The media wants you to believe this is a rupture. It’s not. It’s a recalibration of U.S. regional dominance, not a break from Zionist apartheid. Whether by tantrum or treaty, empire still arms occupation.
By Prince Kapone | Weaponized Information | May 9, 2025
Palace Intrigue, Settler Propaganda: Who Benefits from the Illusion of a Rift?
On the surface, the article from Middle East Monitor (MEMO) appears to offer a scoop: Trump is allegedly cutting communication with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But scratch the surface and it becomes clear this isn’t journalism—it’s transmission. The report relies almost entirely on Israeli Army Radio and Israel Hayom, a right-wing mouthpiece for the Likud party and U.S.-aligned Zionist financiers like Sheldon Adelson. No analysis. No sourcing beyond insiders. No challenge to the idea that a falling out between two imperial actors means a rupture in policy. In reality, this is a public relations maneuver disguised as a news break.
MEMO, while often critical of Israeli apartheid, functions here as a conduit for Israeli state narrative laundering. Yanir Cozin—the Army Radio correspondent quoted—is part of the Israeli military’s ideological apparatus. Army Radio is not independent media. It is operated by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), a settler military built on occupation and ethnic cleansing. Its correspondents, by design, serve the propaganda goals of the Zionist security state. And Israel Hayom, cited as corroborating the report, is Netanyahu’s former campaign mouthpiece—owned by Adelson, the billionaire casino magnate who served as a political pipeline between Netanyahu and Trump.
So who benefits from this orchestrated leak? Let’s name names:
- Donald Trump: projects distance from the Gaza bloodbath to pacify a war-weary U.S. electorate while maintaining weapons flows and normalization schemes.
- Ron Dermer: Israel’s Strategic Affairs Minister, acts as the backchannel enforcer of Zionist interests within U.S. politics, lobbying both Republicans and Democrats to shape Middle East policy.
- Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS): the likely beneficiary of any U.S. “independent action” in the region—especially if it leads to a normalization deal without the political baggage of Netanyahu.
The framing? Classic distraction. The article centers on interpersonal drama—Trump feeling “manipulated,” Netanyahu “stalling,” anonymous sources speaking of “disappointment.” It’s tabloid geopolitics. Missing entirely is the continuity of settler-colonial policy between Trump and Biden, the uninterrupted military financing of Israeli apartheid, and the role of Gulf autocracies in propping up the regional status quo. Even as bombs fall on Rafah, we’re fed a soap opera.
The article buries the actual function of this maneuver: to allow Trump to recalibrate regional alliances without appearing weak on Israel. It constructs a false binary—either full alignment with Netanyahu or total rupture—ignoring the real terrain of imperial management. U.S. support for Zionism does not depend on who’s in charge in Tel Aviv or Washington. It is structural. It is bipartisan. It is settler-colonial solidarity from one empire to another.
By omitting any mention of Gaza, Palestinian resistance, or even the broader geopolitical function of Israel as a U.S. outpost in West Asia, the article erases the colonized from the narrative entirely. Palestinians appear nowhere—not even as political context. Instead, the reader is left to interpret Trump’s moves as independent choices, divorced from the imperial machinery he serves. This is not an editorial oversight—it is cognitive warfare. It hides the system behind the personalities. It turns systemic oppression into personality conflict.
The result? Readers are left debating the ego of two war criminals rather than the policies that arm, finance, and politically shield apartheid. Trump’s image is softened. Netanyahu’s failures are reframed as personal missteps. The machinery of occupation continues, uninterrupted and unchallenged. And the settler state gets to reposition itself for the next act of normalization, repression, and displacement.
Freeing the Prisoners of Empire: Contextualizing the U.S.-Israel “Rift”
Let’s start with what the article actually tells us. Trump’s communication with Netanyahu has allegedly ceased due to a breakdown in personal relations. Trump is reportedly disappointed by Netanyahu’s handling of U.S. requests and his interference with U.S. policy-making through backchannel lobbying. The crux of the conflict appears to be a political dispute over Middle East policy, especially Israel’s reluctance to move forward on normalization with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states.
