博客

On Friday, the Republican-dominated Texas State Board of Education approved a revised social studies curriculum framework by an 8-4 vote, following hours of public testimony from hundreds of stakeholders. The new standards, which will impact roughly 5 million public school students across the state when new textbooks are fully phased in for the 2030-2031 academic year, have sparked fierce national debate over religious bias and educational accuracy.

Under the revised guidelines, Bible passages will become required reading for students, with curricular materials instructed to highlight Christianity’s positive contributions to global and American history. By contrast, early Islamic military campaigns will be explicitly labeled “brutal” — a designation that is not applied to equivalent periods of violent expansion waged by Christian powers. Local Texas outlet Fox4 Dallas-Fort Worth confirmed that units on early Islamic history will also be framed exclusively through the lenses of slavery and the captivity of women, a framing that critics say erases the religion’s centuries-long cultural, scientific and social contributions. The 9/11 attacks, which were carried out by Saudi hijackers and planned by the al-Qaeda network, will also be taught as being rooted in “radical Islam” rather than any political motivation or agenda, a narrative that historians widely reject as oversimplified.

The decision drew immediate condemnation from civil rights groups, lawmakers and education advocates, who argue the framework promotes selective, biased history that targets one religious community. “Selective history is not education. Texas students deserve history that is accurate, complete, and fair,” Salman Bhojani, a Muslim member of the Texas State House, wrote on social media platform X ahead of the final vote.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights organization, led coordinated opposition to the changes. In a pre-vote statement, the group clarified that it does not oppose teaching the full history of global religions in public schools — but takes issue with targeting Islam for unfair negative framing. “What public schools should not do is force teachers and students to single out and denigrate a particular religion, in this case Islam,” CAIR said. The organization added that it would object just as forcefully to any curriculum that framed Christianity as inherently responsible for historical atrocities ranging from the genocide of Indigenous populations to the transatlantic slave trade and modern domestic terrorism by white Christian extremist groups.

Supporters of the new curriculum, however, have defended the change as a push for honest education. Longtime anti-Islam advocate and Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz praised the board’s decision, writing on X that “students deserve to know the truth about Islam.”

The controversial curriculum change aligns with a years-long pattern of anti-Muslim policy actions from Texas Governor Greg Abbott, a Republican, who has repeatedly targeted the state’s growing Muslim population — a community that now numbers more than 400,000 across the state. Just last month, Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport scrapped plans to build a dedicated ablution station for Muslim travelers, used for ritual cleansing before prayer, after Abbott threatened to withhold hundreds of millions in state grant funding from any airport that moved forward with the project.

Last year, Abbott amplified far-right anti-Muslim disinformation to push for a federal investigation into a planned 1,000-home residential development with a mosque and school outside Dallas. After far-right agitator Amy Mekelburg falsely labeled the project “Sharia City” and claimed it would implement Islamic law, Abbott shared the false claim to his own social media, framing the development, led by the East Plano Islamic Community, as a threat to Texas. A Texas judge ultimately ruled in favor of the developers in May 2024, ordering the state to honor its pre-existing contractual agreements with the project.

Also in 2023, Abbott issued a proclamation designating both CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood as foreign terrorist organizations and transnational criminal enterprises. The designation bars the groups from purchasing or acquiring land in Texas, and grants the state attorney general broad authority to bring legal action against them. CAIR has forcefully rejected the unsubstantiated allegations, and the Muslim Brotherhood is a transnational movement with no official headquarters or centralized operations based in the United States.

Critics have also noted that the new curriculum violates the core principle of separation of church and state enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits the establishment of an official state religion and bars public institutions from promoting or elevating one religious tradition over others.

A major controversy has engulfed the British Museum’s high-profile Bayeux Tapestry exhibition after revelations that its lead sponsor, Belarus-born billionaire Igor Tulchinsky, has provided core funding for a community resilience center located in Efrat, an illegal Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank that is now subject to UK sanctions.

