The Weekly Tea By Myriam François
Anti-Zionism, Trump’s Billions & What Really Happened in Ceuta
Hey folks, a busy week in news again. Here are three of the top news stories which I don’t think you should miss and why…
UK court rules anti-Zionism ‘legally protected belief‘ - The Cradle 4/08/2026
A landmark case has established that anti-Zionism is now a protected belief under UK law, cementing antizionism as philosophical belief. The court ruling stated:
“It is coherent to describe as ‘racist’ an ideology that promotes the establishment of a state for only one race of people in a territory that formerly contained a large number of people of a different race,” going further to say “Such an ideology, which supports the migration of members of the first group into the territory with the support of an imperial power to dislodge an indigenous population, could also coherently be described as colonial and imperialistic”. The man at the center of the case is David Miller a former political sociology professor at the University of Bristol from September 2018 until October 202, who was dismissed for “gross misconduct” due to comments he made about zionism. A previous court ruling back in 2024 had already determined that Miller’s dismissal over his anti-Zionist beliefs amounted to “unlawful direct discrimination” by the university, but due to an appeal by the University of Bristol against the February 2024 tribunal ruling — this was challenged before the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), the outcome of which has been to uphold Miller’s right to antizionist beliefs.
It might seem odd this needs stating to some of our american compatriots, but the battle over free speech here in the UK has included and continues to include attempts to legally curb criticism of the state of Israel as somehow antisemitic. This has been led by the imposition of the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance)’s working definition of antisemitism which includes examples touching on Israel, and which many UK universities and public bodies have been pressured or even required to adopt. A BRISMES/European Legal Support Centre analysis of 40 cases from 2017–2022 found the definition being used to accuse university staff and students of antisemitism for criticising Israeli government policy with almost all such accusations ultimately rejected and with the report concluding the IHRA definition was “undermining academic freedom and freedom of expression.” The Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Baroness Falkner, has said the definition is “extremely poorly worded” and “probably unactionable in law,” and conflicts with universities’ free-speech duties. Even one of the definition’s original authors, Kenneth Stern, has said it “was never intended as a tool to target or chill speech on a college campus” and has opposed legislative efforts to make it binding. And yet, despite concerns raised including by those who helped draft it, the UK government’s position has been consistently supportive of the IHRA definition. In fact, in December 2016, the UK became one of the first countries to adopt the definition, and if anything, it has become more assertive about mandating it. This isn’t even a partisan position, the Labour Party has also gleefully endorsed the IHRA definition and the current (Labour) government has been pushing IHRA adoption further into public institutions, including across the NHS, a deeply contested move which the British Medical Association voted in June 2026 to revoke on free speech grounds. But as things stand, all UK police forces now use and recognise the IHRA definition, and it’s embedded in Hate Crime Operational Guidance from the College of Policing. Yes, you read that right. That partly explains all those people being harassed by police over a tweet…
This is why the Miller case is so critical to those concerned not only with the right to anti-zionist beliefs, but with free speech more broadly. It currently sets the government’s position in conflict with the Equality Act’s protections and will inevitably create further cases highlighting this concerning attempt to use anti-hate legislation to override the right to free speech and frankly freedom of conscience.
The Ceuta crisis - A Manufactured Far Right Photo Op
“Ceuta crisis sparks online speculation over Israel’s role in pressuring Spain” - Middle East monitor - July 2026
It was the perfect concoction of far-right disinformation flooding our timelines and media: a toxic mix of Islam, migrants and the oft-recycled “brown hordes invading and threatening Western civilisation” trope, blasted by right-wing punditry as evidence of their repeated warnings about the threats allegedly faced by the white ‘race’ from Muslims and migrants.
Conveniently, it is also the very same story Israel uses to justify much of its own militarism in the region, playing on these notions to cement its image as the bulwark of Western civilisation in the Middle East. All the while, of course, it also claims to be native to the very same region which it apparently is required to police, because of some civilisational clash. Make it make sense.
So what actually happened in Ceuta, and what was it really about? And why were Israeli leaders such as Danny Danon seemingly so gleeful, with Trump also weighing in and using the term “invasion” to describe events which, it is worth noting, did not occur on European soil—Ceuta is a Spanish enclave on the North African coast, surrounded by Morocco.
The manufactured crisis
The events were presented as a “migration crisis”—a recurrent theme for the Right and far Right, which has focused much of the blame for Europe and the West’s social ills not on the economic plunder carried out by ever-richer elites, but on impoverished people fleeing their homes in search of a better life.
Migration is not a black-and-white story. It of course brings complications, which are also often dismissed by the Left, from housing pressures to language and cultural barriers. But the truth is that the manufactured crisis in Ceuta was not actually a story about migration. It was a story about shifting global alliances; America’s growing disdain for NATO and Europe, which has long regarded the USA as its primary ally; and, of course, a peppering of Israeli support for events that would place immense pressure on a Spanish government that has been one of the most vocal critics of the genocide in Europe.
In brief: Morocco sacrificed its own people at the altar of US-Israeli hegemony.
If this is any indication of what signing the Abraham Accords and normalising relations with Israel entails, it should serve as a cautionary lesson to regional aspirants about the kind of monkey business such ties can involve.
So what are the facts?
Between the morning of July 30 and the night of July 31, around 50,000 people entered the Spanish enclave of Ceuta within a 24-hour period—a completely unheard-of scenario. Later estimates put the number of arrivals even higher, at around 72,000. The vast majority subsequently returned to Morocco, while dozens of people died attempting the crossing.
