Thomas Massive Introduces Bill to Withdraw from NATO
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | December 11, 2025
Representative Thomas Massive has introduced legislation that will end US membership in the North Atlantic Alliance.
“NATO is a Cold War relic. The United States should withdraw from NATO and use that money to defend our country, not socialist countries,” the Republican Congressman wrote. “Today, I introduced HR 6508 to end our NATO membership.”
In a statement, Massie argued NATO is a relic of the Cold War and an outdated pact. “NATO was created to counter the Soviet Union, which collapsed over thirty years ago. Since then, U.S. participation has cost taxpayers trillions of dollars and continues to risk US involvement in foreign wars,” he said. “Our Constitution did not authorize permanent foreign entanglements, something our Founding Fathers explicitly warned us against. America should not be the world’s security blanket—especially when wealthy countries refuse to pay for their own defense.”
Massie’s bill has companion legislation in the Senate, introduced by Mike Lee. “America’s withdrawal from NATO is long overdue. NATO has run its course – the threats that existed at its inception are no longer relevant 76 years later.” The Utah Senator continued, “If they were, Europe would be paying their fair share instead of making American taxpayers pick up the check for decades. My legislation will put America first by withdrawing us from the raw deal NATO has become.”
NATO was formed in 1949 to protect Western Europe from the Soviet Union. After the fall of the USSR, NATO has expanded to 32 states, including former Soviet states and Warsaw Pact members.
The US attempted to make Kiev a member of the alliance, provoking Russia to invade Ukraine in 2022. Russia has demanded that Ukraine agree to never join NATO as a condition for ending the war.
EU member’s government resigns amid anti-corruption protests
RT | December 11, 2025
Bulgaria’s government has announced its resignation following mass anti-corruption protests across the country. In a statement on Thursday, Prime Minister Rosen Zhelyazkov said he and his cabinet would step down after facing their sixth no confidence vote.
The announcement comes just weeks before Bulgaria is set to join the euro zone on January 1. The government had previously proposed a controversial 2026 budget, drafted in euros, that included higher taxes and increased social security contributions.
The bill, however, was met with weeks of mass demonstrations as protestors accused the government of corruption and voiced frustration at the failure of successive leaderships to root it out. Bulgaria has held seven national elections over the past four years.
Although the government withdrew the budget proposal last week, protestors continued to demand Zhelyazkov’s resignation and the ouster of several other influential politicians.
On Thursday, Zhelyazkov’s government was set to face its latest motion of no confidence tabled by opposition parties. However, before the vote took place, the prime minister announced that although the motion would go ahead and be defeated by the ruling coalition, he and his government would nevertheless resign.
Bulgarian President Rumen Radev, who has limited powers under the country’s constitution, had previously backed the calls for the government’s resignation. Following Zhelyazkov’s resignation, Radev is expected to ask parties in parliament to form a new government. If they are unable to do so, he will be tasked with forming an interim administration until new elections can be held.
EU backers of Russian asset theft are ‘psychologically at war’ – Belgian PM
RT | December 11, 2025
The EU states pushing hardest to tap Russia’s frozen assets are acting as if they are “psychologically at war” with Moscow, Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever has said.
Speaking after condemning the latest EU proposal to use the frozen Russian sovereign funds to help finance Ukraine, De Wever labeled the plan “very unwise and ill-considered.” He also warned that the plan backed by European Commission President Ursula von Der Leyen would amount to “stealing” and would open the bloc up to potential legal action.
Von der Leyen last week proposed providing Ukraine with €90 billion over the next two years, anchored by a so-called “reparations loan” backed by the frozen assets, or by debt financed by EU member states, deemed politically unworkable by most.
Belgium, which hosts the financial clearinghouse Euroclear, where the bulk of Russia’s immobilized central bank assets are held, has long resisted such efforts. Brussels argues that forcing Euroclear to make the funds available could carry severe legal, financial and geopolitical risks.
De Wever also argued that the strongest supporters of the proposal are EU states geographically closest to Russia, claiming they “mentally are almost in a state of war” with Moscow. He stressed that Belgium is “not at war” with Russia and doesn’t want to “have a war with Russia.”
The Baltic states (Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia) and Poland have become the EU’s most vocal advocates of a hard line toward Russia, warning of what they claim is an imminent threat.
Meanwhile, Politico has reported that EU leaders are considering politically sidelining De Wever if he continues to block the plan. Belgium could be treated like Hungary – frozen out of key talks, ignored in negotiations and given little influence over future EU decisions – unless it backs down, the outlet claimed, citing a source.
“The Belgian leader would be frozen out and ignored, just like Hungary’s Viktor Orban has been given the cold shoulder over… his refusal to play ball on sanctioning Russia,” one diplomat told the outlet, adding that Belgium’s views on EU proposals would no longer be sought and phone calls would go unanswered.