Tulchinsky, whose backing for the iconic medieval tapestry exhibition is reportedly valued at £5 million ($6.75 million), publicly unveiled a purpose-built therapy yurt at Efrat’s Mondlak Center in November 2025, appearing alongside the settlement’s far-right mayor Dovi Shefler for the ceremony. Public records from the Efrat Development Foundation, the nonprofit organization that operates the Mondlak Center, confirm Tulchinsky as the primary sponsor of the facility, which serves the entire Gush Etzion settlement bloc, a cluster of illegal Israeli settlements located just 12 kilometers southeast of Jerusalem.

According to an Instagram post from the foundation documenting the event, Tulchinsky dedicated the new facility to “Israel’s brave warriors and their families” during his opening remarks, where he famously described the therapy space as “Israel’s inner Iron Dome.”

Efrat, a settlement of roughly 12,000 Israeli settlers, was constructed on land seized from four indigenous Palestinian villages. It serves as the administrative capital of the expanding Gush Etzion bloc, which continues to push its boundaries toward the Palestinian city of Bethlehem. The Mondlak Center operates as a project of the Efrat Development Foundation, a nonprofit that states its mission is to advance Efrat’s social, cultural and physical development. The foundation’s public website outlines three tiers of donor partnership, with its top-tier “Vision Partner” designation requiring contributions of more than $50,000 and granting donors access to participate in strategic planning for the organization. The foundation also explicitly advertises support for “pioneer family support in Givat HaEitam” – a reference to the highly controversial E-2 hilltop settlement expansion that peace campaigners warn will cut Bethlehem off from the southern West Bank, effectively ghettoizing the Palestinian city.

The full scope of Tulchinsky’s support for the center, whether financial or in-kind, remains undisclosed. Middle East Eye attempted to reach Tulchinsky’s global investment firm WorldQuant for comment multiple times, but received no response. When contacted directly, the Efrat Development Foundation confirmed Tulchinsky is a donor but said his contribution was channeled through an unnamed third-party organization. A photograph of Tulchinsky at the yurt’s opening ceremony remains publicly displayed on the foundation’s official fundraising webpage.

The revelations about Tulchinsky’s connection to the illegal settlement come just 48 hours after UK Foreign Secretary Ed Milliband announced a sweeping new package of sanctions targeting individuals and entities linked to illegal Israeli settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank. Speaking to UK parliament, Milliband accused Israeli settlers of carrying out “ethnic cleansing” against Palestinian communities in the West Bank, stating that the Israeli occupation is unlawful due to Israel’s entrenched control, stated aim of claiming permanent sovereignty over the territory and expansionist agenda driven by illegal settlement building. “We will take action against specific companies and individuals who provide services such as construction, infrastructure financing or real estate for settlement expansion,” Milliband told lawmakers. “So to those who finance or facilitate illegal settlements, let me say this: You will face the full force of UK sanctions. Settlements are illegal. They should not be promoted in our country.”

Efrat’s mayor Dovi Shefler, who appeared alongside Tulchinsky at the yurt opening, has a long public record of vocal support for the full Israeli annexation of the occupied West Bank. The municipal council he leads has repeatedly violated even Israeli military regulations to expand Efrat into territory administered by the Palestinian Authority, and Shefler has openly boasted that Efrat’s eastward expansion has irreparably damaged any prospect of a viable contiguous Palestinian state. “We are physically blocking the connection between Bethlehem and Hebron,” he stated in an April 2025 interview. “Whoever is plotting to establish a terrorist state here – we are simply cutting off their dream through construction.”

Efrat is widely recognized as a stronghold of far-right religious-nationalist ideology in the West Bank. During Israel’s 2022 national election, nearly 48 percent of Efrat voters cast ballots for Religious Zionism and Jewish Power, the two extreme far-right parties led by Israeli cabinet ministers Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir – both of whom were sanctioned by the UK in June 2025 for repeated incitement to violence against Palestinian communities. In May 2025, Smotrich appeared in a public video with Shefler praising the mayor’s settlement expansion work, and the pair called for new Israeli settlement construction in the Gaza Strip.

Roughly 50 to 60 percent of Efrat’s settler population are native English speakers, and in April 2025 investigative outlet Declassified UK exposed an Israeli organization caught on camera offering assistance to British citizens seeking to relocate to the settlement. The organization Shivat Zion told potential migrants, “You’re next to the Arabs; you’ll hear their mosques. But apart from this, it’s a great living standard.”

