratic presidential primary.
The backlash to these appointments was immediate. Rep. Ro Khanna warned, “Don’t put Israel hawks out of touch with our voters in charge of our Middle East policy.” The Council on American-Islamic Relations condemned the appointments as an insult to voters and an attempt to shield Israel from accountability for its actions in Gaza.
7. Jeffries Represents the Democratic Party’s Dependence on Corporate Money
The Democratic Party claims to fight for working people, but Jeffries remains deeply connected to the wealthy corporate interests that dominate Washington.
His campaign has benefited from millions of dollars in contributions associated with Wall Street, pharmaceutical and insurance companies, real estate interests, Big Tech and military contractors.
These financial relationships raise a fundamental question: How aggressively will Democrats challenge corporate greed, Wall Street speculation, soaring healthcare costs and the military-industrial complex when their leader maintains such close ties to these powerful interests?
Progressive Democrats have demonstrated that grassroots organizing and small-dollar fundraising offer an alternative to corporate PAC money.
The Democratic Party cannot credibly promise to take on corporate power without confronting the influence of big money within its own leadership.
8. He has defended the Democratic establishment against progressive challengers
Jeffries has a long history of protecting entrenched Democratic incumbents against progressive challengers.
In 2020, he backed longtime pro-Israel congressman Eliot Engel against Jamaal Bowman, who defeated Engel in a stunning primary upset. In 2022, Jeffries traveled to Chicago to campaign for veteran Congressman Danny Davis against young progressive organizer Kina Collins, who came within seven percentage points of victory.
And in 2026, Jeffries backed Dan Goldman, Adriano Espaillat and Shri Thanedar against progressive challengers Brad Lander, Darializa Avila Chevalier and Donavan McKinney. All three incumbents lost their primaries, and all three challengers went on to win in November.
This pattern is no coincidence. In 2021, Jeffries joined forces with centrist Democrats Josh Gottheimer and Terri Sewell to establish Team Blue PAC, designed to protect Democratic incumbents against primary challengers.
While voters are demanding a new direction, Jeffries has repeatedly sided with the establishment candidates they rejected.
9. He Wants to Reform ICE, Not Abolish It
As ICE agents terrorize immigrant communities, separate families and carry out violent raids, the question of how to dismantle Trump’s cruel mass-deportation machinery has become increasingly urgent.
Jeffries has condemned ICE’s brutality and demanded greater accountability. But he has stopped short of calling for the abolition of ICE or the dismantling of the Department of Homeland Security, insisting instead that these agencies can be reformed.
Contrast that with Rep. Delia Ramirez’s groundbreaking Reimagining Safety Act, which would abolish ICE, dismantle DHS and establish a new Department of Community Safety, redirecting resources toward housing, healthcare and community well-being. Her legislation challenges the very definition of national security, arguing that real safety comes from meeting people’s needs, not militarizing their communities.
This is the kind of bold, visionary leadership that offers a fundamental alternative to simply “reforming” an out-of-control immigration enforcement system that is terrorizing immigrant communities.
10. He Has Failed to Champion Bold Climate Action
As devastating wildfires consume entire communities, record-breaking heat waves threaten lives, and floods and droughts wreak havoc across the country, the climate crisis demands bold, urgent leadership—not business as usual.
Yet Jeffries has refused to endorse the Green New Deal or champion demands to halt the expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure and eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the oil and gas industry. In 2022, when more than 70 House Democrats publicly opposed legislation to fast-track fossil fuel projects, Jeffries declined to join them.
More recently, he has distanced himself from calls for a moratorium on new AI data centers, even as a powerful grassroots movement is sweeping the country, with communities organizing against these energy-guzzling facilities that drain water supplies, drive up electricity bills, strain power grids and threaten the environment.
Jeffries supported the Inflation Reduction Act’s clean-energy investments, but he has not embraced the more ambitious climate agenda advocated by progressive lawmakers and community groups.
At a time when climate disasters are destroying homes, livelihoods and entire communities, the Democratic Party needs leadership with the urgency and ambition to confront the climate crisis.
A Democratic Majority Deserves Progressive Leadership
More than any single vote, contribution, or appointment, the problem with Hakeem Jeffries is the establishment politics he represents—politics that protect the powerful, accommodate corporate interests, and offer timid reforms when the country is crying out for transformative change.
Voters did not reject Republican extremism just to see Democratic leaders continue pouring billions into wars and corporate interests while families struggle to afford housing, healthcare, and basic necessities.
And the grassroots are making their voices heard. In just a few days, more than one million people have signed a petition demanding new leadership. Congressional offices are being inundated with calls, and several incoming Democrats—including Melat Kiros, Claire Valdez, Chris Rabb, and Adam Hamawy—are withholding support for Jeffries.
The Speaker of the House holds enormous power. That power can be used to confront the military-industrial complex, challenge corporate money and AIPAC, stand up for immigrants, and put human needs ahead of endless wars. Or it can be used to protect the very system that has brought us to this crisis.
That’s why we need a new generation of leadership willing to fight for real change.
‘England and the War in South Africa. War and Capitalism, or the Transmutation of Human Blood into Gold,’ cartoon by A Gabriele Galantara, aka Rata Langa in Der wahre Jacob (The True Jacob) satirical magazine, 1899 [Pic: Public domain]
2 Min Read