For some context, in May 2021, more than 8,000 people entered Ceuta over roughly two days after Moroccan authorities loosened border controls. A single-day record of around 6,000 arrivals was recorded at the time, and was described as the highest such figure ever seen. The scale of the 2026 influx was therefore extraordinary.
I provide this information to illustrate what appears to have been a politically manipulated abuse of migration desperation: a mass movement of people, followed by a media spectacle designed to fuel MAGA and wider far-right fantasies for years to come. By July 31, Spain said that tens of thousands of those who had crossed had already returned to Morocco. So what crisis, exactly, are we referring to?
The Moroccans were not “arriving in Europe” in the way the images and rhetoric implied. They were crossing into a Spanish-controlled enclave on African soil, and the vast majority were returned within 48 hours—providing the requisite photoshoot and imagery for those eager to portray migration as an invasion.
The geopolitical context
The New York Times reported speaking to several Moroccans who said they had been encouraged to cross into Ceuta by Moroccan authorities. Spanish outlet El Confidencial also reported that intelligence officials believed Morocco had allowed border controls to gradually relax. Speculation intensified after social media users resurfaced articles published earlier this year by pro-Israel analysts, who argued that Israel and the United States should support Morocco’s claim to Ceuta and Melilla as a means of pressuring Spain, read punish it for its position on Gaza.
Israeli sources revealed that, in March, Michael Rubin, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, called on Morocco to organise a new “Green March” into the Spanish enclaves. Writing for the US-based Middle East Forum, Rubin suggested that Moroccans approach Ceuta and Melilla with bulldozers, cross into the territories unarmed and raise the Moroccan flag, framing the proposal as a response to what he portrayed as Spain’s ‘anti-colonial hypocrisy’ - again, read: punish Spain for its position on Gaza.
A separate article published by the Israeli outlet *Ynet* in April recommended that Israel use its influence in Washington to help Morocco “recover” Ceuta and Melilla. Of course, none of this, on its own, proves that Israel orchestrated the influx. But it does provide the wider geopolitical context in which the events unfolded: Morocco’s claims to the enclaves, rooted in a colonial era, Israel’s increasingly close relationship with Rabat, worsening relations between Morocco and Spain, and Madrid’s vocal opposition to Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
The story came and went - but what remains is America’s willingness to turn on a NATO ally, Morocco’s role in the region to ‘punish’ Europeans by using its own people as pawns as part of a wider racist anti-migrant disinformation campaign and the enduring hand of the Israelis in fomenting chaos, risking lives, to put on the theatre necessary to advance its interests.
Trump’s Biggest Challenge to American Democracy: himself
Foreign Policy - 31/07/2026- Trump offering early access to online posts in move seen as corruption - The Guardian 01/08/26
“We are currently witnessing corruption as we have never seen before under President Trump. President Trump ran his campaign promising to fight for working- and middle-class Americans. He said he would bring costs down on Day 1. Instead, he has weaponised the office of the President to enrich himself and his family.” These are the words of Rosa DeLauro, Representative for Connecticut, but they echo the feelings of so many as we observe the Trump dynasty’s continued engorgement on access to public office. From crypto to selling access through social media, “this is like the Mount Everest of corruption,” said Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon. Writing about Trump’s increasingly apparent use of public office to trade proximity to him for investment in him or his businesses, the The Atlantic noted: “The scandals of the president’s first term now seem quaint.”
The US president’s growing wealth while in office has been in the spotlight since his financial reports for 2025 were made public at the end of June. They indicated that his reported wealth had jumped from US$622 million in 2024 to US$2.2 billion in 2025, the first year of his second term. And no, that was not his salary as president.
His sons’ portfolio has collectively generated more than US$3 billion in direct government business, according to The Washington Post. From luxury “gifts” to get-out-of-jail-free cards and government handouts for friends and allies, the question at this point is surely: could the Trump corruption scandal get any bigger? And is corruption even the right word when the President appears to be engineering the entire political system to suit the aspirations of his dynasty?
Is Trump hollowing out a democratic system, fundamentally changing its nature so that it can never again resemble the aspirational framework so many cherished, despite its obvious flaws? Or is he simply laying bare what so many have done, in various and more shadowy guises, before him?
Big money unduly influencing American politics is, after all, not a new story—even if the scale is.
What is clear is that, despite the scrutiny of some outlets and organisations, corruption has rarely appeared more blatant. And with that comes the sense that Trump is not worried about being held to account—now or, presumably, in the future. Americans should therefore be confronted with the reality that, as things stand, the Trump corruption scandal is no longer only about one man. It is about the very nature of the system Americans are willing to tolerate. And the more existential question of whether the damage is even reversible at this point?
In many ways, this is the crescendo of a type of politics that has been allowed to fester from Left to Right, with the pretense of democracy offering cover for what are presented as isolated ‘anomalies’ of corruption. But when corruption becomes the norm—when it becomes the standard—the system itself stands trial.
This is certainly a defining moment for American democracy. But it may also present an opportunity to confront the rot which, although accelerated under Trump, did not begin with him.
It may be that one day we look back at this moment as the point at which Trump’s lack of subtlety, and his unwillingness to play by the rules, unveiled a defunct system that needed to be laid bare before change could come.
Now, as Americans stare down a tech-billionaire oligarchy in place of the democracy they once cherished, the question is: what strategies, from Left to Right, can be used to challenge the one issue that should unite people across the divide?
Will it?
Thanks for checking out my top stories - what do you think? Share your comments below!
