The United States and Israel’s war on Iran is deeply unpopular with the American people — numerous polls show lop-sided opposition, making the Iran War the most unpopular war in the history of polling (since about the 1950s). Notably, wars are popular at the beginning, but the unprovoked war on Iran — with no clear goals or exit strategy — has been unpopular from the get-go.

This anti-war consensus is, however, not reflected in much of the corporate media, where pro-war voices are as plentiful as they are unrepresentative. This past week, our two leading newspapers, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, both ran guest op-eds cheering the war from individuals at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD).

In our article tracking the pro-Israel and defense contractor money flowing into DC’s think tanks, we noted that FDD is a neo-con outfit that was founded as an Israel advocacy organization. FDD has been calling for war with Iran for decades. The White House also appears to be taking its talking points from FDD:

It is no surprise that the pro-Israel, neo-con Wall Street Journal editorial page (its latest editorial below calls for the Arab nations to join the war) has been running countless editorials and op-eds supporting the war, but the New York Times presents itself as the voice of liberal America, where the war has almost no purchase.

Too much of the press is platforming pro-war because corporate media centers elite voices, and elites in DC are more likely to support wars and foreign intervention than the average American. Much of the corporate media seeks out “experts” at DC’s think tanks, which exist to amplify the voice of their donors, who are often defense contractors. Even though Americans are exhausted with endless wars, too much of the media — secure from the burdens of war — remains out of touch.

ADC recently took out a billboard in New York City’s Times Square, wishing people a “Merry Christmas” and reminding everyone that “Jesus is Palestinian.” Zionists were pissed. Several Zionists on X (formerly Twitter) absurdly accused Palestinians of appropriating Christmas and Christianity. But Palestinians are Christian, too, and one cannot appropriate their own culture. Celebrating Christmas is a part of Palestinian culture.

Other Zionists tried the tactic of claiming that Jesus was Jewish and therefore not Palestinian. But Israelis do not venerate or worship Jesus; only Palestinian Christians do.

The source of their hysterical overreaction is, very simply, that the existence of Palestinian Christians gets in the way of Zionist propaganda to portray Israel as the vanguard of Judeo-Christian civilization against the alleged threat of Islam and Muslims.

In the wake of the still ongoing genocide in Gaza, and the stark decline in support for Israel in the Western world, a commissioned survey found that Israel would have little success trying to convince people that it isn’t a genocidal apartheid state — but there was one angle that might bear fruit: Portray Israel as the frontline of crazy Muslims hell-bent on conquering the West. This is a fiction since even Hamas’s goals are solely confined to Palestinian nationalism and not some global cause. But Zionists believe this fiction is their only shot at restoring support for Israel.

The Palestinian Christians pose a challenge to this strategy. The fact is that they, akin to Palestinian Muslims, are oppressed by Israel, but Israel needs to portray itself as a saviour of Christians in the Holy Land (ironically). Zionists have no intention of allowing Palestinian Christians to relate their experiences and ambitions in their own words — they intend to speak over them.

The historic reality is that Zionists, as we have related before, have long sought to pit Muslims and Christians against each other to advance Zionism:

Consider that as early as 1920, Chaim Weizmann, who would become the first president of Israel, and other Zionists, promoted such divisive politics, as related by Israeli historian Yonatan Mendel:

In 1920 Chaim Weizmann, then president of the Zionist Movement, called for the ‘provocation of dissension between Christians and Muslims’. Chaim Margaliot Kalvarisky, head of the Zionist Executive’s Arab Department, created the Muslim National Association with the purpose of widening divisions between Palestinian Muslims and Palestinian Christians.

These were the early seeds of a Zionist divide and rule strategy that prevailed after 1929.