The Mondlak Center, named after British-born immigrants Moshe and Lina Mondlak who settled in Gush Etzion, provides specialized mental health services to the settlement community. The therapy yurt unveiled by Tulchinsky features three private therapy rooms and an outdoor space dedicated to yoga, mindfulness and breathing workshops, according to reporting from the Jerusalem News Syndicate. Demand for the center’s services from Israeli soldiers and settlers increased dramatically following the outbreak of the 2023-2025 Gaza war, which has been widely described as a genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

In his dedication speech, Tulchinsky reaffirmed his support for Israeli forces, saying, “the war after the war being fought by therapists, volunteers and by soldiers and their families who are learning to breathe again.” Additional reporting from Middle East Eye published this week revealed that Tulchinsky runs a defense technology-focused venture capital fund based in Israel, led by a recently retired senior Israeli army commander who has publicly promoted the use of remote-controlled combat vehicles in Gaza. Israeli remote-controlled vehicles have been labeled a “direct tool for committing genocide” by one leading human rights group, and have been implicated in the systematic destruction of entire civilian neighborhoods in Gaza and southern Lebanon, including irreplaceable cultural heritage sites. In a March 2025 interview with the *Jerusalem Post*, Tulchinsky confirmed he has provided direct financial support to the Israeli army since the 7 October 2023 Hamas attacks and the start of the Gaza war, noting that he visits Israel on a regular basis.

The British Museum has so far declined to respond to multiple requests for comment about Tulchinsky’s sponsorship, which opened to the public this Thursday. Artists for Palestine UK, a prominent network of UK-based artists and cultural workers, has condemned the museum’s partnership with Tulchinsky as “outrageous.”

For weeks leading up to a historic diplomatic announcement, tensions simmered between the United Kingdom and its closest transatlantic ally over a planned UK crackdown on illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories. British media had been saturated with reports that the Trump administration was gearing up to forcefully block the Andy Burnham-led UK government’s sanctions plan, sparking fierce domestic pushback from opposition lawmakers and pundits who warned the move would provoke Washington and leave Britain isolated on the global stage.

Behind closed doors, the pressure campaign was real: senior government sources confirmed to Middle East Eye that U.S. officials had repeatedly lobbied the Burnham government to abandon the plan ahead of Tuesday’s scheduled announcement. The pressure campaign reached extraordinary heights last week, when U.S. President Donald Trump openly suggested the U.S. would not defend the Falkland Islands if Argentina launched an invasion, a comment widely interpreted as a veiled threat tied to the settlement dispute. Over the weekend, U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee escalated the rhetoric further, accusing the British government of “Jew hate” and warning that U.S. states could retaliate by sanctioning British firms.

But when Burnham spoke directly with Trump to outline the UK’s plan on Monday afternoon, the expected pushback never materialized. What Washington had not anticipated was that Burnham and Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband had quietly built a broad international coalition ahead of the announcement: France and Canada, both core U.S. allies, had already committed to enacting their own bans on Israeli settlement goods alongside the UK. In total, 12 Western nations signed on to a joint public statement released Tuesday: alongside the UK, France and Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Sweden added their signatures. The document confirmed participating nations either intended to introduce national trade restrictions on illegal settlement goods, back broader European Union-level restrictions, or were actively evaluating such measures in line with domestic legislative processes.

In a landmark address to UK Parliament on Tuesday, Miliband went further than any Western government has gone in recent decades, formally recognizing the ongoing ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, declaring Israel’s 57-year occupation of Palestinian territory illegal under international law, and announcing a full package of measures: comprehensive sanctions on Israeli settlements, plus an immediate ban on all arms licenses and exports that could “materially contribute to the occupation.”

Unsurprisingly, Israel responded with immediate, fierce anger. Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar announced a slate of retaliatory measures, including closing the British consulate in East Jerusalem and banning 11 sitting British MPs from entering the country. Most notably, however, the U.S. reaction was far quieter than observers had predicted. On a working trip to Colombia, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters the administration had been notified of London’s decision in advance, acknowledged the UK’s rationale, and stated only that the U.S. shared the goal of avoiding renewed violence and rising tensions in the already volatile West Bank. Significantly, Rubio declined to issue any formal criticism of the British move. Trump has not yet commented publicly on the decision, a silence that itself signals reluctance to publicly condemn three key U.S. allies simultaneously – even amid existing trade tensions with Canada.

