US Representative Moulton and AIPAC
Al Qabas, Kuwait, October 31
Democratic Representative Seth Moulton announced that he will return all donations previously received from AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and refuse any future support from the lobby group. This marks perhaps the first prominent and public instance of a Democratic member of Congress taking such a stance.
Because of its unprecedented nature, the move has drawn significant attention from political commentators, who describe it as historic and unparalleled in recent memory.
Moulton is the first representative of his stature to reject AIPAC’s backing and, moreover, to return all prior contributions. His decision is expected to encourage other members to follow suit.
The history of the Zionist lobby, on both sides of the Atlantic, reveals a long and meticulous evolution of religious and political advocacy. The beginnings of pro-Zionist lobbying in Britain can be traced to the early 19th century, when certain Christian and Jewish figures began promoting the “return” of Jews to Palestine.
In 1839, evangelical leaders lobbied Parliament to support Jewish resettlement, and by the end of that century, figures such as Theodor Herzl and Chaim Weizmann were pressing senior British officials. The result was the Balfour Declaration of 1917, through which the British government, under the influence of Zionist leaders, pledged to support the creation of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine.
Until World War II, most mainstream Jewish organizations were, in fact, anti-Zionist, while Zionist lobbying worked through smaller, more targeted channels. Over time, however, support for Zionism grew, particularly after the Holocaust and the founding of Israel in 1948.
In the United States, Jewish pro-Zionist lobbying began in the early 20th century but became far more visible after World War II. The American Zionist Council was formed in 1949, uniting various Zionist organizations to lobby Congress and influence public opinion on behalf of Israel.
In 1951, the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs, later renamed AIPAC in 1959, began direct lobbying efforts, first through public relations and later through legislative influence. It quickly became one of Washington’s most powerful lobbying groups, reaching its zenith after the 1967 Six Day War, which galvanized American Jewish support for Israel and deepened bipartisan lobbying efforts across the political landscape.
While Zionist lobbying groups in Britain and America often coordinate their messaging, each operates differently due to contrasting political systems and public attitudes. Historically, British Zionism has leaned more on elite influence, while American Zionism has relied on mass mobilization, fundraising, media engagement, and direct outreach to Congress.
Since the 1970s, Zionist organizations in both nations have forged close ties, frequently collaborating on policy strategy, communication, and crisis management. The Zionist lobby in both the UK and the US has thus evolved from its religious and diplomatic origins into a formidable political force – one that wields organizational skill, political access, and extensive activism; invests heavily in cultivating influence among lawmakers and other power brokers; and aggressively targets its critics.
In an unexpected turn, and for the first time in its history, AIPAC – its image tarnished by mounting global outrage over the genocidal campaign in Gaza – has launched an assertive advertising blitz emphasizing its patriotism and its self-portrayal as an American institution.
The campaign stresses that its members are acting in what they claim are the best interests of the United States and that supporting Israel, they argue, remains sound American policy. – Ahmed Al-Sarraf
Israel: We are not seeking anyone’s approval!
Al-Ahram, Egypt, October 30
A new phrase has begun circulating among Israel’s top politicians and officials, expressed in slightly different forms but always conveying the same message: that Israel is an independent and sovereign nation, free to make its own decisions, beholden to no outside power, fully capable of defending itself, and determined to shape its own destiny without seeking anyone’s approval because it alone controls its security.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was the latest to articulate this mantra, though the loudest and most defiant voice has been that of National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir. While some analysts have tried to interpret such declarations through a psychoanalytic lens to uncover the leaders’ deeper motivations, there are also clear political implications grounded in objective realities and circumstances that everyone recognizes.
Ben-Gvir himself revealed some of these meanings when he reacted furiously to US President Donald Trump’s objection to the Knesset’s approval of annexing the West Bank. When Trump publicly rejected the annexation plan, Ben-Gvir erupted in anger, framing the president’s stance as an affront to Israeli sovereignty.
Other Israeli officials, in even harsher terms, denounced the United States’s decision to establish what it called the “Civil-Military Coordination Center for Monitoring the Ceasefire in Gaza.” They claimed Trump created the center not to facilitate peace, but to keep watch over Israel itself, arguing that he distrusted Israel’s willingness to honor the ceasefire.