Palestinian Muslim and Christian infighting would only weaken both communities against what should be — and, in fact, is — a common struggle against a common enemy determined to rid Palestine of all its people, Christian and Muslim alike. Palestinian Christians and Muslims know where their interests lie:

Palestinians were not so easily divided. In fact, the very first manifestations of Palestinian nationalism and resistance to both British rule and Zionist colonial-settlerism were the Muslim-Christian Associations that popped up all over Palestine.

From Issa al Issa, who started the newspaper Falastin in 1911, to activist Hanan Ashrawi, and too many to mention in between, Palestinian Christians have recognized the common threat Zionism poses to all Palestinians and have struggled to secure the inherent rights and liberties of their long-oppressed people.

So when Zionists get all crazy about a “Jesus is Palestinian” billboard, it’s because it runs counter to their strategy of divide-and-conquer.

Palestinians set the example for all of us in their joint struggle: All Muslims and all Christians worldwide should oppose Zionism’s ethnic cleansing project, which seeks to expel all Muslims and Christians from a holy land that should be a shared home for all three faiths.

The Israeli record of discrimination against Christians speaks for itself. It makes no sense for any Christian to support a project of exclusivist nationalism that seeks their total negation in the birthplace of Christianity.

Every day brings a new propaganda tactic by Israel and its partisans designed to distract from the still ongoing genocide in Gaza, and Israeli plans to steal more than half of Gaza’s land.

In the spirit of the holidays, Zionists have been trying to market Israel as a safe haven for Christians and the celebration of Christmas. In fact, they are ridiculously insisting that Israel is the only country in the Middle East where, say, Christmas trees are lit up, and Christians can openly and proudly commemorate their most sacred day. This tactic is probably geared toward the American Right more than anyone else, where support for Israel has been slipping, especially amongst young Republicans and conservatives. Even amongst Evangelical Christians, the most Zionist faction in the country (significantly more extreme than mainstream American Jewry), support is dropping.

Christianity is a touchy subject for Israel. Recognizing that while the West is mainly inured to the suffering of Muslims, and Islamophobia remains potent, the distress of Christians is much harder to ignore. Consider that Nazareth was the only Arab city within Zionist hands that avoided mass expulsions in the 1948 Nakba: “when the Israeli army massed against Nazareth in mid-July 1948, Ben-Gurion stayed the hand of his commanders, fearful that the flight of local Christians and Israel’s takeover of the holy sites would incur the wrath of the Vatican and alienate his key international allies.”

But Nazareth is an exception to the rule. Palestinian Christians in the Galilee, Jerusalem, Jaffa, and plenty of other places were expelled. Nazareth was merely too high-profile for mass expulsion, but not for its subjugation:

Aware that they depend on the Christian West for support, Zionists have always sought to 1) hide their oppression of Christians and 2) attempt to even co-opt them or at least cleave them from their Muslim Arab brethren; the old colonial tactic of divide and conquer.

Consider that as early as 1920, Chaim Weizmann, who would become the first president of Israel, and other Zionists promoted such divisive politics, as related by Israeli historian Yonatan Mendel:

Palestinians were not so easily divided. In fact, the very first manifestations of Palestinian nationalism and resistance to both British rule and Zionist colonial-settlerism were the Muslim-Christian Associations that popped up all over Palestine. From Issa al Issa, who started the newspaper Falastin in 1911, to activist Hanan Ashrawi, and too many to mention in between, Palestinian Christians have recognized the common threat Zionism poses to all Palestinians and have struggled to secure the inherent rights and liberties of their long-oppressed people.

Zionists have sought to silence these voices from daring to express themselves. Back in 2012, for instance, the then-Israeli ambassador to Washington, Michael Oren, called the head of CBS’s former parent company (Viacom) to try to get a story on Israel’s abuses against Palestinian Christians blocked from airing. Oren’s request was rebuffed. (Alas, CBS News is now firmly in the hands of the fanatical pro-Israel Bari Weiss).

