Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Netanyahu Aligned Think Tanker: Somaliland Offered To ‘Absorb’ One Million Palestinians

New Evidence That Israel’s Recognition Of Somaliland Was To Further Ethnic Cleansing Of Gaza

The Dissident | December 29, 2025

On a December 28th twitter space called “Israel’s Historic Recognition of Somaliland”, Dan Diker, the president of the Benjamin Netanyahu aligned Israeli think tank, “Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs” gave further evidence that Israel’s recognition of “Somaliland”, a breakaway region of Somalia was done to use the region as a dumping ground for ethnically cleansed Palestinians in Gaza.

In the space, Diker was asked, “What did you think was the main reason for Israel to break with this usual line of the international community (and recognize Somaliland) and be the first to do so?”

In response, one of the reasons Diker gave was, “I do know that our friends in Somaliland made a very generous offer privately and in the last, I would say in the last months, it even reached the desk of the President of the United States, of their willingness to absorb or to create communities for hundreds of thousands even beyond a million up to a million and half Gazans”.

Dan Diker added, “Somaliland, in our understanding, is really the only country, now country, that stepped up to the plate to absorb Gazans… Somaliland’s offer can make a very important contribution to the stability of Gaza for those who choose to stay in Gaza and for those who choose to rebuild their lives in another country”.

Previously, the Israeli newspaper, The Jerusalem Postreported that “Somaliland Foreign Minister, Abdirahman Dahir Adan, “does not rule out absorbing Gazan residents,” but said that, “the most important thing for us is to receive recognition”.

The Israeli newspaper Ynet also reported that, “The territory (Somaliland) has recently been mentioned as a possible destination for Gazans, with officials there saying they would be willing to absorb ‘one million Gazans,’ though no formal agreement has been announced.”

Now Dan Diker confirmed that Somaliland agreed to “absorb” up to “a million and a half Gazans” and was, “the only country, now country, that stepped up to the plate to absorb Gazans,” which was one of the main reasons Israel was the first UN member sate to recognize the breakaway region as a country.

After Israel announced its recognition of Somaliland, the Israeli journalist Amit Segal boasted that, “Somaliland was supposed to — and may still — absorb Gazans”.

Trump, at his latest press conference with Netanyahu claimed that if given the chance “half of Gaza would leave,” signalling support for Israel’s ethnic cleansing plan.

Israel has framed its ethnic cleansing plan in Gaza as “voluntary migration”, but as Gila Gamliel, Israel’s current Science and Technology Minister admitted, Israel’s actual goal is to “make the Gaza Strip uninhabitable until the population leaves”.

While Israel continues to make Gaza “uninhabitable until the population leaves”, their recognition of Somaliland appears to be the first move in creating a territory to send ethnically cleansed Palestinians from Gaza.

December 30, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

The DOJ is flaunting the law on the Epstein Files. Why isn’t Pam Bondi in handcuffs?

By Alan Mosley |The Libertarian Institute | December 30, 2025

Congress’s newly minted Epstein Files Transparency Act—a bipartisan law co‑authored by Representatives Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna—was supposed to leave no room for discretion. It required Attorney General Pam Bondi, who serves President Donald Trump, to release all unclassified Justice Department records related to Jeffrey Epstein within thirty days. Trump signed the bill, but his Justice Department blew the deadline and produced only a small fraction of the documents, many of which were blacked out. The co‑authors have responded by drafting impeachment articles and exploring inherent contempt. Their outrage raises a broader question: why can the executive branch ignore the law with impunity, and why does this seem to happen over and over again?

The impetus for the transparency law lies in the horrific pattern of abuse that Epstein orchestrated for decades and the government’s failure to stop it. Even after survivor Maria Farmer told the FBI in September 1996 that Epstein was involved in child sex abuse, officials did nothing. The latest document release confirms that the bureau was tipped off a decade before his first arrest. Many of the new documents show that Epstein’s scheme went far beyond one man; the files include photographs of former presidents, rock stars, and royalty, and testimony from victims as young as fourteen. Campaigners say the heavy redactions and missing files—at least sixteen documents disappeared from the Justice Department website, including a photo of Donald Trump—betray the law’s intent. The omissions have fueled suspicions that the department is selectively protecting powerful clients rather than victims.

