Israel to fund tour for MAGA and pro-Trump influencers: Report
Israeli newspaper Haaretz on Sunday reported that the planned tour will feature 16 influencers, all under the age of 30, who support US President Donald Trump's MAGA (Make America Great Again) and America First campaigns.
The influencers each have hundreds of thousands to millions of followers. They will be flown in to counter what the Israeli government sees as declining support for Israel among young Americans, the report said, without citing any date.
'With the rise of the America First movement and MAGA in American politics, it's essential for Israel that the movement adopt a pro-Israel position,' Yacov Livne, senior deputy director of the Israeli Foreign Ministry's Department of Public Diplomacy, was quoted as saying in the report.
The Israeli foreign ministry aims to bring 550 influencer delegations to Israel by the end of the year through such tours, it said.
'[While] older Republicans and American conservatives still hold pro-Israel views, positive perspectives towards Israel are falling across all younger age groups,' it said, according to the report.
The influencers will be pushed to share messaging that aligns with Israeli policy regarding the Palestinians. 'We are working with influencers, sometimes with delegations of influencers,' an unnamed source from the ministry told Haaretz.
'Their networks have huge followings and their messages are more effective than if they came directly from the ministry.'
The tour will be carried out through an organisation called Israel365, which is in a 'unique position to convey a pro-Israel stance that aligns entirely with the MAGA and America First agenda', Haaretz quoted the foreign ministry as saying.
Israel365 promotes support for Israel, specifically among Christians, based on biblical principles. Its website says the group 'stands unapologetically for the Jewish people's God-given right to the entire Land of Israel'.
The organisation also rejects a two‑state solution as a 'delusion' and describes its mission as defending 'Western civilization against threats from both Progressive Left extremism and global jihad'.
The ministry said it has struck a 290,000-shekel ($86,000) deal to carry out the tour, Haaretz reported.
Since the war on Gaza began in October 2023, Israel365 'deepened ties with MAGA and America First movements, appearing at their major events and helping recruit prominent conservative figures to visit Israel', the report added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
8 minutes ago
- Al Jazeera
Hearing begins in Harvard's case against the Trump administration
A federal court has begun hearings in a pivotal case as Harvard seeks to force the United States government to return $2.6bn in federal funding frozen earlier this year. A lawyer for Harvard, Steven Lehotsky, said at Monday's hearing that the case is about the government trying to control the 'inner workings' of Harvard. The funding cuts, if not reversed, could lead to the loss of research, damaged careers and the closing of labs, he said. President Donald Trump's administration has battered the nation's oldest and wealthiest university with sanctions for months as it presses a series of demands on the Ivy League school, which it decries as a hotbed of liberalism and anti-Semitism. Harvard has resisted, and the lawsuit over the cuts to its research grants represents the primary challenge to the administration in a standoff that is being widely watched across higher education and beyond. The case is before US District Judge Allison Burroughs, who is presiding over lawsuits brought by Harvard against the administration's efforts to keep it from hosting international students. In that case, she temporarily blocked the administration's efforts. At Monday's hearing, Harvard is asking her to reverse a series of funding freezes. Such a ruling, if it stands, would revive Harvard's sprawling scientific and medical research operation and hundreds of projects that lost federal money. A lawyer for the government, Michael Velchik, said the government has the authority to cancel research grants when an institution is out of compliance with the president's directives. He said episodes at Harvard violated Trump's order combating anti-Semitism. Judge questions basis for government's findings on anti-Semitism Burroughs pushed back, questioning how the government could make 'ad hoc' decisions to cancel grants and do so across Harvard without offering evidence that any of the research is anti-Semitic. She also argued the government had provided 'no documentation, no procedure' to 'suss out' whether Harvard administrators 'have taken enough steps or haven't' to combat anti-Semitism. 'The consequences of that in terms of constitutional law are staggering,' she said during Monday's hearing. 'I don't think you can justify a contract action based on impermissible suppression of speech. Where do I have that wrong?' Velchik said the case comes down to the government's choosing how best to spend billions of dollars in research funding. 'Harvard claims the government is anti-Harvard. I reject that,' Velchik said. 'The government is pro-Jewish students at Harvard. The government is pro-Jewish faculty at Harvard.' Harvard's lawsuit accuses the Trump administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university after it rejected a series of demands in an April 11 letter from a federal anti-Semitism task force. A second lawsuit over the cuts filed by the American Association of University Professors and its Harvard faculty chapter has been consolidated with the university's. The April letter demanded sweeping changes related to campus protests, academics and admissions. For example, the letter told Harvard to audit the viewpoints of students and faculty and admit more students or hire new professors if the campus was found to lack diverse points of view. Harvard President Alan Garber has said the university has made changes to combat anti-Semitism but said no government 'should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue'. Monday's hearing ended without Burroughs issuing a ruling from the bench. A ruling is expected later in writing. Trump's pressure campaign has involved a series of sanctions The same day Harvard rejected the government's demands, Trump officials moved to freeze $2.2bn in research grants. Education Secretary Linda McMahon declared in May that Harvard would no longer be eligible for new grants, and weeks later, the administration began cancelling contracts with Harvard. As Harvard fought the funding freeze in court, individual agencies began sending letters announcing the frozen research grants were being terminated. They cited a clause that allows grants to be scrapped if they no longer align with government policies. Harvard, which has the nation's largest endowment at $53bn, has moved to self-fund some of its research, but warned it can't absorb the full cost of the federal cuts. In court filings, the school said the government 'fails to explain how the termination of funding for research to treat cancer, support veterans, and improve national security addresses antisemitism'. The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation, saying the grants were under review even before the April demand letter was sent. It argues the government has wide discretion to cancel contracts for policy reasons. The research funding is only one front in Harvard's fight with the federal government. The Trump administration also has sought to prevent the school from hosting foreign students, and Trump has threatened to revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status. Finally, last month, the Trump administration formally issued a finding that the school tolerated anti-Semitism – a step that eventually could jeopardise all of Harvard's federal funding, including federal student loans or grants. The penalty is typically referred to as a 'death sentence'.