When the current defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, was working at Fox News, he reported from occupied Bethlehem for the special “Battle for Bethlehem.” Hegseth is a committed hard-core Zionist, but the remarkable thing about his broadcast is that one can detect a sense of solidarity emerging in Hegseth toward Palestinians.

In the end, however, his Zionist sponsors prevent him from spending too much time with Palestinian Christians and, instead, compel him to listen to their take on Christians under occupation mainly. Spoiler Alert: Palestinian Christians, Zionists insist, actually love Israeli occupation, and one Zionist settler even mendaciously insists that they enjoy living in Israeli settlements, which, of course, are Jewish-only settlements where even Palestinian citizens of Israel, Muslim or Christian, are barred, let alone Christians in the occupied West Bank. Hegseth was easily fooled.

Equally mendacious are the claims flying on social media by Zionists that Israel is welcoming to Christian celebrations and traditions. This is not a flippant tweet. It is a coordinated campaign to portray Israel as a saviour of Christians in the region. This tactic is part of the larger strategy of portraying Israel as a bulwark of Western Civilization against the alleged menace of Islam.

Some Zionists have even shared photos or videos of the Christmas tree in occupied Bethlehem and claimed it was in Israel. (To be fair, Zionists consider all of the West Bank and, for some, even beyond that, to be Israel.) And in typical Zionist fashion, where every accusation is a confession, they have oddly accused us at ADC of appropriating Christmas:

There are two obvious rebuttals to this Zionist propaganda, a reflection of their desperation that few people on social media are actually buying.

First, of course, Christmas is openly celebrated throughout the Middle East, from Cairo, Egypt, to Beirut, Lebanon, Amman, Jordan, and Dubai, UAE.

But, most importantly, Israel is not and has never been welcoming to Christians or any person who is not Jewish. For starters, Israel is a self-defined nation-state of the Jewish people. Zionists often claim that Israel is Jewish the way Finland is Finnish, but this is false. Israel is not the nation-state of Israelis — it rejects being a state for all its citizens — Israel is merely the nation-state of Jews. One can be a Jewish Finn or a Muslim Israeli, but one cannot be a Jewish Christian.

As the Israeli scholar Omri Boehm, in this book Haifa Republic: A Democratic Future for Israel, has observed on this false claim that Israel is a Jewish nation no different from any other democracy with an ethnic majority:

Of course, Israel could easily choose to be a majority Jewish nation that, like France or Germany, still provides equal rights to minorities. But Zionism is based on an ideology of Jewish supremacy. It is not enough to be the majority; one must also run up the score in privilege and subject the minority.

So Christians are not equal even when they are citizens, let alone when they live in the occupied West Bank and Gaza and have no pretense of rights under Israeli rule. Christians, on the other hand, are equal citizens of Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, and any other country where they reside. And the Palestinian Authority similarly classifies Muslims and Christians as equal.

Additionally, Palestinian Christians have disproportionately borne the brunt of Israeli land theft, given that many of their villages are close to the nominal Israeli border where settlement construction is most heavily concentrated. Bethlehem and its sister villages are being strangled by Israeli land theft and ethnic cleansing:

Even before the latest war [Gaza Genocide] the fortunes of Christians in the West Bank, including Jerusalem, were fast declining. Gaining permits from the Israeli authorities to travel in and out of Bethlehem and Jerusalem is unpredictable, even for the clergy. Moreover, say Christians, a violent Jewish settler movement is bullying them more and more—with impunity. Cut off from Jerusalem by Israel’s separation wall and by a string of settlements, Bethlehem is isolated.

Jewish settlers in the Arab eastern side of the old city of Jerusalem are only about a thousand strong. But they have become more aggressive and are implanting themselves more strategically to isolate both Christian and Muslim Palestinians in the city and its vicinity.

Meanwhile the Armenian community is fighting what it says is an “existential battle” to keep part of its domain in the old city. A land deal with an Israeli developer “puts the Armenian presence and Christian presence in Jerusalem in danger”, says the Armenian patriarchate. Bulldozers have already moved in.