A law that leaves little wiggle room

In addition to the redactions, entire files vanished after the department’s release. Al Jazeera reported that at least sixteen documents disappeared from the Justice Department website soon after they were posted, including a photograph of Trump. Survivors expressed frustration: Maria Farmer said she feels redeemed by the disclosure yet weeps for victims the FBI failed to protect, and critics argue the department is still shielding influential individuals. The missing files underscore that Bondi’s partial compliance is not just tardy but potentially dishonest; the law obligates her to release names of government officials and corporate entities tied to Epstein, and removing those names is itself a violation.

The statute instructs the attorney general to release all unclassified Justice Department records about Epstein within thirty days. This covers everything from flight logs, travel records, names of individuals and corporate entities linked to his trafficking network, to internal communications about prosecutorial decisions and any destruction of evidence. It prohibits withholding information to avoid embarrassment, and allows redactions only to protect victims’ privacy, to exclude child sexual abuse imagery, or to safeguard truly classified national security information. Even then, the attorney general must declassify as much as possible and justify each redaction to Congress. These provisions make the statute stricter than a typical subpoena and leave little room for discretion.

Pam Bondi’s dodgy compliance

By December 19 the department had released tens of thousands of pages but withheld the bulk of the material. Observers noted that many records were heavily blacked out and that the department offered no written justifications for redactions. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche acknowledged that more documents would be released later, effectively moving the deadline. Massie and Khanna argued that this flouts the statute and have drafted impeachment articles and are weighing inherent contempt. Bondi’s department claims it can withhold materials under common‑law privileges, such as deliberative-process and attorney‑client privilege, even though the statute expressly demands release of “internal DOJ communications” and other decision‑making records. Critics argue that by invoking judge‑made privileges to avoid a law that overrides them, Bondi—who reports directly to Donald Trump—puts the president’s political interests ahead of statutory obligations.

Congress’ options, and why they seldom work

Congress has three enforcement tools: criminal contempt referrals, civil lawsuits, and inherent contempt arrests. The first two depend on the Justice Department, which is unlikely to prosecute its own leaders. Inherent contempt—a forgotten power to arrest defiant officials—has not been used since 1935, but Khanna says it is on the table. Past episodes illustrate why penalties are rare. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper lied to Congress about mass surveillance and faced no charges. CIA officials destroyed videotapes documenting torture, yet prosecutors declined to prosecute. FBI agents misused warrantless surveillance authorities, but no one has been held accountable. The pattern is clear: when officials break the rules, investigations are slow, referrals go nowhere, and political leaders quietly move on. As whistleblower attorney Jesselyn Radack noted, there is a double standard: government officials can lie to Congress with impunity while those who tell the truth are indicted. This inversion of accountability encourages lawlessness within the executive branch and chills those who might expose wrongdoing.

Legal experts note that Congress could also sue to compel disclosure or hold Bondi in criminal contempt, but because the Justice Department prosecutes contempt and is headed by the same officials refusing to comply, those routes are circular. The only truly independent remedy—directing the House sergeant at arms to arrest Bondi and hold her until she obeys—has not been used in nearly a century and would provoke a constitutional crisis. This institutional timidity emboldens agencies to treat congressional mandates as advisory and ensures that accountability remains elusive.

What accountability looks like

Khanna and Massie have urged Congress to impeach Bondi or her deputy, use inherent contempt to detain them, and refer the matter for prosecution. Those remedies would test whether Congress is willing to use dormant constitutional powers. Citizens who value liberty should demand action. The same government that lied about weapons of mass destruction, destroyed evidence of torture, and spied on millions now tells us that blacked‑out pages constitute transparency. Without accountability, the executive branch will continue to flout the law. Bondi may work for Trump, but the buck stops with the president who appointed her. If Congress and voters do nothing, future transparency laws will be meaningless, and the war state will remain healthy at our expense.