Scott Ritter: With Seversk Lost, Ukraine’s Position in Donbass is Beyond Hopeless – It’s Desperate
Sputnik – December 11, 2025
Russian forces have liberated the city of Seversk in northeastern Donetsk, one of the final Ukrainian-occupied fortress strongholds in the region. Sputnik asked Scott Ritter to comment on the development’s big picture significance.
“Ukraine is facing a manpower shortage. Every one of these battles that are being fought consumes a tremendous amount of precious manpower resources. Ukraine is losing many thousands of soldiers every day, whether through desertion, whether being wounded, whether being killed in this conflict, and they can’t be replaced,” the former US Marine Corps intelligence officer told Sputnik.
When Russia takes a major stronghold like Seversk or Pokrovsk, “it also means that there’s huge gaps in the Ukrainian line,” Ritter explained. That means every time Ukrainian forces fall back, they don’t have the forces to hold the new positions, and defenses aren’t nearly as well prepared and fortified.
When Russian forces reach the Kramotorsk agglomeration, the last area between them and a fully freed Donbass, major battles are unlikely, the observer predicts.
“Russia will rapidly pin down the Ukrainians in locations that they choose to defend strongly and then surround them, compelling them to either die, surrender, or retreat,” Ritter said.
As for Seversk, its primary significance is its status as “a major” and irreplaceable “logistical [and] command and control hub.”
There aren’t many “fortress cities” like it left in Ukraine. Its fall indicates that a “culminating point in this war” has been reached “where Ukraine is no longer able to maintain cohesive defense along the entire front,” Ritter summed up.
Biden, Neocons Didn’t Stop Easily Preventable Ukraine Crisis Because They See War as a ‘Table Game’
Sputnik – 11.12.2025
Former Biden European security policy architect Amanda Sloat’s bombshell admission that the conflict in Ukraine could have been prevented if the US pushed Kiev to drop its aspirations to join NATO reveals a deep rot in Washington, Karen Kwiatkowski has told Sputnik.
“The diplomatic corps increasingly has not experienced war, so many see it completely as a table game,” the retired US Air Force Lt. Col. and former DoD analyst-turned Iraq War whistleblower explained.
Beyond that, “the type and quality of the people advising the decisionmakers is amateurish,” the prolific commentator said. “Biden himself never met a war he didn’t want someone else to die in, as his Senate record bears out.”
Throughout his tenure, “a powerful neoconservative network was in place in the State Department and the National Security Council. Biden himself had several Ukrainian business associates who were enriching his family and friends. So believing in Ukraine as both a US partner and having a powerful military was a case of groupthink, probably fueled by personal friendship and neoconservative contempt for Russia,” Kwiatkowski believes.
As for attempts to pivot on the issue under Trump, these can be attributed to the removal of “many” neoconservative voices from his orbit, and listening to a younger generation of Republicans like JD Vance and Tulsi Gabbard, who understand and reject neoconservatism.
In addition, while Trump is also a “game player,” he’s one “who does not like to lose,” which through his life in business taught him to “seek out better information” and “determine what risks to take and which losing enterprises to disband and sell off.”
In a conversation with Russian pranksters Vovan and Lexus, Sloat, the ex-special assistant to the president and senior director for Europe at the US National Security Council, let slip that simply getting a “no NATO” commitment from Ukraine would have prevented the Ukraine crisis, and that Washington rejected the idea at multiple stages.
“I was uncomfortable with the idea of the US pushing Ukraine not to do that and sort of implicitly giving Russia some sort of sphere of influence or veto power,” Sloat said. “There is certainly a question…you know, would that have been better to do before the war started? Would that have been better to do in Istanbul talks? It certainly would have prevented the destruction and the loss of life,” she casually admitted, showing no remorse.
Israeli ‘Predator’ Smartphone Spyware Exposed
By Kit Klarenberg | Global Delinquents | December 11, 2025
New research published by Amnesty International exposes the disturbing internal workings of Intellexa, and its constellation of digital espionage products. This includes ‘Predator’, a highly invasive resource linked to grave human rights abuses in multiple countries. Intellexa’s menacing technology allows government customers to access target smartphones’ cameras, microphones, encrypted chat apps, emails, GPS locations, photos, files, browsing activity, and more. It’s just the latest example of an Israeli-linked spyware specialist acting with no consideration for the law – although one wouldn’t know that from Amnesty’s probe.
Intellexa is among the world’s most notorious “mercenary spyware” purveyors. In 2023, the company was fined by Greece’s Data Protection Authority for failing to comply with its investigations into the company. An ongoing court case in Athens implicates Intellexa apparatchiks and local intelligence services in hacking the phones of government ministers, senior military officers, judges and journalists. Oddly unmentioned by Amnesty International, Intellexa was founded by Tal Dilian, a senior former Israeli military intelligence operative, and is staffed by Zionist entity spying veterans.