However, what the article misses—and what its framing deliberately obscures—is that this supposed “rift” between Trump and Netanyahu is not about a break in policy, but rather a moment of imperial recalibration. The U.S.-Israel alliance is not subject to the whims of individual leaders. The relationship is structurally bound by imperial interests: military financing, intelligence sharing, weapons sales, and geopolitical maneuvering in the Middle East. Both Trump and Netanyahu remain fundamentally tethered to these imperial objectives, and their disagreements do not signal a rupture in support for Zionism or the apartheid state.
The real issue is not about personal disagreements or stalled diplomacy—it’s about the reconfiguration of power in the region. The U.S. has increasingly turned its focus toward normalizing relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia, which is seen as crucial to maintaining U.S. dominance over energy resources and suppressing any potential regional threat from Iran. Trump’s “move forward without Netanyahu” rhetoric is likely a tactical play to appease Saudi Arabia, which has made it clear that a resolution with Israel could be one of its conditions for further regional realignments.
The U.S.-Israel axis remains intact, but it is now being recalibrated to align with new geopolitical imperatives. The U.S. is less concerned with the specifics of Israeli domestic politics and more focused on consolidating a strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and other Gulf monarchies. These states are not only rich in oil, but they also serve as key pillars in the U.S.’s efforts to contain Iran and maintain its dominance over the broader Middle East. A re-alignment of U.S. policy in favor of Saudi-Israeli normalization, with or without Netanyahu’s approval, is an essential part of the U.S.’s long-term strategy in the region.
Furthermore, what is omitted from this article is the ongoing and growing resistance to U.S. imperialism in the region. The Palestinians are the elephant in the room—completely invisible in the coverage. The implications of this diplomatic reshuffling will be felt hardest by the colonized populations of Palestine, Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon, who are continually crushed under the weight of U.S. arms and diplomatic cover for apartheid. The absence of any mention of the Palestinians or the regional resistance to U.S. imperialism underscores the colonial nature of this “rift” between Trump and Netanyahu—it’s not about justice or sovereignty, it’s about the mechanics of power within empire.
Let’s also note the broader economic context: the U.S. remains Israel’s largest trading partner, with military and economic aid consistently surpassing $3 billion annually. No matter how much Trump or Netanyahu spar over policy, the flow of weapons and surveillance technology will continue uninterrupted. In this sense, the supposed “rift” between the two leaders is not a policy change—it is a reshuffling of power within an imperial system that continues to prioritize Israel’s security needs above Palestinian rights and international law.
In conclusion, the article distracts the reader from the real dynamics at play: the unbroken U.S. support for Israeli apartheid, the continued political and economic subjugation of Palestinians, and the shifting alliances among imperialist powers. The framing is designed to obscure the imperial machinery behind the personal conflicts of politicians, allowing the reader to focus on drama rather than system. The U.S.-Israel relationship, far from being in crisis, remains a critical axis of U.S. imperial strategy in the region.
Not a Rift, But a Rehearsal: Reframing Settler Discord as Imperial Strategy
This is not a rupture. It is not a break, a betrayal, or a policy shift. It is a rehearsal. A recalibration. A momentary crack in the glass dome of empire, designed to be mistaken for structural collapse. Trump “cutting off” Netanyahu is not a turn against Zionism—it is the empire managing its garrison state more carefully, disciplining one client to appease another. The settler-colonial machine rolls on.
What looks like a quarrel is imperial choreography. The United States has never truly disagreed with Israel—it has only argued over tactics. Whether through Obama’s drone diplomacy, Biden’s cautious normalization, or Trump’s brash alliances, the core mission has never changed: enforce U.S. hegemony across West Asia through a matrix of proxy regimes, arms sales, and settler terror.
Netanyahu’s role in that matrix has simply become inconvenient. Not obsolete. Just less marketable. In an election year where Gaza genocide headlines and images of charred children can’t be ignored forever, Trump is shedding weight to appeal to an American base growing tired of “endless war” optics—even as the bombs continue to fall with U.S. markings. This is no different than Obama’s pivot to “smart power” or Biden’s empty calls for “restraint.” Each administration repackages imperialism for its audience.