Accountability requires more than rhetoric. Congress must be willing to reclaim its constitutional prerogatives—by using inherent contempt, cutting funding, or refusing to confirm officials who flout the law. Voters should demand that elected representatives of both parties stop hiding behind national security and confront a Justice Department that acts as if it is above the law. The stakes extend beyond Epstein; they touch on foreign policy, civil liberties, and the very idea of self‑government. When a cabinet official appointed by the president can ignore a clear statutory mandate and the president remains silent, it signals that the executive branch believes itself sovereign. If we shrug, we will continue down the path where laws are for the governed, not the governors.

Citizens who value liberty and limited government should pay attention. When laws are ignored without consequence, the effect is to normalize lawlessness. The Massie–Khanna legislation was not meant to be a suggestion; it was a mandate that passed the House 427-1 and the Senate unanimously. If Congress does not enforce it, future transparency laws will be toothless, and the bureaucracy will continue to protect its own at the expense of truth. In the long run, a free society cannot survive if the government decides which laws apply to its friends and which apply to everyone else. Accountability is not partisan, it is a principle. Without it, injustice will remain healthy and unchallenged, and the rest of us will continue to pay the price.

December 30, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Deception | , , | Leave a comment

The Epstein Saga: Chapter 4, Good Old Robert

By Lorenzo Maria Pacini | Strategic Culture Foundation | December 30, 2025

Epstein’s connections with British and Israeli intelligence were facilitated by a key figure known as Robert Maxwell, father of Ghislaine, Jeffrey’s wife.

Robert Maxwell was one of the most controversial media moguls of the 20th century: a Holocaust survivor who enlisted in the British army, he became a publishing tycoon, a Labour MP, and a figure at the center of financial scandals and alleged links to various secret services, including MI6 and Mossad. His biography intertwines his very poor origins, his meteoric rise, his relationships with heads of state, and, after his death at sea in 1991, the discovery of enormous fraud involving his companies’ pension funds.

Born Ján Ludvík Hyman Binyamin Hoch in 1923 in Slatinské Doly (now Solotvyno, Ukraine), then Czechoslovakia, into an Orthodox Yiddish-speaking Jewish family, he emigrated to Great Britain during World War II and fought in the British army.

After the war, he entered scientific publishing and founded Pergamon Press, transforming it into a major publisher of technical and academic texts, the basis of his future media empire.

By the 1980s, he controlled a vast empire: Maxwell Communication Corp, Pergamon, Macmillan, the Daily Mirror tabloid, and other publications in the UK and abroad, in direct competition with Rupert Murdoch.

He died on November 5, 1991, after falling from his yacht Lady Ghislaine off the coast of the Canary Islands. After his death, it emerged that he had diverted hundreds of millions of pounds from the Mirror Group’s pension funds to cover financial shortfalls.

So… He sold textbooks to American schools. He rubbed shoulders with kings, queens, presidents, and popes. And, away from the spotlight, he may have contributed to the activities of one of the world’s most secretive intelligence agencies, engaged in surveilling half the planet. To some, he was a brilliant innovator; to others, an unscrupulous impostor.

For his daughter Ghislaine—whose later life would become intertwined with that of sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein—he was the man who opened the doors to high society and perhaps, unwittingly, to future ruin. Maxwell rose to the top to become a powerful media entrepreneur in the UK, building an empire comparable to that of Rupert Murdoch.

When he founded Pergamon Press, an academic publishing house specializing in history and science textbooks distributed in US schools, often criticized for a pro-Israel stance consistent with Maxwell’s strong Zionism, his competitors would not have expected such success.

In 1984, he bought the Daily Mirror, transforming it into a giant of popular journalism. At the height of his expansion, he controlled Maxwell Communication Corporation, Macmillan, Pergamon, and numerous international newspapers. Ghislaine, his favorite daughter, was educated at Oxford, prepared for the salons of the elite, and often at his side at social events in London and New York. Maxwell was photographed in the company of Queen Elizabeth, Prince Charles, Princess Diana, Margaret Thatcher, and even Mother Teresa. Other images show him alongside US Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump.