Yousef Daher of the World Council of Churches in Jerusalem explains that if a Palestinian Christian in Jerusalem marries a West Banker, the spouse cannot live in the city without a permit that can take a decade to get. But if the couple move to the West Bank, any residency rights in Jerusalem may be forfeited. Before the war in 1967 [when Israeli occupation started], some 24,000 Christians lived in the city. Now there are only 9,000.

Moreover, when it comes to the issue of Christmas trees, they are not always permitted in Israel:

The mayor of Nazareth Illit, an Israeli town with an Arab Christian minority, has declared a ban on the public display of Christmas trees. “Nazareth Illit is a Jewish city and it will not happen–not this year and not next year, so long as I am a mayor,” Mayor Shimon Gapso said.

Many hotel owners have taken the warning to heart, fearful that the rabbis may carry out previous threats to damage their businesses by denying them certificates declaring their premises to be “kosher”.

In the coastal city of Haifa, in northern Israel, the rabbi of Israel’s premier technology university has taken a similarly strict line. Elad Dokow, the Technion’s rabbi, ordered that Jewish students boycott their students’ union, after it installed for the first time a modest Christmas tree.

He called the tree “idolatry”, warning that it was a “pagan” symbol that violated the kosher status of the building, including its food hall.

Of course, the Palestinian Christians who have suffered the most in recent years have been those in Gaza, where Israel has killed numerous Christians and destroyed an ancient church. And Israel bombed another church as recently as this summer:

Lastly, if one wants to know how Palestinian Christians feel about Israel, they should ask Palestinian Christians and not Zionists in America or Israeli Jews who care only about exploiting the issue for their own nationalist purposes. There’s a reason why Zionists want to talk over and silence the oldest Christian community in the world: Because the verdict of Palestinian Christians, like the verdict of all decent people, exposes Zionism.

We often complain about the reporting here, but we do commend those doing a good job, like this ABC News Report on how the resilient Christians in Gaza are celebrating Christmas.

Ellison is the son of tech oligarch Larry Ellison, the founder of Oracle and the second-richest man in the world. But David is not just an heir (although his inheritance is quite sizable, estimated as nearly $5 billion in Oracle stock in 2015, and the company’s shares have only risen since then). Ellison was a USC film student who dropped out in his senior year to partly finance and star in his first production, 2006’s Flyboys. The movie was a dud, but Ellison’s career took on a brighter shine with his production company, Skydance, behind hits like Mission Impossible and Star Trek. But Ellison wants to be more than another Hollywood producer and, akin to his father, a mogul.

Subscribe now

Earlier this year, with financing help from his father, David took hold of Paramount Pictures, one of Hollywood’s most legendary studios. Ownership of Paramount has given the father and son control of a vast media conglomerate. Beyond the production studio and its expansive content library—including Titanic, one of the highest-grossing films ever made—Paramount now owns a trove of cable channels, such as MTV, Comedy Central, and Showtime; the 4th-most-watched streaming platform, Paramount+; and, crucially, the broadcaster CBS and its venerable news division, home to the most-watched news program, 60 Minutes.

Ellison has wasted little time in putting a Zionist stamp on his newly acquired assets. Back in September, when thousands of artists signed onto a pledge organized by Film Workers for Palestine to no longer work with Israeli state-funded media institutions, Paramount issued a statement condemning the artists and misrepresenting the action as an attack on Israelis as people.

Paramount’s move provoked an internal backlash amongst employees at the studio, reportedly spanning every division of the company. Issuing their criticism anonymously for fear of retaliation, employees said Paramount’s statement opposing the pro-Palestine action betrayed the liberal and inclusive values it claims to stand for.

Moreover, employees noted that Paramount has recently backed several Israeli-focused productions, including a miniseries in partnership with the Jewish National Fund, the quasi-state agency with a long and ongoing history of promoting and facilitating the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, and then greenwashing that expulsion by seeding forests over razed villages.