Increasingly, criticism within Israel is being directed toward Trump, with many acknowledging that he is the true target of this backlash. Despite his longstanding reputation as a staunch ally of Israel, critics say that his recent policies have run counter to Israeli interests and have alienated parts of its leadership.
They point out that this rift began even before Trump assumed office last January, when he forced a ceasefire in Gaza that Netanyahu later found a way to circumvent. Soon after, Trump brokered a ceasefire between Israel and Iran, only for Netanyahu to attempt one last strike following that decision.
Trump responded sharply, ordering Netanyahu to recall the Israeli aircraft that had already taken off toward Iran – and Netanyahu complied.
Trump’s most recent directive to halt Israel’s war in Gaza went even further: It not only froze military operations but also demanded that Palestinians be allowed to return to northern Gaza, effectively dismantling Israel’s plan to permanently displace them after their forced exodus to the central and southern regions of the territory. – Ahmed Abdel-Tawwab
<strong>Trump and West Bank annexation</strong><br><em></em>
Al-Ittihad, United Arab Emirates, October 31
On September 30, I published an article titled “Trump and the rejection of annexing the West Bank,” in response to his declaration that he would not approve such an annexation, regardless of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s stance.
At the time, doubts lingered about the seriousness of that statement, given Trump’s previous approval of Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights and his record of reversing course on earlier positions.
Nevertheless, on October 23, Time magazine released an interview with Trump in which the president reaffirmed unequivocally that he would not permit any move toward annexation.
I quote his words here because of their extraordinary significance: “It will not happen. It will not happen because I gave my word to the Arab states, and it cannot be done now. We have received tremendous Arab support, and it will not happen because I made a promise to those countries. If Israel proceeds with this, it will lose all support from the United States.”
Two crucial observations arise from this statement. First, Trump grounded his position in the support he has cultivated among Arab states and in his promise to them that annexation would not take place.
Second, he went beyond his earlier expression of opposition by attaching a direct threat – warning that if Israel moved ahead, it would face the complete termination of US aid. This represents, without question, an unprecedented moment in US-Israeli relations.
Although Trump’s statement appeared after the Knesset plenum voted to advance a bill extending Israeli sovereignty over parts of the West Bank – an event that might appear to have triggered his remarks – a closer examination of the interview date, October 15, confirms that it preceded the vote, and thus the statement carries even greater weight.
Still, there is no doubt that the Knesset’s actions angered key figures within the US administration. Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned that the vote could jeopardize the ceasefire in Gaza and undermine Washington’s efforts to implement Trump’s broader regional plan. He cautioned that continuing down this path would harm the shared objectives of both governments.
Vice President JD Vance, for his part, expressed deep frustration, saying he felt misled after being told that the measure was purely symbolic and intended only to score domestic political points. “If that’s true,” he said, “it’s a truly stupid move, and I’m very upset about it.”
These comments caused widespread confusion within Israel, precisely the situation Netanyahu had hoped to avoid by instructing members of his party not to support the resolution and by accusing the opposition of trying to embarrass his government.
Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, a staunch hardliner, expressed hope that Trump might reverse his stance as he had done in the past, while the “Israel Speaks Arabic” media page – an official Israeli outlet directed at Arab audiences – chose to ignore the controversy entirely.
The evolution of the US president’s position and that of his administration is profoundly significant in at least two respects. First, it highlights the reality that US-Israeli relations are not immune to friction when national interests diverge, even on an issue as central to Israel as the annexation of the West Bank, which many Israelis view as a matter of existential security.
Second, Trump’s remarks leave no doubt about the growing influence of Arab diplomacy on his policies –a fact that underscores the effectiveness of a moderate, engagement-based approach in the region. Both dimensions merit deeper exploration as future developments unfold. – Ahmed Youssef Ahmed
Searching for Anwar Sadat
Asharq Al-Awsat, London, November 1
In the collective memory of nations and the chronicles of their history, there are names, years, and even entire centuries that endure, untouched by the passage of time or the tumult of events. Among them are the names of kings, presidents, and statesmen whose legacies remain etched in both the hearts of their people and the pages of history.