Several sources indicate that the British Foreign Office suspected Maxwell of being a double or triple agent, with links to MI6, the Soviet KGB, and the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad… My source, whom I consulted while writing this text, confirms his membership in the British services, with a key role in relations with companies and other agencies, particularly with regard to activities involving politicians (American but not only).

Maxwell moved with ease between the White House, the Kremlin, Downing Street, and the political leaders of France, Germany, and Israel, something that is not at all easy, nor “comfortable” to maintain.

In the 1960s, he served two terms as a Labour MP for Buckingham, while leading an extremely luxurious lifestyle. At his residence in Headington Hill, near Oxford, he organized lavish parties which, according to persistent rumors, were used as seductive traps to gather compromising information on influential figures.

The most serious allegations link him to the PROMIS software scandal, which we discussed in Chapter 3 of our Saga.

Originally a program of the U.S. Department of Justice, PROMIS was allegedly stolen, modified with an Israeli “back door,” and then distributed to numerous intelligence agencies, armed forces, and companies around the world, allowing Israel to monitor virtually every country that used it. According to various whistleblowers, including former Israeli agent Ari Ben-Menashe, Robert Maxwell allegedly served as the main global promoter of this digital Trojan horse. These allegations are partly corroborated by circumstantial evidence: strong support for Israel, business in sensitive sectors, close ties to Israeli leadership, and a state funeral in Israel in 1991, attended by Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, President Chaim Herzog, and senior intelligence officials, with public praise that Maxwell “did more for Israel than can be said.”

The last years of his life were marked by financial collapse. After his death, investigators discovered a £460 million hole in the Mirror Group’s pension fund. Maxwell had stolen his own employees’ pension savings to support an empire now submerged in debt. His sons Ian and Kevin Maxwell were arrested and charged with fraud (and later acquitted), while the British public exploded with anger at the betrayal of thousands of pensioners.

Overnight, Maxwell went from being a respected tycoon to a hated figure. Protesters renamed him “Robber Bob.”

On November 5, 1991, he disappeared from his 180-foot yacht off the Canary Islands. He was found dead a few hours later, face up in the ocean. The official version spoke of a heart attack followed by accidental drowning. His daughter, however, believed he had been murdered.

The autopsy revealed that Maxwell already suffered from serious heart and lung conditions.

He was given a state funeral in Israel, attended by then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir and numerous intelligence officials.

Epstein met Ghislaine Maxwell in the 1990s, and their relationship began as a brief romantic affair before turning into a very intense professional and personal alliance. Ghislaine became Epstein’s chief assistant, managing his properties, organizing his staff, and playing a central role in recruiting victims for sexual abuse.

The ties with his father, Robert, were important from the outset, although perhaps even more so after his death: Epstein was introduced to Mr. Maxwell’s circle thanks to the family’s contacts and networks. A reconstruction reported by the Telegraph in 2022 claims that Epstein may have helped Robert Maxwell hide some of the money stolen from the Mirror Group’s pension funds using offshore channels.

Robert was instrumental in introducing Epstein to the world of Israeli intelligence, where he was also able to make his own way.

The source consulted, who comes from the world of intelligence, revealed to me that Ghislaine is also central to this story: following in her father’s footsteps, she made her way into British and Israeli intelligence, weaving relationships, cover stories, and favors for her beloved Jeffrey.

After all, what could be better than marrying the daughter of a “spy” with the guarantee of inheriting his “legacy”? Without Ghislaine, Epstein would not have had access to many of the VIPs with whom he established regular relationships, and above all, he would not have had the cover necessary to operate undisturbed for many years.

December 30, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , | Leave a comment

Drone Attack on Putin’s Residence Could Have Triggered a Nuclear War: Here’s Why

Sputnik – 30.12.2025

The 91-drone attack on the presidential residence in Novgorod region was an extremely dangerous provocation. And one that “could not have been carried out without the participation of European hawks” because “Zelensky would not have dared to plan or carry out such an operation on his own,” military expert Alexey Leonkov told Sputnik.

