作者： admin

A high-profile interview between staunchly pro-Israel Democratic Senator John Fetterman and comedian-podcaster Jon Stewart has reignited debate over the growing ideological divide within the U.S. Democratic Party regarding U.S. policy toward Israel, as progressive voices calling for accountability for Israeli actions in Gaza gain electoral traction across the nation.

In the recorded Tuesday conversation, Fetterman, who represents the critical swing state of Pennsylvania in the Senate, made clear that he is willing to sacrifice intra-party support rather than soften his unwavering backing for Israel, a stance that has put him sharply at odds with a rising wave of progressive Democrats who advocate for Palestinian rights. The Pennsylvania senator acknowledged that his unapologetic support for Israel following the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attacks on southern Israel has made him increasingly unpopular among members of his own party, but emphasized that this was a deliberate choice he stands by.

Fetterman’s hardline position emerges at a moment of notable shift within the Democratic coalition. Just one day after the interview, on Wednesday, progressive candidate Abdul El-Sayed defeated a pro-Israel opponent funded by the powerful pro-Israel lobbying group American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in Michigan’s Democratic primary, bringing him one step closer to becoming the first Muslim U.S. senator in American history. Even former Obama advisor Rahm Emanuel, whose father was a member of the 1948 Irgun militia linked to violence against Palestinian civilians, has publicly acknowledged that the Democratic Party must move away from its longstanding posture of unconditional support for Israel.

Though Fetterman aligns with most Democratic policy priorities, he has been an ideological outlier on all matters related to Israel since taking office in January 2023. The 56-year-old senator has publicly condemned the widespread 2024 college campus protests calling for an end to Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, a campaign that multiple holocaust experts and the United Nations have labeled a genocide. He has also backed former President Donald Trump’s hardline policy toward Iran and remains fully committed to sending unlimited U.S. foreign aid to Israel, which he describes as an irreplaceable “special ally.”

When Stewart pressed Fetterman on whether there was any action by Israel he would criticize, Fetterman replied simply: “No.” He pushed back on claims that Israel’s actions in Gaza constitute genocide, arguing that only the Jewish people have experienced a “true genocide” and claiming that if Israel sought to eliminate all Palestinians, it would have done so already. When Stewart noted that more than 22,000 Palestinian children have been killed in the campaign and asked if actions such as displacing 2 million Gazans into a fraction of their original territory and imposing a crippling siege can be justified as self-defense, Fetterman focused solely on the violence of the October 7 attacks, repeating unsubstantiated claims that Hamas fighters raped Israeli civilians — a claim that no international organization has ever documented with direct first-person or eyewitness evidence.

The conversation also saw Stewart push back against Fetterman’s conflation of antisemitism in the U.S. and criticism of the Israeli state. Stewart, who is Jewish, pointed out to Fetterman that “The Jewish community and Israel are not the same thing.” Fetterman also complained that the term “Zionist” is now used as a slur by some within the Democratic Party and questioned why student protesters do not target Iran for its domestic crackdowns on dissent — a point Stewart countered by noting that the U.S. does not send billions of dollars in annual military aid to Iran, instead imposing harsh sanctions on the regime.

Fetterman repeated the common claim that Hamas steals all humanitarian aid bound for Gaza, a claim that contradicts public statements from the former Republican head of the World Food Programme, who confirmed last year there is no evidence of Hamas systematically stealing or attacking aid convoys entering the enclave.

Observers noted multiple unusual moments during the 75-minute interview, where Fetterman struggled to recall talking points and often veered off-topic, appearing unable to fully structure responses to Stewart’s questions. These difficulties align with well-documented health challenges Fetterman has faced: three months before his 2022 Senate election victory against celebrity candidate Mehmet Oz, Fetterman suffered a major stroke. During the campaign, he struggled with verbal articulation in public appearances and his high-profile debate with Oz. Despite these challenges, he won the seat with 51% of the vote. A month after his 2023 swearing-in, Fetterman revealed he was suffering from clinical depression and spent two months in inpatient care, a decision widely praised by both parties as a courageous step in destigmatizing men’s mental health struggles.

The interview also covered broader tensions within the Democratic Party, with roughly half of the conversation focused on the growing unpopularity of the Democratic establishment, the rise of progressive democratic socialists who have energized young and working-class voters, and the economic status quo that has alienated many swing voters from centrist candidates. Fetterman argued that candidates embracing democratic socialist platforms cannot win general elections in key swing states, a framing Stewart pushed back on by pointing to El-Sayed’s policy platform — which includes banning corporate money from politics, raising taxes on billionaires to fund housing, education and universal healthcare — calling Fetterman’s labeling of progressive candidates as communist or socialist sympathizers a “caricature.”