The late Egyptian president Anwar Sadat was one such man, born into an era of extraordinary transformation for Egypt, the Arab world, and the world at large. In his memoir, In Search of Identity, he recounts the defining stages of his life, from his birth in the village of Mit Abu El Kom on the banks of the Nile to his rise as president of the Arab Republic of Egypt.
At the time, Egypt languished under British domination, its sovereignty curtailed, its military occupied, and its monarch reduced to a mere figurehead. Against this backdrop, a dark-skinned boy from the Nile’s banks absorbed the essence of Egypt – its history, struggles, and aspirations – and carried them within him.
Sadat wrote his life story in a simple, unpretentious style, describing the national and international figures who shaped his worldview. Among them, [Mohamed Darweesh] Zahran, a young Egyptian executed by the British after the Denshawai incident, stood out as a moral beacon whose courage and sacrifice burned indelibly in Sadat’s heart.
From his humble beginnings in Mit Abu El Kom to the charged atmosphere of Cairo – a city alive with political ferment and social tension – Sadat matured amid the turbulence of an occupied nation. He completed his secondary education and began a long, arduous journey through a labyrinth of nepotism and colonial control before finally entering the Military Academy.
After graduation, he served in various posts across the country, carrying with him an unyielding hatred for British rule. His first confrontation with colonial authority came with his involvement in the assassination of Amin Osman, a minister known for his staunch loyalty to Britain – a plot that landed Sadat in prison.
During World War II, as German and Italian forces advanced from eastern Libya into Egyptian territory, many Egyptians, Sadat among them, saw in the British defeats a glimmer of hope for liberation, even if it came through the hands of others.
In that spirit, Sadat helped plan an attempt to smuggle the nationalist officer Aziz Ali al-Misri into the Western Desert to contact the German command. The operation failed when al-Misri’s plane crashed, yet Sadat’s determination did not waver. Later, when two German spies in Cairo sought his help to repair a malfunctioning radio transmitter used to send intelligence to Berlin, Sadat, then in military intelligence, agreed to assist.
Discovered by British and Egyptian intelligence, he was imprisoned again and expelled from the army. Escaping confinement, he wandered the countryside in disguise as “Haj Muhammad,” working as a porter and laborer until a royal insider helped him return to the army and join the Royal Guard.
Sadat later recounted his efforts to organize a secret military network aimed at toppling the monarchy and ending British rule – efforts he claimed predated Gamal Abdel Nasser’s founding of the Free Officers Movement, though his colleagues in that movement would later dispute the account in their own memoirs.
I accompanied Sadat on his long journey through the pages of his autobiography, where he traced his life with all its trials, risks, and triumphs. Throughout, one sees a man in perpetual pursuit of an Egypt free from colonial chains. Perhaps it was Zahran, the martyred peasant of Denshawai, who served as the spiritual force sustaining him through years of struggle.
That thread of conviction runs through every stage of his life, from his seat on the Revolutionary Command Council to the emergence of the shrewd and daring strategist he became.
Sadat never held major ministerial posts and was never seen as a likely successor to Nasser. Yet upon Nasser’s death, he assumed the presidency and began, with quiet calculation, to consolidate his power, dismantling rival factions in a single stroke.
He reorganized Egypt’s military in preparation for war with Israel and redefined the nation’s alliance with Moscow. In an elaborate campaign of deception, he convinced Israel that Egypt would not attack, only to shatter that illusion when Egyptian forces crossed the Suez Canal, breached the Bar-Lev Line, and rewrote the script of Middle Eastern history.
In doing so, Sadat realized his lifelong dream: the recovery of Egyptian land, achieved with the boldness and cunning of a leader confident in his destiny.
I journeyed with Anwar Sadat through his remarkable life to say this: Amid the chaos, fragmentation, and imbalance that now define our region, perhaps it is worth revisiting the life of this man – not with nostalgia, but with a political mind attuned to lessons of endurance and foresight. For within Sadat’s journey, there may yet be a light to guide us over the dark hill of an uncertain future. – Abdel Rahman Shalgham
Translated by Asaf Zilberfarb. All assertions, opinions, facts, and information presented in these articles are the sole responsibility of their respective authors and are not necessarily those of The Media Line, which assumes no responsibility for their content.