Intricate planning was required, and the timing – while Zelensky was in the US for talks with Trump, was designed to give him an alibi, “which he is now using, claiming Ukraine had nothing to do with it,” Leonkov said.

The provocation “wasn’t simply an attack on the president,” the observer emphasized. “It was a strike on a nuclear weapons control center, as each such residence contains communications nodes through which the head of state can issue the command to use the country’s nuclear forces.”

“It was intended to provoke a conflict between the US and Russia,” Leonkov said. “This was precisely the calculation: at worst, provoking a global conflict; at a minimum, disrupting the negotiation process between the US and Russia. And it’s clear that European hawks favor only this scenario,” particularly Britain.

While he issues denials now, Zelensky essentially blabbed about the attack ahead of time twice in the past two weeks: a press conference on December 18, when he said “politicians change, somebody lives, somebody dies,” and on Christmas eve, when he openly called on Ukrainians to wish for Putin’s death.

“All this suggests Zelensky was aware of the impending attack, but was playing his assigned role – pretending he had nothing to do with it and ‘advocating for peace’,” Leonkov emphasized.

Analyzing Moscow’s public reaction carefully, Leonkov said two things are certain: first, Russia will respond appropriately, and the targets and time of the response have already been determined; second, the response will be carried out in such a way as not to affect the negotiation process between Russia and the US.

December 30, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine’s Escalation May Be Aimed at Prolonging Conflict as Talks Advance — Ex-Pentagon Analyst

Sputnik – 30.12.2025

Someone in Ukraine’s command structure is escalating “at any phase where a step towards peace is being made,” with responsibility unclear — from Zelensky and commanders to Western intelligence, Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, retired US Air Force and former analyst for the US Department of Defense, told Sputnik.

Kwiatkowski argued the attacks complicate negotiations and that Ukraine is fighting “from a position of great weakness.”

On Russia’s likely reaction, she said Moscow “does not need to tolerate Ukrainian assassination attempts and drone barrages,” arguing that those who want the conflict to continue may be seeking “a Russian over-reaction… as a way of continuing the war.” She also said Russia has “so far preserved the moral high ground by focusing on military targets” and the stated objectives of the special military operation.

“In a very basic sense, none or very few US or other weapons should be transferred to Ukraine, based on our own laws governing foreign military sales to unelected dictators without a mutual defense treaty, and the recent track record of Ukrainian corruption and lack of accountability,” Kwiatkowski emphasized, arguing that sending more weapons with a “collapsing and poorly trained Army” amounts to wasting them.

The analyst also said US intelligence and targeting support has been “a major aspect” of assistance, and argued that removing it would end the conflict sooner.

“This sharing of US intelligence, targeting coordination, and even selection of targets has been a major aspect of US aid to Ukraine, and while Trump stopped some and slowed other aid to Ukraine, it appears he never stopped this crucial aspect. This assistance is, in my opinion, the sole reason this war has continued over the past few years, when it could have been ended long ago,” Kwiatkowski stressed.

December 30, 2025 Posted by | War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Attack on Putin’s residence could be anti-Zelensky plot in Kiev – ex-CIA analyst

RT | December 30, 2025

The Ukrainian drone attack on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s residence earlier this week may have been staged by elements of the government in Kiev to undermine Vladimir Zelensky, former CIA analyst Larry Johnson has told RT.

Moscow said the attempt to strike the state residence in Novgorod Region occurred overnight from Sunday to Monday, coinciding with Zelensky’s US visit to negotiate with President Donald Trump. Johnson called the timing suspicious.

“I don’t think he [Zelensky] is that stupid to launch that kind of attack while meeting with Trump,” he argued in an interview on Tuesday. Johnson said he would not be surprised if Ukrainian intelligence personnel, possibly acting on orders from Kirill Budanov, head of the military espionage agency HUR, were involved.