Leaked Intellexa marketing slide
In March 2024, following years of damaging disclosures about Intellexa’s criminal activities, the US Treasury imposed sweeping sanctions on Dilian, his closest company confederates, and five separate commercial entities associated with Intellexa. Yet, these harsh measures were no deterrent to Intellexa’s operations. The company’s service offering has only evolved over time, becoming ever-more difficult to detect, and increasingly effective at infecting target devices. Typically, civil society and human rights activists, and journalists, are in the firing line.
On December 3rd, Google announced Intellexa’s targets numbered at least “several hundred”, with individuals based in Angola, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and elsewhere potentially affected. Predator frequently relies on “one-click” attacks to infect a device. Users open a malicious link, which installs spyware that breaks open their chats on Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp and other chat platforms, audio recordings, emails, device locations, screenshots and camera photos, stored passwords, contacts and call logs, and the device’s microphone.
The vast data trove then passes through a chain of anonymising servers to hide its end destination, before being received by a customer. Predator also boasts a number of unique features designed to obscure its installation on a device from targets. For example, the spy tool assesses a device’s battery level, and whether it’s connected to the internet via sim card data or WiFi. This allows for a bespoke extraction process, ensuring devices aren’t obviously drained of network or power, to avoid stoking user suspicion.
Aladdin’s Cave
If Predator senses it has been detected, the spyware will even “self-destruct” to leave no trace of its presence on an impacted device. The methods by which Intellexa installs its malign tech on target devices is just as ingenious, and insidious. On top of “one-click” attacks, Intellexa is a pioneer in the field of “zero-click” infiltration. Its resource ‘Aladdin’ exploits internet advertising ecosystems, so users need only view an ad – without interacting with it – for spyware to infect a device.
Such ads can appear on trusted websites or apps, resembling any other advert a user would normally see. This approach requires Intellexa to pin down a “unique identifier” – such as a user’s email address, geographical location, or IP – to accurately serve them a malicious advert. Intellexa’s government customers can often readily access this information, simplifying accurate targeting. Research published by Recorded Future indicates Intellexa has covertly established dedicated mobile ad companies to create “bait advertisements”, including job listings, to lure in targets.
Leaked Aladdin explainer
Aladdin has been under development since 2022 at least, and only grown more sophisticated over time. Troublingly, Intellexa is not the only company active in this innovative spying field. Amnesty International suggests “advertisement-based infection methodologies are being actively developed and used by multiple mercenary spyware companies, and by specific governments who have built similar ADINT [advertising intelligence] infection systems.” That the digital advertising ecosystem has been subverted to hack the phones of unsuspecting citizens demands urgent industry action, which is as yet unforthcoming.
Just as disquietingly, a leaked Intellexa training video depicts how the Intellexa can “remotely access and monitor active customer Predator systems.” In effect, the firm is able to keep an eye on who its clients are spying on, and the precise private data they are extracting, in real-time. Recorded in mid-2023, the video begins with an instructor connecting directly to a deployed Predator system via TeamViewer, a commercial remote access software. Its contents suggest Intellexa can peruse at least 10 different customer systems simultaneously.
This capability is amply highlighted in the leaked video, when a staff member asks their trainer if they’re connecting to a testing environment. In response, they state a live “customer environment” is being accessed instead. The instructor then initiates a remote connection, showing Intellexa staffers can access highly sensitive information collected by customers, including photos, messages, IP addresses, smartphone operating systems and software versions, and other surveillance data gathered from Predator victims.
The video also appears to show “live” Predator infection attempts against real-life targets of Intellexa’s clients. Detailed information is shown from at least one infection attempt against an individual based in Kazakhstan, including the malicious link they unwittingly clicked that enabled their device’s infiltration. Elsewhere, domain names imitating legitimate Kazakhstani news websites, designed to trick users, are displayed. The country’s government is a confirmed Intellexa client, and local youth activists have previously been targeted by the notorious, similarly Israeli-incubated Pegasus spyware.
Screenshot of Predator dashboard listing ongoing infections
‘Business Opportunity’
The leaked video raises a number of grave concerns about Intellexa’s operations. For one, the shadowy, high-tech digital spying entity employed TeamViewer, a commercial software about which major security concerns have long-abounded, to access highly sensitive, invasive information on customer targets. This raises obvious questions about who else might be able to pry on this trove. Moreover, there is no indication Intellexa’s clients approved this access for training process, or the tutorial was conducted with even basic safeguards in place.
As such, the targets of Intellexa’s suite of spying resources not only face having their most sensitive secrets exposed to a hostile government without their knowledge or consent, but a foreign surveillance company in the process. The extent to which Intellexa is cognisant of how its technology is used by its clients is a core point of contention in the ongoing Greek legal case. Historically, mercenary spyware companies have firmly insisted they aren’t privy to data nefariously seized by their customers. Amnesty International states:
“The finding that Intellexa had potential visibility into active surveillance operations of their customers, including seeing technical information about the targets, raises new legal questions about Intellexa’s role in relation to the spyware and the company’s potential legal or criminal responsibility for unlawful surveillance operations carried out using their products.”