Fetterman denied labeling all progressives communists, but singled out popular left-wing political commentator Hassan Piker, who has endorsed El-Sayed and appeared at campaign rallies with him, arguing that Piker’s support for Palestinian rights amounts to being “pro-Hamas.” Fetterman concluded by arguing that the party has a responsibility to “police its own ranks” to avoid nominating candidates who will cost Democrats winnable swing state seats in upcoming national elections.

Fresh official data from the UK Home Office has reignited serious concerns about the discriminatory impact of the country’s divisive Prevent counter-extremism strategy, after revealing that nearly one in five people referred to the programme between October 2024 and September 2025 had recorded autism diagnoses or suspected cases.

An independent analysis of the newly released dataset shows that 1,833 of the total 9,957 referrals logged over the 12-month period were linked to autism: 1,199 were confirmed diagnoses, while an additional 634 were marked as suspected cases. The annual referral total itself marks a historic high, the highest recorded since the programme began tracking national data in 2015, representing a 39% jump from the previous year’s figures for England and Wales. Overall, 36% of all people referred to Prevent during the reporting period had at least one recorded mental health or neurodivergent condition, with autism the most frequently documented neurodiverse trait across all cases.

Jacob Smith, a policy and advocacy officer at human rights group Rights and Security International, told Middle East Eye that the sharp rise in autistic people entering the Prevent system is “particularly concerning” and lays bare long-standing structural flaws embedded in the government’s counter-extremism framework. “We’ve known for years that autistic people are overrepresented in Prevent referrals, but the scale of this increase over the last 12 months is especially worrying,” Smith explained. He added that Prevent has faced accusations of systemic bias and discrimination since its launch: the programme initially disproportionately targeted British Muslim communities, and while demographic patterns have shifted over time, Black and Asian people are still vastly overrepresented in referral data, a trend that has now spread to neurodivergent groups including autistic people.

Alongside the autism findings, the data revealed a 20% year-on-year rise in referrals linked to far-right extremism. Demographic breakdowns confirm that Asian people account for 18% of referrals where ethnicity is recorded – twice their share of the general population of England and Wales. Black people are also overrepresented, making up 8% of referrals compared to just 4% of the overall population. Despite repeated government warnings that “Islamist extremism” remains the UK’s top domestic security threat, referrals categorized under this label have fallen to just 8% of all active Prevent cases.

Smith argued that the overrepresentation of marginalized groups stems directly from the programme’s vague, subjective referral structure. Public sector workers across the UK are legally required to refer any individual to Prevent if they are deemed to pose a potential terrorism risk, a mandate that leaves huge room for implicit bias to shape decisions. “Prevent is designed in an extremely vague way that leans almost entirely on referrers’ gut instinct,” he said. “This effectively encourages bias, whether intentional or unconscious, to creep into decision-making. That, to me, is the core reason we consistently see certain groups overrepresented in the system.”

The Home Office data also shows that the share of cases involving autism actually rises as cases move deeper into the Prevent process. Roughly 23% of cases reviewed by the multi-agency Channel panels – the bodies that assess radicalisation risk and approve de-radicalisation support – involved recorded autism, and that figure climbs to 24% for cases formally accepted into the government’s de-radicalisation programme.

These statistics are the second set of official Prevent data to include mental health and neurodiversity tracking, following the rollout of the new Prevent Case Management Tracker (PCMT) system in 2024. The Home Office acknowledged that the new system has improved how conditions are recorded, but cautioned that data quality is still evolving. The department also stressed that the figures do not prove any causal link between neurodivergence and susceptibility to radicalisation. “It is important to note that these findings describe associations within the data rather than causal relationships,” the official report reads. “The analysis does not indicate that being neurodiverse or having a particular mental health condition increases or decreases the likelihood of progressing through the Prevent or Channel process.”

Even so, Smith warned that the current system actively reinforces harmful, criminalizing stereotypes about autistic people. “A lot of the framing used by Prevent points to core autistic traits – for example, hyperfixation – and implies that these characteristics make autistic people more likely to pose a security risk,” he explained. “Instead of addressing the underlying bias in the system, they are doubling down by using autism diagnoses themselves as an explanation for overrepresentation.”

Under Prevent’s operating structure, after an initial screening and assessment, referrals deemed to carry a risk of radicalisation are passed to a multi-agency Channel panel, chaired by local authorities. These panels are tasked with evaluating an individual’s risk and deciding whether to approve a tailored support package to address perceived radicalisation. Of the 1,100 Channel cases accepted in the year to September 2025 with recorded ethnicity, 76% were white, 14% were Asian, 5% were Black, and 4% were categorized as other ethnicity.