While British diplomats privately told U.S. counterparts that the new sanctions are largely symbolic, with too small an economic footprint to force an immediate shift in Israeli policy, analysts widely frame the move as a consequential turning point with broad geopolitical implications. For the UK, the decision marks a stark shift in official rhetoric: the explicit recognition of ethnic cleansing and war crimes in Gaza and the West Bank sets a new standard for Western governments, one that government sources say is just the first step in a broader policy shift toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The coordinated 12-nation action also represents a major diplomatic rebuke of long-standing U.S. policy in the Middle East, and signals a tectonic shift in Western attitudes toward Israeli settlement expansion. Even historically pro-Israel Western European nations like the UK and France have now taken formal punitive action, leaving Germany as an outlier in its continued strong support for the Netanyahu government, a shift that has left Israeli officials particularly outraged.

Beyond the Middle East, the coordinated effort also puts into practice the so-called “Carney Doctrine” coined by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, which calls for a coalition of middle-sized global powers to act as an independent counterweight to larger great power influence – particularly the United States. By successfully building and leading this coalition on an issue where Washington holds an opposing position, the UK has effectively projected independent soft power and established itself as an agenda-setting global actor. The move has already won broad praise from Arab nations: Qatar and Jordan, both key British partners in the region, were quick to welcome the sanctions, followed shortly by the Arab League. Far from isolating Britain, as domestic opposition leaders warned, the bold stance is expected to boost the UK’s global standing, particularly across the Middle East.

For now, the Trump administration has held back from public rebuke. It remains to be seen whether that stance will hold in the coming weeks, and if pressure does mount, whether Burnham and Miliband will maintain their ground in what would be an unprecedented test of post-Brexit British diplomatic independence.

For months after Hezbollah launched its war with Israel on 2 March, the militant group adhered to a revised guerrilla doctrine: abandon rigid defense of fixed frontline positions to avoid the crippling casualties that marked its 2024 campaign. One critical outlier broke this pattern: the windswept hill of Ali al-Taher in southern Lebanon.

Hezbollah’s shift to flexible, maneuver-based warfare grew directly from hard-won lessons of earlier 2024 fighting. When the group attempted to hold static border positions against Israeli incursions, it suffered severe troop losses without stopping Israeli forces from pushing into southern Lebanese territory. Prolonged brutal battles for towns like Khiam convinced Hezbollah’s leadership that tying fighters to specific terrain played into Israel’s advantages in firepower and air dominance. Instead, the group prioritized preserving its fighting force, enabling continued operations even after Israeli advances. Even Bint Jbeil, long mythologized by Hezbollah as the site of the “mother of all battles” against Israel, was not deemed a position that required defense to the last fighter by April.

Ali al-Taher was different. In June, just days before a temporary ceasefire took hold, a senior Hezbollah official speaking to Middle East Eye confirmed the group would defend the strategic ridge “until the last man” rather than cede it to Israeli control. The official emphasized that tactics shift with changing battlefield conditions, noting the commitment reflected the demands of full-scale war at that time.

The ridge’s unique strategic value cannot be overstated. Sitting roughly 15 kilometers from the Israeli border at an elevation of 600 meters, Ali al-Taher overlooks the densely populated Nabatieh region and Iqlim al-Tuffah, holding dominion over key travel routes and military approaches across southern Lebanon. The hill is widely suspected to house Hezbollah’s underground command centers and weapons stockpiles, and Israeli military officials have confirmed they discovered hidden tunnel routes and extensive military infrastructure dug beneath its slopes.

For Hezbollah, the site’s importance stems from three interconnected factors: the extensive underground facilities carved into the ridge, the network of connections these tunnels share with other key Hezbollah positions across the south, and the unrivaled geographical surveillance advantage the high ground provides. The Hezbollah official explained that losing the ridge would flip the strategic balance of threat: for years, Hezbollah has used territory north of the Litani River to maintain pressure on northern Israel, but Israeli control of Ali al-Taher would give Jerusalem a forward base to surveillance and pressure the entire Nabatieh and Iqlim al-Tuffah regions.