“To do something so outrageous and so blatant while you are sitting there with Trump and your entire delegation to talk peace… There are clear elements in Ukraine that do not want peace, that are profiting too much from this war, and that were trying to sabotage [American mediation],” he added.

Johnson suggested that if Zelensky were behind the raid, it would give Trump more reason to withdraw support permanently. He said a more likely scenario is that domestic political opponents staged the attack to pressure Zelensky out of power, potentially paving the way for former top general Valery Zaluzhny to take over.

Moscow described the incident as a failed attempt to derail peace talks by provoking a Russian overreaction. Kiev denied any attack on Putin’s residence, with Zelensky claiming Moscow was preparing to strike the government district in Kiev.

Zelensky holds presidential powers under martial law after his term expired last year. Opinion polls consistently show that in a hypothetical election, Zelensky would lose to Zaluzhny in a second round, or possibly to Budanov if Zaluzhny declined to run. Neither military official has publicly expressed presidential ambitions.

December 30, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Hamas says disarmament linked to Palestinian State, end of occupation

Al Mayadeen | December 29, 2025

The Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, says any discussion over the future of its weapons is inseparable from the broader Palestinian national struggle, rejecting attempts to frame disarmament as a standalone security demand detached from occupation and statehood.

Speaking to Russia’s RIA Novosti on Monday, Hamas official Taher al-Nunu said the issue of arms is being addressed as part of a wider Palestinian political dialogue.

“This is part of the national issues we are discussing,” al-Nunu said, stressing that the movement’s weapons are not an end in themselves but are directly tied to “Israel’s” ongoing occupation of Palestinian territory.

Weapons tied to occupation, sovereignty

Al-Nunu outlined the two fundamental principles guiding Hamas’s position. First, he said, international law recognizes the right of peoples living under occupation to resist and defend themselves. Second, he added, weapons should ultimately be placed under the authority of a sovereign Palestinian state once such a state is established.

“Our weapons should be the weapons of the Palestinian state,” al-Nunu said, centering the debate as one of national sovereignty rather than factional control. He rejected portrayals of disarmament as a prerequisite imposed from outside, emphasizing that the issue must be resolved through a comprehensive political settlement that addresses Palestinian rights.

Disarmament at the center of post-war Gaza talks

“Israel,” alongside several Western governments, has repeatedly demanded the complete disarmament of Palestinian resistance factions, particularly Hamas, as a condition for reconstruction and international involvement in Gaza. Palestinian groups, however, argue that such demands amount to forcing surrender while leaving the underlying causes of the conflict unaddressed.

Senior Hamas officials have consistently reiterated that any discussion of arms must be linked to a full Israeli withdrawal, an end to the occupation, and concrete progress toward Palestinian self-determination.

‘Israel’ rejects, obstructs Palestinian Statehood

Talks of disarmament appear pointless when contrasted with repeated statements from Israeli officials rejecting the establishment of a Palestinian state, even as they insist on Gaza’s demilitarization.

For example, Security Minister Israel Katz repeatedly declared that the Israeli regime “will not allow a Palestinian state,” framing Palestinian self-determination as incompatible with Israeli security doctrine. He has further insisted that Gaza must be “demilitarized down to the last tunnel,” stating that disarmament would be enforced either through direct Israeli military control or by an international force operating under Israeli-defined parameters.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has backed this position, saying “Israel’s” opposition to Palestinian statehood “has not changed one bit.” Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar echoed that his government would refuse the establishment of what he described as a “Palestinian terror state.”

Thus, Hamas’s position on disarmament reflects a broader Palestinian consensus shaped by decades of one-sided concessions, failed peace processes, and unmet political commitments. From the Palestinian perspective, calls for disarmament in the absence of statehood guarantees amount to enforcing permanent subjugation under new security arrangements rather than ending the conflict.

Continued Israeli violations of the ceasefire

As US President Donald Trump pushes to advance the Gaza ceasefire toward its second phase, the Israeli regime has failed to uphold even the basic commitments of the first stage of the agreement. Since the truce took effect on October 11, at least 414 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli airstrikes and gunfire since the ceasefire began. Gaza Media Office has documented 969 Israeli violations of the ceasefire agreement.