In contrast, Paramount has no Palestinian stories in the pipeline, and employees encouraged the leadership to promote Palestinian productions as well, such as by becoming the U.S. distributor of the Oscar-winning documentary No Other Land, which, despite its acclaim, has found no Hollywood backers. Paramount did not respond to their own employees’ concerns.

Word is getting out about Paramount’s alliance with Israel, if one can judge by the fact that its X account was recently hacked.

Moreover, reports have circulated that Paramount has created a blacklist of artists it seeks to avoid working with due to their alleged antisemitism, which is, of course, Zionist code for being critical of Israel. Additional reporting related that an actual list does not exist, but that the “management team shares a set of values and has no desire to work with anyone who expresses hate in public and damaging ways.”

Over at CBS News, the picture is even more bleak. Ellison appointed Zionist agitator Bari Weiss to helm the news division, even though Weiss has no experience in broadcasting, and her short career has been in opinion writing as opposed to hard journalism.

After acrimoniously departing The New York Times, Weiss launched The Free Press with backing from right-wing billionaires. While it poses as a fearless defender of the truth, The Free Press is a highly partisan online magazine that has been widely criticized for, among other things, pushing unfounded allegations against a trans health care clinic.

But no cause is more dear to Weiss than her unconditional support for Israel. The Free Press is a reliable source for Zionist propaganda, attacking student activists and, most infamously, parroting apologia for Israeli genocide. In one such story, the outlet sought to cast doubt on the widely-reported documentation of famine in Gaza by nitpicking at photographs of starving children with preexisting conditions—children who are, in fact, among the most vulnerable to famine, not proof of its nonexistence.

Given her reputation for yellow journalism, Weiss’s appointment at CBS News was met with enormous consternation within the network and the broader news industry. While her tenure remains in its infancy, her ambitions to remake the network in her image are starting to bear fruit. Layoffs at CBS have reportedly targeted journalists critical of Israel, including a senior foreign correspondent. Weiss also reportedly personally intervened to book a softball interview with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Most recently, Weiss appointed CBS morning show host Tony Dokoupil as anchor of its evening news program, the desk once occupied by Walter Cronkite. Dokoupil’s appointment is no surprise—he was bound to grab Weiss’s attention after a hostile interview with author Ta-Nehisi Coates, who was on the morning show to promote his new book relating his experiences visiting the occupied West Bank, which he compared to Jim Crow.

In their exchange, Dokoupil sidestepped Coates’s critique and posed a leading question that insinuated Coates was antisemitic:

Dokoupil: “What is it that so particularly offends you about the existence of a Jewish state that is a Jewish safe place?”

Coates: “There’s nothing that offends me about a Jewish state; I am offended by the idea of states built on ethnocracy, no matter where they are.”

Dokoupil’s interview with Coates, which took place before Ellison’s acquisition, was later reprimanded by CBS News for falling short of editorial standards. Not incidentally, The Free Press editorial board, led by Weiss, trumpeted Dokoupil’s performance and oddly tied it to October 7. Clearly, the way to secure a promotion at CBS under Weiss is to demonstrate a strong affinity for Israel, even if that individual, as a light-fare morning host, lacks the experience for the job.

Ellison is not done building his media empire. Paramount Skydance has made a bid to take over another Hollywood studio, a move that would lead to unprecedented consolidation in the entertainment industry—basically creating a new solar system where Ellison is the sun.

The company is aggressively seeking to buy Warner Bros., a deal that would include another set of cable channels, the third-most-popular streaming service HBO Max, and another news network, CNN. Weiss would reportedly add CNN to her portfolio if the deal is signed.

Warner Bros. has so far opted for a merger with Netflix, but Ellison responded by attempting a hostile takeover bid—with financing provided by Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and a host of Gulf countries—offering shareholders more money than the Netflix deal. How this plays out is yet to be determined, and any deal would require federal approval, but a combined Skydance-Paramount-Warner corporation would give Ellison enormous influence in the American news and entertainment landscape.