The latest disclosures about Intellexa have all the makings of a historic, international scandal, in the precise manner the use of Pegasus by state and corporate entities the world over has elicited international outcry, criminal investigations, and litigation lasting many years. However, the proliferation of ominous private spying tools, and their industrial scale abuse by paying customers, is no aberrant bug, but an intended upshot of the Zionist entity’s relentless crusade for cyberwarfare supremacy. In 2018, Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu boasted:
“Cybersecurity grows through cooperation, and cybersecurity as a business is tremendous… We spent an enormous amount on our military intelligence and Mossad and Shin Bet. An enormous amount. An enormous part of that is being diverted to cybersecurity… We think there is a tremendous business opportunity in the neverending quest of security.”
This investment manifests in almost every area of Israeli society. Numerous universities in Tel Aviv, with state support, hone new technologies and train future generations of cyber spies and digital warriors, who then join the Zionist Occupation Force’s ranks. Once their military service is complete, alumni frequently found companies at home and abroad offering the same monstrous services road-tested against Palestinians to private sector bodies and governments, without any oversight or guarantee these resources won’t be used for malevolent purposes.
Intellexa founder and Israeli military intelligence veteran Tal Dilian
The intelligence failures that enabled the success of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood in October 2023 did enormous damage to Israel’s credibility as a cybersecurity leader, while devastating its “Startup Nation” brand, with foreign investment in the entity’s tech industry collapsing precipitously. However, the fresh Intellexa revelations show certain elements of the sector remain in high demand, and pose an unseen threat to untold numbers of people globally. Should the firm fall into disrepute as a result, another surely waits in the wings to take its place.
Hillary Clinton Says Pro-Palestine Protestors Don’t Know History, While She Distorts The Actual History.
The Dissident | December 3, 2025
Former Secretary of State and failed 2016 presidential candidate for the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton, recently emerged from the shadows to give a condescending lecture to pro-Palestine protestors at the “Israel Hayom” conference.
At the Zionist conference, Clinton said, “Students, smart, well-educated young people from our own country, where were they getting their information? they were getting their information from social media, particularly TikTok,” adding, “That is where they were learning about what happened on October 7, what happened in the days, weeks, and months to follow. That’s a serious problem. It’s a serious problem for democracy, whether it’s Israel or the United States, and it’s a serious problem for our young people”.
She claimed that pro-Palestine protestors “did not know history, had very little context, and what they were being told on social media was not just one-sided, it was pure propaganda”.
She added, “It’s not just the usual suspects. It’s a lot of young Jewish Americans who don’t know the history and don’t understand.”
Previously, when Hillary Clinton made similar statements, she elaborated on the “history” she claims pro-Palestine protestors don’t understand, namely the claim that her husband, Bill Clinton, when president, gave Palestinians a chance to “have a state of their own” and Palestinians rejected it- a blatant distortion of the actual history.
The Actual History.
In reality, Bill Clinton began negotiating his Oslo agreement between Israel and Palestine in 1993, but as Palestinian analyst Muhammad Shehada noted:
In 1993, Israel was compelled to accept the Oslo Accords by its failure to violently crush the First Intifada and its inability to cope with international isolation, pressure, and the economic, diplomatic, and political damage resulting from its “breaking the bones”strategy against unarmed civilian protesters and children.
The world hailed Oslo as a new era of peace, but Israel put enough loopholes in the agreement to avoid allowing an end to the occupation. Prime Minister (Yitzhak) Rabin, who won a Nobel Peace Prize for Oslo, made it abundantly clear that it was merely about separation, not Palestinian statehood.
“We do not accept the Palestinian goal of an independent Palestinian state between Israel and Jordan. We believe there is a separate Palestinian entity short of a state,” he said.
Apartheid means ‘separateness’, and this is what transpired on the ground. Israeli settlements grew exponentially, and more settlers moved into the occupied territory during the “peace process” than before Oslo. Palestinians, meanwhile, were forced to police Israel’s occupation and thwart armed resistance, making apartheid cost-free for Tel Aviv.
Furthermore, Benjamin Netanyahu, who was Israeli Prime Minister from 1996-1999, is on video boasting that while Prime Minister, he sabotaged the Oslo agreements and manipulated Bill Clinton into doing so.
In the leaked video, Benjamin Netanyahu boasts that “They (Clinton administration) asked me before the election if I’d honor [the Oslo accords] I said I would, but … I’m going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the ‘67 borders. How did we do it? Nobody said what defined military zones were. Defined military zones are security zones; as far as I’m concerned, the entire Jordan Valley is a defined military zone. Go argue” adding, “from that moment on, I de facto put an end to the Oslo accords”.
Netanyahu went on to say, “I know what America is, America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won’t get in the way”.