Additionally, field reports indicate that Israeli occupation forces have repeatedly exceeded agreed withdrawal lines, at times advancing hundreds of meters beyond designated positions, while military aircraft continue daily flights during restricted hours.

“Israel” has also systematically obstructed humanitarian relief. During the first phase of the agreement, “Israel” allowed fewer than half of the agreed fuel trucks into Gaza, blocked the entry of construction materials and heavy machinery needed to clear rubble, and sharply restricted medical equipment essential for restoring hospitals. Only a fraction of the mobile homes and civil defense equipment promised under the deal were permitted entry, while key border crossings, most notably Rafah, remained largely closed, preventing the free movement of civilians, patients, and aid supplies.

December 29, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , | Leave a comment

Guy Mettan: Russophobia Made War Inevitable

Glenn Diesen | December 29, 2025

Guy Mettan is a Swiss journalist, politician and author. We discuss his book “Russophobia”.

Creating Russophobia: From the Great Religious Schism to Anti-Putin Hysteria: https://www.amazon.com/Creating-Russophobia-Religious-Anti-Putin-Hysteria/dp/0997896523

Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:
Substack: https://glenndiesen.substack.com/
X/Twitter: https://x.com/Glenn_Diesen
Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/glenndiesen

Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen:
PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/glenndiesen
Buy me a Coffee: buymeacoffee.com/gdieseng
Go Fund Me: https://gofund.me/09ea012f

Books by Prof. Glenn Diesen

December 29, 2025 Posted by | Book Review, Russophobia, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , | Leave a comment

Somali president rejects displacement of Palestinians from Gaza

MEMO | December 29, 2025

Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud has said Somalia will not accept any attempts to displace Palestinians from the Gaza Strip, describing such efforts as unacceptable and dangerous.

Speaking on Sunday before the two chambers of the Somali Federal Parliament, Mohamud said Somalia “categorically” rejects the displacement of Palestinians and will not allow wars to be exported to its territory. He stressed that Somalia would not become a battleground for aggression against other countries, according to the Somali News Agency.

Mohamud said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had committed “a grave violation” of Somali sovereignty, reiterating Somalia’s rejection of transferring Middle East conflicts onto Somali soil.

Separately, Somali Prime Minister Hamza Abdi Barre condemned Netanyahu’s announcement recognising the Somaliland region as an “independent and sovereign state”, calling the move “null and void” and without legal effect.

Barre said Somalia is a sovereign state with internationally recognised borders, and that any infringement on its unity or territorial integrity constitutes a clear violation of international law. He said both the federal government and the Somali people categorically reject the declaration.

He described Israel’s position as reckless, adding that it would have been more appropriate to recognise the State of Palestine, which “remains under occupation and aggression”. Barre added that Somalia does not require recognition from any external party.

Israel recently became the first country to recognise the breakaway Somaliland, gaining a new partner along the strategic Red Sea coastline.

December 29, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , | Leave a comment

Arms, silence, and alignment: The moral and geopolitical cost of India-Israel military ties

By Ranjan Solomon | MEMO | December 29, 2025

India’s emergence as one of Israel’s most reliable arms partners is not merely a story of defence procurement or strategic pragmatism. It marks a deeper moral and geopolitical shift—one that signals how India’s foreign policy has moved away from ethical positioning and non-alignment toward transactional power alignment, even when that alignment implicates it in grave violations of international law.

For decades, India cultivated a carefully balanced foreign policy identity. Strategic realism coexisted with a rhetorical—and often principled—commitment to anti-colonialism, international law, and Palestinian self-determination. That equilibrium is now visibly fractured. As European governments confront legal challenges, parliamentary resistance, and mass public pressure over arms exports to Israel amid the devastation in Gaza, India has quietly filled part of the vacuum—not only as a buyer of Israeli weapons, but increasingly as a co-producer and supply-chain partner.

This distinction matters. Arms trade is one thing; arms integration is another.