This calculation explains why Hezbollah continued to fight for the hill long after the June ceasefire paused most hostilities across other parts of the front. For weeks after the ceasefire agreement, Ali al-Taher remained the site of daily Israeli airstrikes and Hezbollah drone counterattacks, even as the U.S. pushed a proposal that would see Hezbollah hand control of the outpost to the Lebanese military as part of a broader Hezbollah disarmament framework.

What followed was a grinding war of attrition. Israel maintained constant aerial surveillance of the ridge, carried out repeated targeted strikes, and gradually tightened its blockade around the underground complex. By August, Israeli officials were openly discussing plans to expand air and ground operations around the hill, with Israeli media reporting that dozens of Hezbollah fighters remained hunkered down in the hill’s tunnel network.

After Israel announced on 3 September that it had secured “operational control” of Ali al-Taher, the Hezbollah official pushed back against framing the withdrawal as a decisive defeat. “The hill stood for nearly three months with total aerial and operational oversight from Israel, constantly bombarded, and yet our men stood their ground,” he said. He added that the eventual decision to pull out was a pragmatic cost-benefit analysis, not a rejection of the hill’s strategic significance.

The Israeli military says its forces cleared Hezbollah fighters from two key underground passageways and established full control of both the surface and subterranean sections of the ridge. Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz framed the capture as a key step in consolidating Israel’s new security buffer zone in southern Lebanon.

But the term “operational control” does not equate to permanent, uncontested occupation. Hezbollah has not issued an official public response to Israel’s announcement, but anonymous group members rejected Israel’s claim the day after it was made, asserting no permanent Israeli force is present on the ridge and that Hezbollah fighters remain deployed in the area ready to repel any deeper Israeli advance.

This dispute over terminology carries major strategic weight. Israel has proven it can operate on and beneath the ridge, while Hezbollah works to deny that this achievement amounts to a irreversible strategic defeat. The question now turns to how Israel will use its new advantage. Israeli officials have stated they intend to hold their southern Lebanese security positions until Hezbollah is fully disarmed, turning Ali al-Taher from a battlefield win into a key bargaining chip in future negotiations with Lebanon.

For Hezbollah, the core challenge is to absorb the loss of one critical strategic outpost without allowing it to trigger a wider erosion of its military presence north of the Litani. The group’s next move will likely focus less on an immediate attempt to retake the hill, and more on containing any Israeli expansion from the outpost into surrounding territory. The Hezbollah official stressed that Ali al-Taher remains within surveillance range of other strategic hills still controlled by the group, noting that any Israeli attempt to use the ridge as a launching pad to push further north toward the Litani will be met by both Hezbollah and its key backer Iran.

This brings the conflict to its next critical turning point: will the loss of Ali al-Taher remain a contained tactical setback for Hezbollah, or will Israel turn control of the ridge into a broader military and political advantage across southern Lebanon?

The outcome hinges on two competing forces: whether Israel can solidify its hold on the outpost, neutralize the remaining Hezbollah underground network, and use the ridge to restrict Hezbollah’s ability to move and operate across the south, while Hezbollah works to prove that withdrawing from one key position does not mean the collapse of its wider military network in southern Lebanon.

Recent on-ground reporting confirms the contest is far from over. Israeli strikes around Nabatieh have continued unabated, and reports of Hezbollah attacks on Israeli forces in the area persist. In the end, Ali al-Taher’s true significance may lie not in who holds the hill itself, but in what the battle for it sparks across the surrounding region.

Israel’s declaration of operational control closes out a months-long battle for one of Hezbollah’s most important fixed positions. But whether it marks a full strategic defeat for Hezbollah, the start of a new Israeli offensive north of the Litani, or simply a transition from conventional frontline combat to a more dispersed, low-intensity confrontation remains unresolved. While the hill has changed military hands in the manner Israel claims, the larger struggle for control of southern Lebanon’s terrain, underground military networks, and long-term security architecture is still unfolding.