Israeli journalist Gideon Levy noted at the time the video came out, “No more claims that the Palestinians are to blame for the failure of the Oslo Accords. Netanyahu exposed the naked truth to his hosts at Ofra: he destroyed the Oslo accords with his own hands and deeds, and he’s even proud of it. After years in which we were told that the Palestinians are to blame, the truth has emerged from the horse’s mouth.”
The following year, in 2000, when Netanyahu was out of office, Palestinian Authority president Yasser Arafat and the newly elected Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak met with Bill Clinton at Camp David in an attempt to resurrect the peace process that Benjamin Netanyahu had sabotaged. Hillary Clinton claims that Israel conceded every Palestinian demand for a Palestinian state, but Arafat rejected it.
This, too, is a complete distortion of history. As Muhammad Shehada noted:
In 2000, Israel made clear at Camp David that the maximum it would offer Palestinians was not a sovereign independent state, but rather three discontiguous Bantustans separated by Israeli settlements and military checkpoints without any right of return for Palestinian refugees.
Israel would retain control over Palestine’s airspace, radio, cellphone coverage, and borders with Jordan, and maintain its military bases in 13.3% of the West Bank while annexing 9% and even keeping three settlement blocks in Gaza that cut the enclave into separate pieces.
Robert Malley, Bill Clinton’s special assistant for Arab-Israeli affairs, who led the negotiations at Camp David, calls the claim that Yasser Arafat rejected a good deal a “myth,” adding that “the deal nevertheless didn’t meet the minimum requirements of any Palestinian leader”.
Robert Malley in the New York Times wrote that it is a myth that “Israel’s offer met most if not all of the Palestinians’ legitimate aspirations,” adding that under the offer at Camp David, “Israel was to annex 9 percent of the West Bank”, “While it (Palestine) would enjoy custody over the Haram al Sharif, the location of the third-holiest Muslim shrine, Israel would exercise overall sovereignty over this area” and “As for the future of refugees — for many Palestinians, the heart of the matter — the ideas put forward at Camp David spoke vaguely of a ‘satisfactory solution,’ leading Mr. Arafat to fear that he would be asked to swallow an unacceptable last-minute proposal.”
As Journalist Seth Ackerman reported under the Camp David agreement,
-(Israel) would annex strategically important and highly valuable sections of the West Bank—while retaining “security control” over other parts—that would have made it impossible for the Palestinians to travel or trade freely within their own state without the permission of the Israeli government
-The annexations and security arrangements would divide the West Bank into three disconnected cantons. In exchange for taking fertile West Bank lands that happen to contain most of the region’s scarce water aquifers, Israel offered to give up a piece of its own territory in the Negev Desert—about one-tenth the size of the land it would annex—including a former toxic waste dump.
-Because of the geographic placement of Israel’s proposed West Bank annexations, Palestinians living in their new ‘independent state’ would be forced to cross Israeli territory every time they traveled or shipped goods from one section of the West Bank to another, and Israel could close those routes at will. Israel would also retain a network of so-called “bypass roads” that would crisscross the Palestinian state while remaining sovereign Israeli territory, further dividing the West Bank.
-Israel was also to have kept ‘security control’ for an indefinite period of time over the Jordan Valley, the strip of territory that forms the border between the West Bank and neighboring Jordan. Palestine would not have free access to its own international borders with Jordan and Egypt—putting Palestinian trade, and therefore its economy, at the mercy of the Israeli military.
-Had Arafat agreed to these arrangements, the Palestinians would have permanently locked in place many of the worst aspects of the very occupation they were trying to bring to an end. For at Camp David, Israel also demanded that Arafat sign an ‘end-of-conflict’ agreement stating that the decades-old war between Israel and the Palestinians was over, and waiving all further claims against Israel.
Former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben Ami, who was a key part of the Camp David negotiations, admitted “Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian, I would have rejected Camp David, as well”.
Following the meeting at Camp David, as journalist Jon Schwarz noted, “Clinton had promised Arafat that he would not blame him if the talks failed. He then reneged after the summit ended. Nonetheless, the Israelis and Palestinians continued to negotiate through the fall and narrowed their differences.”
As Schwarz noted, “Clinton came up with what he called parameters for a two-state solution in December 2000,” and “the Israelis and the Palestinians kept talking in late January 2001 in Taba, Egypt,” but “it was not the Palestinians but (Ehud) Barak who terminated the discussions on January 27, a few weeks before Israeli elections.”
Following the election, as Schwarz notes, “Barak was defeated by Ariel Sharon, who did not want a Palestinian state and did not restart the talks. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs declared that the Clinton parameters ‘are not binding on the new government to be formed in Israel.’”
Pro- Palestinian Protestors Do Understand History, Including The History of Hillary Clinton’s War Crimes.
In reality, Hillary Clinton- being the narcissist that she is-has an issue with pro-Palestinian protestors, not because they don’t understand history, but because they understand the history of her war crimes she had committed.