Let us not forget: Israel exists within U.S. imperial strategy as an extension of settler colonial logic. It is a weapons lab, a testbed for counterinsurgency, a racialized fortress constructed to fragment and discipline the Arab world. The rift between Trump and Netanyahu is like a debate between generals over battlefield tactics—it changes nothing for the occupied. The apartheid wall still stands. The siege on Gaza tightens. The M-16s still ship.
Nor is this about Palestine alone. The U.S.-Israel relationship is entangled with Saudi oil, Emirati surveillance tech, Egyptian military aid, and the entire structure of repression stretching from Morocco to Pakistan. What Trump is signaling with this performative break is not divergence, but a new division of labor. He wants MBS to carry the normalization torch now—one that doesn’t need the baggage of Netanyahu’s brutality. Let the Crown Prince wear the mask of “moderation” while apartheid continues behind the scenes.
This is how settler-colonialism adapts. It rebrands. It rotates managers. It sacrifices one faction of the ruling class to preserve the structure as a whole. Just as the U.S. cycled through Shahs, generals, and “technocrats” across Latin America, Africa, and Asia, so too does it now discipline Netanyahu to smooth over contradictions in the imperial machine. But don’t be fooled. The system is intact. And it is preparing its next offensive.
We must be clear: there is no salvation in Zionist “dissent.” There is no redemption in Trump’s tantrums. There is only imperialism adjusting to crisis. And the task of the revolutionary is not to debate which faction is more grotesque, but to expose the whole edifice, to rupture its foundations, and to build power from below that makes such governments obsolete.
From Settler Theater to People’s Power: Tasks for a Revolutionary Moment
No spectacle of elite dysfunction should seduce us into false hope. Trump’s posturing and Netanyahu’s fall from grace are not signs of rupture but of realignment. And realignments within empire are always designed to manage dissent, not surrender power. Our task, then, is not to watch this farce unfold—but to intervene. To weaponize clarity. To escalate solidarity. To build revolutionary force from below that makes the rulers’ quarrels irrelevant.
We affirm total and unshakable ideological unity with the Palestinian resistance, in all its forms. With the armed youth in Jenin and Gaza. With the families in Rafah living beneath rubble. With the students occupying campuses and the workers refusing to load weapons onto ships. We affirm that no political theater among imperialists can obscure the moral clarity of a people fighting to be free.
To that end, here are five concrete fronts for revolutionary action:
- Expose Settler Collaboration: Publicly name and disrupt the institutions, corporations, and think tanks that continue to fund, train, and equip Israeli apartheid—whether it’s Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, the ADL, or the U.S. Congress.
- Advance Direct Action: Occupy weapons factories, ports, and academic institutions complicit in Israeli settler colonialism. Coordinate with unions, dockworkers, and student groups for blockades and disruptions. Turn symbolic outrage into material sabotage.
- Popularize Political Education: Build study groups that connect Palestine to Ferguson, Gaza to Standing Rock, apartheid to settler colonialism worldwide. Teach that the enemy is not just Israel—but the global imperial system it serves.
- Amplify Resistance Journalism: Elevate the voices of Palestinian reporters, citizen journalists, and organizers on the ground. Counter the psychological warfare of corporate media by disseminating real-time updates and historical context.
- Forge Transnational Solidarity: Link the Palestinian struggle to those of Congo, Sudan, Haiti, and Yemen. Show that the U.S. empire does not simply support Israel—it replicates its model across the globe. Build networks of revolutionary cooperation that outlive the headlines.
The Trump-Netanyahu “split” will be forgotten by next month. But what won’t be forgotten—what must not be forgotten—is the still-burning memory of Al-Ahli hospital. The leveled homes in Khan Yunis. The keffiyeh-clad youth facing drones with slingshots. The thousands in diaspora who scream, not as victims, but as freedom fighters. That memory is not a moment. It is a call.
Let us answer it not with mourning, but with militancy. Let us organize not for reform, but for rupture. Because settler-colonialism will not end through negotiations. It will end when the colonized decide to end it. And our job, in every trench, is to make sure they do not stand alone.
From the river to the sea, and from the ports of Oakland to the hills of Ramallah, we say: no justice—no peace. No normalization—no surrender. Total liberation or nothing.
Weaponized Information 
Leave a comment