Crucially, Smith added, even referrals that do not result in any further action can leave people facing long-term negative consequences. “As we documented in our 2024 report *Caught in the Web*, information about Prevent referrals – including cases that are dropped, found to be mistaken, or made with malicious intent – is shared widely across policing bodies, security services, immigration authorities and other public sector agencies,” he said. “While much of Prevent’s work operates behind closed doors, there is a very real risk of lasting harm for people who are referred, affecting not just their interactions with police but their access to all kinds of public services.”

As Japan gathered in Hiroshima on Thursday to mark 81 years since the 1945 U.S. atomic bombing, the somber commemoration was overshadowed by growing public and global pushback against controversial pro-nuclear remarks from senior Japanese government officials.

Held at Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park, the annual memorial brought renewed attention to a dramatic shift in Japan’s long-standing post-war security posture, which has been anchored since 1971 by the Three Non-Nuclear Principles — a framework that bans Japan from possessing, manufacturing, or allowing the entry of nuclear weapons into its territory. In recent months, top ruling officials have broken decades of taboo to openly call for unrestricted debate over revising these principles, triggering widespread alarm.

Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, who attended the ceremony, struck a familiar public note, stating that as the only nation to have suffered wartime nuclear attacks, Japan bears a unique mission to work toward global nuclear disarmament. But when pressed by reporters on whether the Three Non-Nuclear Principles would be revised during this year’s update of the country’s three core national security documents, Takaichi refused to give a clear denial, telling *The Asahi Shimbun* that it would be inappropriate to prejudge the final wording of the documents. Neither Takaichi nor Hiroshima Mayor Kazumi Matsui — who used his address to highlight the catastrophic human cost of nuclear weapons and called for multilateral nonproliferation efforts — acknowledged the full historical context of the 1945 bombings that ended World War II.

Political analysts say the incremental string of provocative nuclear-related statements from Japanese officials is a deliberate strategy to test public opinion and lay groundwork for abandoning the country’s post-war pacifist security commitments. “The government is gradually reshaping Japan’s deep-rooted domestic anti-nuclear sentiment through these small, repeated shifts in rhetoric,” explained Hiroshi Shiratori, a political science professor at Tokyo’s Hosei University. Last month, Japanese Defense Minister Shinjiro Koizumi went as far as stating that Japan should debate all aspects of nuclear policy “without taboos,” including a rewrite of the decades-old Non-Nuclear Principles. Late last year, a senior security and defense advisor to the Prime Minister’s Office publicly stated Japan should acquire its own nuclear weapons.

Since taking office in October last year, the Takaichi administration has already advanced revisions to Japan’s core national security documents and repeatedly raised the prospect of rolling back the Three Non-Nuclear Principles’ “no introduction” rule. Proponents of the change argue it would strengthen the credibility of the U.S. nuclear “extended deterrence” arrangement, under which Washington commits to defending Japan using its full military arsenal, including nuclear weapons. But critics warn the shift puts Japan at greater, not reduced, risk. “Japan-U.S. consultations on nuclear deterrence do not lower Japan’s risk of nuclear attack,” said Ukeru Magosaki, a former Japanese foreign ministry official and current director of the Tokyo-based East Asian Community Institute. “Instead, these talks expand Washington’s nuclear strike options against other nuclear-armed states, which makes Japan far more likely to become a target itself.”

The Takaichi administration’s increasingly assertive pro-nuclear security agenda stands in stark opposition to the strong anti-nuclear and anti-war sentiment held by the majority of the Japanese public. *The Tokyo Shimbun* reported that since Takaichi took office, at least 128 local assemblies across 36 of Japan’s prefectures have submitted formal written petitions to the national parliament urging the government to preserve the Three Non-Nuclear Principles — a record high for such advocacy. Magosaki added that upholding the principles is not just a symbolic commitment: it is the foundation of Japan’s own security, because a non-nuclear Japan poses no threat to neighboring countries, strengthening regional stability.

The shift has also drawn sharp criticism from China, which condemned Japanese right-wing forces for exploiting the country’s status as a nuclear attack victim to gain international sympathy while advancing plans to acquire nuclear capabilities. “Japanese right-wing forces have long distorted historical fact and deliberately downplayed Japan’s wartime invasion, which killed and wounded tens of millions of people in neighboring Asian countries, all to escape accountability for their war crimes,” said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian in an online statement Thursday. Lin added that the Japanese government has recently accelerated large-scale military buildup, sought enhanced nuclear protection from the U.S., and actively worked to break free from the constraints of the Three Non-Nuclear Principles. China urged Tokyo to honor its binding nuclear nonproliferation obligations under international law and abandon its moves to erode post-war security commitments.

Shiratori added that the Takaichi administration’s broader policy shifts — including easing restrictions on arms exports under Japan’s Three Principles on Transfer of Defense Equipment and Technology — make clear that the current government no longer prioritizes Japan’s long-standing pacifist principles, signaling a historic break from the post-war order that has shaped East Asia for nearly 80 years.