At Columbia University, where Clinton teaches a class on international relations, she has been called out directly by pro-Palestine protestors for her war crimes in the Middle East.
When Hillary Clinton hosted an event at the University with Sheryl Sandberg, laundering the claims from Sandberg’s atrocity propaganda film “Screams Before Silence”, which used misinformation to launder the false claim that Hamas committed mass rape on Ocotber 7th, one student protestor correctly pointed out she was pushing atrocity propaganda, and that she had used the same propaganda to justify the 2011 regime change war in Libya, saying, “You’ve done this before…You exploited sexual violence in Libya so you could justify US militarization. If you were enraged about sexual violence, you’d be talking about the sexual violence in Palestine and the sexual violence that they endure daily”.
Indeed, in 2011, Hillary Clinton pushed debunked claims that Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi ordered mass rape against civilians, which was used to justify the U.S.-led NATO regime change bombing in the country, which turned it into a failed state rife with ISIS bases and open slave markets.
While the once-prosperous country was turned into a failed state, Netanyahu cheered the regime change bombing, hoping it would lead to similar regime change in Iran.
Similarly, Sheryl Sandberg’s film that Hillary Clinton laundered has been completely discredited.
The film used supposed confessions from Palestinians as evidence that mass rape happened, but the UN later documented that the “confession” videos were extracted using torture and put out for propaganda purposes, noting, “The Commission reviewed several videos where detainees were interrogated by members of the ISF, while placed in an extremely vulnerable position, completely subjugated, when confessing to witnessing or committing rape and other serious crimes. The names and faces of the detainees were also exposed. The Commission considers the distribution of such videos, purely for propaganda purposes, to be a violation of due process and fair trial guarantees. In view of the apparent coercive circumstances of the confessions appearing in the videos, the Commission does not accept such confessions as proof of the crimes confessed.”
Furthermore, the film’s central “witness”, Rami Davidian, has been discredited even by Israeli media.
Israeli investigative journalist Raviv Drucker uncovered that Rami Davidian- who is featured heavily in the propaganda film claiming to have witnessed “mass rape”- was telling, “stories made up from beginning to end. Hair-raising stories that never, ever occurred”.
In other words, student protestors were correct that Hillary Clinton previously used false stories of mass rape to justify war in Libya and was continuing to use false stories of mass rape to justify genocide- and real mass rape by IDF soldiers- in Gaza.
As the United Nations documented, the fabricated stories of Palestinians committing mass rape on Ocotber 7th were used to justify the continuation of the genocide in Gaza, and “the sharp increase in sexual violence against Palestinian women and men … seemingly fueled by similar desire to retaliate.”
Furthermore, at another Colombia University event, a pro-Palestine protestor called out Hillary Clinton’s support for America’s criminal wars in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen and for continuing to cheer on war crimes and genocide in Gaza, saying, “Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, you are a war criminal, the people of Libya, the people of Iraq, the people of Syria, the people of Yemen, the people of Palestine as well as the people of America will never forgive you”.
In reality, Hillary Clinton knows that pro-Palestine protestors are well aware of her past war crimes in the Middle East, well aware of her and her husband’s distortion and lies about the Oslo Accords and Camp David, and well aware of the fact that she is manufacturing consent for genocide- and so in turn smears them.
I was canceled by three newspapers for criticizing Israel
By Dave Seminara | Responsible Statecraft | December 9, 2025
As a freelance writer, I know I have to produce copy that meets the expectations of editors and management. When I write opinion pieces, I know well that my arguments should closely align with the publication’s general outlook. But I’ve always believed that if my views on any particular topic diverged from an outlet I’m writing for, it was acceptable to express those viewpoints in other publications.
But I’ve recently discovered that this general rule does not apply to criticism of Israel.
In fact, it appears that publications I’ve had an ongoing relationship with up until recently have canceled me for articles I wrote in other media outlets that were critical of the Israeli government and the Israel lobby in the United States.
In recent years, I penned more than 100 columns for prominent right-leaning publications, including The Wall Street Journal, the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal, and The Daily Telegraph. I’ve covered woke corporations, illegal immigration, inflation, foreign policy, the State Department, censorship, Florida politics and a host of other issues. I never once pitched a column concerning Israel to the aforementioned publications because I know the editors and leadership at those outlets are staunch backers of unlimited U.S. aid to Israel, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and his merciless assault on Gaza, not to mention President Trump’s efforts to deport foreign critics of Israel, his administration, and other related issues.
I have never seen an opinion column in The Journal, City Journal or The Telegraph expressing compassion for Palestinian victims of Israel’s military assaults. In fact, quite the opposite. For example, Ilya Shapiro, a contributing editor and the Director of Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan Institute, said in a since deleted tweet, “Ethnic cleansing would be too kind for Gaza.” That comment isn’t an outlier. The prevailing wisdom at these publications is to excuse and defend the behavior of the Israeli government, regardless of the situation.