Elsewhere, the elder Ellison is part of another potentially lucrative deal as a partner in talks to buy TikTok. The Chinese-owned app has been the source of obsessive attention by Zionists for hosting pro-Palestine content, with figures such as Hillary Clinton blaming social media—rather than Israel’s destructive conduct—for the turn in public opinion supporting Palestinians.

Two U.S. senators, one from each party, are on record stating that Congressional efforts to force a sale of TikTok, or otherwise ban the platform in the country, were motivated by the platform’s hosting of content unfavorable to Israel. The head of the ultra-Zionist ADL has publicly stated, “We really have a TikTok problem.” Netanyahu himself called TikTok “the most important purchase going on now,” adding, “I hope it goes through ‘cause it would be consequential.” He also added, “We have to talk to Elon [Musk],” the owner of X (formerly Twitter).

Larry Ellison is a major backer of Israel, a personal friend of Netanyahu (who has visited Ellison’s private Hawaiian island), and one of the largest donors to the Friends of the IDF, an organization that raises funds for Israeli occupation soldiers. His potential co-ownership of TikTok has raised fears amongst pro-Palestine activists that their content would be censored.

Both father and son, Larry and David Ellison, possess the resources to amass extraordinary control over American media institutions. Given their ideological alignment with Israel and Zionism, it is deeply alarming that such power may be wielded in service of a state committing genocide.

But the implications extend far beyond the Ellisons themselves. This consolidation lays bare what is at stake in the struggle over media power. By structuring media institutions to filter dissent and criticism, particularly about Palestine, before it can reach the public, these efforts seek to narrow the boundaries of what can be publicly said or shown. But it also reveals a growing contradiction between media executives aligned with Zionist power and those truly committed to journalistic inquiry and sustaining arts and culture for the public. The internal backlash from media workers, the public exposure of these alliances, and the growing refusal to accept manufactured consent point us to a larger truth: concentrated media power has always depended on silence, and that silence is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain.

The idea that social media is to blame has become a favorite talking point amongst Zionists. CNN pundit Van Jones recently joked about the “dead Gaza baby” constantly showing up on feeds and alleged that foreign influence is pushing the content. Former Obama speechwriter Sarah Hurwitz also blamed social media, claiming that her “arguments in favor [of] Israel” are not resonating with young American Jews due to Hurwitz having to talk “through a wall of dead children.”

Hurwitz lamented the end of mainstream media’s dominance, which she accurately characterized as biased in favor of Israel. For Clinton, Jones, and Hurwitz, faulting social media, rather than Israel’s policies, has become a comforting explanation for people deeply disinclined to find fault in anything Israel does.

The fact is, public support for Israel has been declining for years in America, long before Palestine was a trending topic on social media. And even a diet of mainstream media would be enough to turn any conscientious person against the Israeli regime. Moreover, social media does not imbue beliefs into a passive mind, but rather reflects existing sensibilities.

The rise of Netanyahu and the end of “peace”

American goodwill toward Israel has been based on a belief that the Israeli government is pursuing peace. In the past decade, the American people have witnessed the end of Israel’s pretense in support of a Palestinian state and the rise of a vocal, irredentist Israeli right-wing helmed by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Netanyahu-led governments have passed a Jewish supremacist Nation-State Law, for instance. They are undertaking greater and greater settlement construction with its attendant ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and settler terrorism. All this on top of the carnage in Gaza.

Additionally, Netanyahu fought for eight years against former President Barack Obama in opposition to a Palestinian state. As Obama’s Secretary of State, when the president was demanding a settlement freeze, Clinton reportedly chewed out Netanyahu in a 43-minute call after the premier refused to budge. Now, she blames TikTok clips for the turning tide.