Al Jazeera
4 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
'We're afraid to talk about Gaza'
"We're afraid to talk about Gaza" Quotable Video Duration 01 minutes 21 seconds 01:21 Video Duration 01 minutes 39 seconds 01:39 Video Duration 01 minutes 07 seconds 01:07 Video Duration 01 minutes 39 seconds 01:39 Video Duration 01 minutes 11 seconds 01:11 Video Duration 01 minutes 39 seconds 01:39 Video Duration 01 minutes 00 seconds 01:00
Al Jazeera
5 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Why is the UN not declaring famine in Gaza?
On July 9, 2024, no fewer than 11 experts mandated by the United Nations Human Rights Council issued a mayday call about famine in Gaza. 'We declare that Israel's intentional and targeted starvation campaign against the Palestinian people is a form of genocidal violence and has resulted in famine across all of Gaza. We call upon the international community to prioritise the delivery of humanitarian aid by land by any means necessary, end Israel's siege, and establish a ceasefire,' their statement read. Among the experts were Michael Fakhri, special rapporteur on the right to food, Pedro Arrojo-Agudo, special rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation, and Francesca Albanese, special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967. In their opinion, the death of children from starvation despite attempts to provide them with medical treatment in central Gaza left no room for equivocation. While 'famine' is generally understood as an acute lack of nutrition which would lead to starvation and death of a group of people or an entire population, there is no universally accepted definition of the concept in international law. However, in 2004, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) developed the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), a five-stage quantitative humanitarian scale to map the food insecurity of a population. The aim of this evaluation instrument is to spur collective action when food insecurity is identified and prevent such situations from reaching Level 5 on the IPC scale when famine is confirmed and declared. It has been used by FAO, the World Food Programme (WFP) and their partners as a scientific, data-driven tool for the past 20 years. The IPC quantifiable criteria for declaring famine are gruesomely straightforward: 20 percent or more of households in an area face extreme food shortages with a limited ability to cope; acute malnutrition in children exceeds 30 percent; and the death rate exceeds two people per 10,000 per day. When these three benchmarks are met, 'famine' needs to be declared. Although it does not trigger legal or treaty obligations, it is nevertheless an important political signal to compel an international humanitarian action. If the aforementioned experts could conclude, in unison and over a year ago, that famine was present in the besieged Gaza Strip, it is hard to understand why the competent UN entities and executive heads have not yet reached the conclusion that Level 5 has been reached by July of this year, after over four months of a medieval siege. In the era of real-time information transmitted to smartphones the world over, the reality of fatal levels of food insecurity is glaring and unconscionable. Images of emaciated bodies reminiscent of those taken in Nazi concentration camps tell the macabre tale of the reality in Gaza, blockaded by the uncompromising Israeli occupation forces. And yet, even against the backdrop of UN agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA) warnings issued on July 20 that one million children in Gaza are facing the risk of starvation, 'famine' is not yet declared. On the surface, the explanation for not declaring 'famine' in Gaza is that the necessary data used under the IPC scheme is not available. This may well be the case since Israel prevents access to the Gaza Strip to journalists and some humanitarian workers. IPC analysts, therefore, do not have primary data collection capabilities, which they have for the other 30 or so situations they monitor. But when the physical evidence is plain to see, when some reliable data is available, humanitarian considerations ought to override technical requirements. However, in today's UN system culture transfixed by a US administration gone amok against it, political considerations override the sense of duty and professional imperatives. Those at the helm know what is right (or one hopes so) — and what could be fatal to their persona and careers. The US government's ad hominem attacks against and sanctions imposed on Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) Karim Khan and UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese are a vivid reminder that those jobs are not without risks. In the case of Albanese, her mandate is not even a 'job' as she is carrying it out pro bono, which makes her steadfastness and courage all the more exemplary. Admittedly, UN executive heads such as Secretary-General Antonio Guterres have more complex calculations to contend with, punitive actions by some powers on the organisation they lead being the principal one. As the saying goes, 'money talks' and the US is the single largest contributor to the UN system. But now that the US Congress has passed an unprecedented bill defunding the UN system, not doing what is right to shield the concerned UN organisations from Washington's retaliatory wrath is no longer an acceptable cop-out, if it ever was. It is important here to remember that the Statute of the ICC provides that starvation of civilians constitutes a war crime when committed in international armed conflicts. The full siege of Gaza since March 2, which is resulting in the starvation of civilians, first and foremost infants and children, falls squarely within the purview of Article 8 of the Statute, all the more so as it is the result of a deliberate and declaratory policy denying humanitarian assistance for months. In this man-made famine, Palestinians are starving to death amid the deafening silence of the world, while tonnes of food are going to waste on the Egyptian side of the border while awaiting permission to enter Gaza. Israeli troops and foreign mercenaries hired by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation have killed more than 900 Palestinians seeking aid at so-called humanitarian distribution sites. Some 90,000 children and women are in need of urgent treatment for malnutrition, according to the WFP; 19 people died of starvation in a single day on July 20, the Gaza Ministry of Health reported. And worse is yet to come. Michael Fakhri, Pedro Arrojo-Agudo and Francesca Albanese said it a year ago — it is high time for the UN to officially declare that 'famine' is in Gaza. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