And so, when I wanted to express my disgust at the outrageous number of civilian casualties in Gaza — the Israeli military has killed at least 70,000 Palestinians according to the U.N., including more than 18,000 children — and lament the Trump administration’s efforts to deport people for criticizing Israel, I never considered pitching editors at those three publications.
Between November 2023 and May 2024, I published several columns, including for The Spectator and on my personal Substack, Unpopular Opinions, criticizing Israel and U.S. policy toward Israel. I think my critiques were mild — for example, I never categorized Israel’s actions as a genocide. Given Israel’s flagrant human rights violations, my commentaries were well within the boundaries of how most Americans feel about the carnage in Gaza. For example, in a column I wrote in November, 2023, I noted that:
“I was horrified by the October 7 Hamas attacks. And I was disgusted to see some self-proclaimed pro-Palestine advocates celebrating or justifying the barbaric attack act. This was a horrific act of terrorism, and there’s no excuse for it.”
But I added that I was disappointed with “how many conservative politicians and conservative media refuse to articulate any concern for thousands of innocent Palestinians killed or the more than one million rendered homeless.”
In subsequent columns, I criticized the Republican Party for its fixation on Israel and argued how hypocritical many on the right are in conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism in order to silence critics of the Jewish state.
None of my editors at The Wall Street Journal, The Daily Telegraph or City Journal ever said a word to me about what I wrote in these columns. But my relationships with these three outlets deteriorated rapidly and dramatically after I started covering the topic. Prior to being cut off by the Wall Street Journal, I published 34 opinion columns for them since 2017. My relationship with the opinion editor, James Taranto, was good enough that when he visited Tampa, where I live, in 2022, he and his wife took me out to dinner.
I knew where Taranto stood on Israel, having once called Rachel Corrie, an American citizen who was killed by an Israeli bulldozer while protesting Israel’s settlement policy, a “dopey… advocate for terror.” Prior to writing critically of Israel, my success rate in pitching columns to Taranto was roughly 30-40% positive. Since then, he has rejected 12 consecutive pitches, all on topics unrelated to the Middle East. Previously, he would send a generic one-liner when he rejected an idea. “I won’t be able to use this, but thanks for letting me see it.” Lately, my pitches don’t even merit a formal rejection. I went from being a regular contributor and on friendly enough terms to socialize after-hours, to being ghosted.
My apparent dismissal at City Journal, where I contributed 62 columns from 2020-2024, took longer and my editor there, Paul Beston, was kinder, but the result was the same. Rather than ignoring me, Beston would apologetically respond to my pitches weeks or even months later once the idea was too late to publish. He also stopped asking me to write columns for the website. Around the same time, the Manhattan Institute, which produces City Journal, fired prominent conservative economist Glenn Loury for being too critical of Israel, so perhaps there was a purge of Israel critics afoot. At least one other Manhattan Institute fellow who was critical of Israel, Christopher Brunet, was also fired last year.
My seeming dismissal at the rabidly pro-Israel Daily Telegraph, where I contributed 30 columns from 2023-2024, was similar to the City Journal experience. My editor there, Lewis Page, was cordial enough, but he, too, started to ignore my emails and stopped asking me to write for his publication. In one case, he asked me to write a column but then never published it.
Is it a coincidence that these three prominent, pro-Israel publications all stopped publishing me last year as I started to criticize Israel in other outlets? It’s conceivable, but quite unlikely given the zero tolerance for dissent on Israel that now permeates much of conservative media.
RS asked Taranto whether the Journal had stopped publishing me because of my views on Israel. Wall Street Journal editorial page editor Paul Gigot — whom I did not work with — responded that Taranto had passed on our inquiry and said, “I don’t recall ever reading a piece by Mr. Seminara on Israel or Gaza, so I have no idea what his views on those subjects are.”
Lewis Page at the Telegraph said my version of this story is “false” and that neither he nor anyone else at his publication knew that I had been critical of Israel. He added that the paper has not “consciously stopped using” my copy.
A spokesperson I do not know and never worked with at City Journal said that they are unaware of my position on Israel. Of course, I don’t expect any of these publications to say, “We stopped commissioning you because we don’t agree with your position on Israel.”
The bottom line is that my views on Israel and U.S. policy toward Israel are in line with those of the majority of Americans and even of a majority of American Jews. According to a Washington Post poll conducted in October, 69% of American Jews think Israel has committed war crimes in Gaza and 39% believe it is guilty of genocide. A Pew Research poll released around the same time revealed that 59% of Americans have a negative opinion of the Israeli government. And in a September New York Times/Sienna poll, 35% of Americans said they sympathize with Israel, while 36% said they side with Palestinians.
I am not sorry for criticizing Israel even though it has cost me professionally. In fact, I was probably too cautious and diplomatic in my critiques. But I think it’s a very sad statement on conservative media when news outlets that many Republicans trust have so little tolerance for dissent on a critical issue that undermines American national interests and damages our credibility around the world.