Moreover, Netanyahu has openly aligned himself with the Republican Party and especially with Trump. It is these policies — not their amplification on social media — that are to blame for the year-on-year decline in support for Israel.

As the Gallup polling shows, support for Israel has been declining since the late 2010s. Americans are increasingly asking themselves why they should continue to support a government at odds with their values.

Social media reflects attitudes

The problem with the “social media is to blame” narrative is a big misunderstanding of how social media works. People are not passively accepting whatever they see on the feed. Instead, they engage with content, and the algorithm refines the feed to promote more like-minded content. There is no shortage of pro-Israel content on social media — the Israeli government literally operates labs to push its propaganda. And there are plenty of pro-Israel influencers, some of them paid by the Israeli state.

Pro-Israel content has found less traction than pro-Palestinian content because it does not align with the values of most people, especially young people, who see Palestinians as fellow human beings and recognize that this is a conflict where Israel is an occupier hell-bent on killing off a people desperate to be free on their land.

And they do not believe that an occupying nation can reasonably claim to be acting in self-defense. Social media does shape public opinion; it does raise awareness, but more than anything, it amplifies the underlying values of its users.

When Clinton, Jones, and Hurwitz object to social media, they are objecting not to alleged distortion but to the visibility of Palestinian suffering that social media has made harder to ignore.

Controlling the narrative

Ultimately, what Clinton is conveying is a deep frustration at the loss of control. Elites today pine for the day when they controlled the parameters of public debate. When opinion pages ranged from very, very pro-Israel to very pro-Israel, and Palestinian perspectives were practically non-existent.

For them, the democratization of the public square via social media is not a welcome development. And so it must be taken down: Two senators are on record relating that the Congressional bill banning TikTok was pushed through due to pro-Palestinian content on the platform. This is a losing game of whack-a-mole.

What about legacy media?

There’s a lot to be said about the uneven coverage in the mainstream media and press, but even they cannot ignore the avalanche of abuse emanating from Israel.

A diet of legacy press and corporate media would still turn many people against Israel because Israel’s policies, not social media or antisemitism, are responsible for its growing unfavorability. Americans, especially liberal-minded ones, are turning against a country they see as clearly at odds with their values.

But to acknowledge that opposition to Israel is sincere would be to recognize that something has gone terribly wrong: Not with the algorithm, but with Israel. And that is a bridge too far for Zionists who idealize Israel. So they search for an explanation in the digital world. But it is the material world of Israeli bombs, bulldozers, air strikes, and genocide that is driving sympathy toward Palestinians.

Most shocking are reports that the FBI initially refused to investigate because Israel had not asked it to. The Bureau later opened an investigation in November 2022 under pressure from lawmakers—yet nearly three years on, it has released no findings and offered no timeline.

This is part of a broader pattern of Biden-era officials putting Israel’s interests ahead of America’s. Former State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller has already acknowledged that Israel repeatedly sabotaged ceasefire talks while U.S. officials publicly blamed Hamas—and that the administration misled the public to “salvage” a so-called ceasefire that Israel never respected and continues to violate. These admissions reveal deliberate choices to misinform the American people and shield a foreign government from accountability.

ADC calls on the State Department and FBI to immediately release the complete, unedited findings, evidence, and internal assessments in the Abu Akleh case; demands that the Department of Justice complete and publish its investigation, bring criminal charges against the perpetrators, and investigate any U.S. officials who obstructed or interfered with justice; and urges the United States government to end the impunity loop by conditioning assistance and supporting real accountability mechanisms so journalists and civilians are protected—not sacrificed to politics.

ADC has called for justice since day one and welcomed the FBI’s long-overdue probe in 2022. We reiterate that call today: release the full findings, end the stonewalling, and hold the killers—and anyone who enabled their impunity—accountable. Anything less tells the world that an American passport and a PRESS vest offer no protection when the perpetrator is an “ally.”