During the crazy, cultural revolution days of 2020, when statues were being toppled and progressives were claiming scalps on a weekly basis, I thought it was just the left that embraced cancel culture and silenced enemies through intimidation. Now I know better.
Dave Seminara is a writer and former diplomat based in St. Petersburg, Florida. He’s the author of four non-fiction books, including, most recently, “Mad Travelers: A Tale of Wanderlust, Greed & the Quest to Reach the Ends of the Earth.” He vlogs about his travels on his YouTube channel, @MadTraveler.
Featured Video
No More Ukraine Proxy War? You’re a Traitor!
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The lies about the 1967 war are still more powerful than the truth
By Alan Hart | June 4, 2012
In retrospect it can be seen that the 1967 war, the Six Days War, was the turning point in the relationship between the Zionist state of Israel and the Jews of the world (the majority of Jews who prefer to live not in Israel but as citizens of many other nations). Until the 1967 war, and with the exception of a minority of who were politically active, most non-Israeli Jews did not have – how can I put it? – a great empathy with Zionism’s child. Israel was there and, in the sub-consciousness, a refuge of last resort; but the Jewish nationalism it represented had not generated the overtly enthusiastic support of the Jews of the world. The Jews of Israel were in their chosen place and the Jews of the world were in their chosen places. There was not, so to speak, a great feeling of togetherness. At a point David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s founding father and first prime minister, was so disillusioned by the indifference of world Jewry that he went public with his criticism – not enough Jews were coming to live in Israel.
So how and why did the 1967 war transform the relationship between the Jews of the world and Israel? … continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
Bill Francis on Chris Minns Defends NSW “Hate… Sheree Sheree on I was canceled by three newspa… Richard Ong on Czech–Slovak alignment signals… John Edward Kendrick on Colonel Jacques Baud & Nat… eddieb on Villains of Judea: Ronald Laud… rezjiekc on Substack Imposes Digital ID Ch… loongtip on US strikes three vessels in Ea… eddieb on An Avoidable Disaster Steve Jones on For Israel, The Terrorist Atta… cleversensationally3… on Over Half of Germans Feel Unab… loongtip on Investigation Into U.S. Milita… loongtip on Zelensky’s Impossible De…
Aletho News- No More Ukraine Proxy War? You’re a Traitor!
- Sexual Blackmail Makes the World Go ‘Round
- Powerful Israeli Strikes on South Lebanon and Bekaa
- UAE-backed militia in Yemen reaches out to Israel for alliance against ‘common foes’: Report
- The UAE’s reverse trajectory: From riches to rags
- Chris Minns Defends NSW “Hate Speech” Laws Linking Censorship to Terror Prevention
- Majority of Belgians oppose theft of Russian assets – poll
- Czech–Slovak alignment signals growing dissatisfaction with Brussels’ authoritarianism
- Colonel Jacques Baud & Nathalie Yamb Sanctioned: EU Goes Soviet
- Who gets to be a hostage? The language that legitimises Palestinian captivity
- If Americans Knew
- Amnesty: ‘Utterly preventable’ Gaza flood tragedy must mobilize global action to end Israel’s genocide
- Israel Propagandists Are Uniformly Spouting The Exact Same Line About The Bondi Beach Shooting
- Ha’aretz: Free the Palestinian Activist Who Dared to Document Israel’s Crimes in the West Bank
- Garbage Is Poisoning Gaza
- Palestinian journalist recounts rape and torture in Israeli prison
- Gaza is crumbling, but its people persevere – Not a Ceasefire Day 69
- Pro-Israel billionaire Miriam Adelson green-lights a Trump 3rd term
- Australians Being Massacred Shouldn’t Bother Us More Than Palestinians Being Massacred
- Garbage, stench, sewage, and rats plague Gaza – Not a Ceasefire Day 68
- The Zionist Billionaire Circle Hiding in Plain Sight
- No Tricks Zone
- The Wind Energy Paradox: “Why More Wind Turbines Don’t Always Mean More Power”
- New Study Reopens Questions About Our Ability To Meaningfully Assess Global Mean Temperature
- Dialing Back The Panic: German Physics Prof Sees No Evidence Of Climate Tipping Points!
- Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon Challenges The Climate Consensus … It’s The Sun, Not CO2
- Regional Cooling Since The 1980s Has Driven Glacier Advance In The Karakoram Mountains
- Greenland Petermann Glacier Has Grown 30 Kilometers Since 2012!
- New Study: Temperature-Driven CO2 Outgassing Explains 83 Percent Of CO2 Rise Since 1959
- Climate Extremists Ordered By Hamburg Court To Pay €400,000 In Damages
- More Evidence NE China Is Not Cooperating With The Alarmist Global Warming Narrative
- Ecological Impacts Of Offshore WindParks Are Worse Than Expewcted, New Study Finds
Aletho News 