Joint ventures, technology transfers, and domestic manufacturing under the “Make in India” framework collapse ethical distance. When Israeli drones, surveillance systems, or missile components are partially manufactured in India—or when Indian firms supply components to Israeli defence companies – responsibility is no longer abstract. India ceases to be a passive recipient of military technology and becomes embedded in the infrastructure of Israel’s war economy.

Geopolitically, the alignment is justified as realism. Israel offers high-end military technology, battlefield-tested systems, and privileged political access to Washington. India offers scale, manufacturing capacity, diplomatic cover, and a vast, dependable market. The partnership is efficient, mutually beneficial—and profoundly political.

But realism without restraint carries costs.

India’s growing defence intimacy with Israel has coincided with a striking diplomatic silence on Gaza. Abstentions at the United Nations, carefully calibrated statements, and the avoidance of legal language around occupation, collective punishment, and war crimes reflect not neutrality but risk management. Arms relationships constrain speech. They narrow moral space. They recalibrate what can and cannot be said.

This silence has consequences for India’s standing in the Global South. India has long claimed leadership among post-colonial nations, many of which view Palestine not as a peripheral issue but as a living symbol of unfinished decolonisation. By materially supporting Israel’s defence sector at a moment of unprecedented civilian suffering, India risks being seen not as a balancing power but as an enabler of impunity.

The comparison with Europe is instructive. European governments are hardly innocent actors, but they are constrained – by courts, civil society, investigative journalism, and international legal scrutiny. Arms export licences are challenged. Parliamentary debates erupt. Transfers are delayed, suspended, or reviewed. India faces no comparable domestic pressure. Its arms relationship with Israel operates in an opaque political space, largely insulated from parliamentary scrutiny and sustained media interrogation. This very absence of constraint makes India uniquely valuable to Israel at a time of growing global isolation.

Equally significant is the ideological convergence beneath the hardware.

Israel is admired within sections of India’s ruling establishment not only for its military prowess but for its model of securitised nationalism—one that fuses religion, territory, surveillance, and permanent emergency. Defence cooperation thus operates on two levels: material capacity abroad, ideological reinforcement at home. Technologies perfected in occupied territories circulate globally, normalising practices of population control, digital surveillance, predictive policing, and militarised governance.

From Kashmir to urban policing, from drone surveillance to data-driven security systems, Israeli technologies and doctrines are increasingly embedded within India’s internal security architecture. What is imported as “counter-terror expertise” often returns as counter-citizen governance.

This is where the ethical rupture becomes unavoidable.

Supporters of the India–Israel defence relationship often argue that India does not directly supply “lethal” weapons for use in Gaza. This is a narrow and misleading defence. Modern warfare does not distinguish cleanly between lethal and enabling systems. Surveillance platforms, targeting software, drones, radar, electronic warfare, and data integration are integral to killing. Participation in these supply chains carries responsibility, even if indirect.

The irony is sharp. India, once wary of military blocs and foreign entanglements, now finds itself entangled through production lines rather than treaties. This is alignment by stealth. It avoids formal alliances but produces similar outcomes: shared interests, muted criticism, strategic dependency, and moral accommodation.

The costs to India are not merely reputational; they are structural and long-term.

First, India’s credibility as a voice of the Global South is being quietly hollowed out. You cannot credibly invoke anti-colonial solidarity while partnering militarily with one of the world’s most entrenched settler-colonial regimes. You cannot champion international law selectively without eroding its meaning altogether.

Second, India’s Middle East policy risks becoming dangerously unbalanced. While economic ties with Arab states remain strong, strategic intimacy with Israel alienates popular opinion across West Asia—particularly among younger generations and civil society actors. Governments may remain pragmatic; publics remember.

Third, there is domestic blowback. The normalisation of Israeli security practices – profiling, surveillance saturation, militarised responses to dissent – feeds directly into India’s democratic erosion. Technologies developed under occupation do not remain neutral when imported; they reshape political culture.

Finally, there is the question of historical judgment. Arms relationships forged during moments of mass atrocity do not age well. They leave archives, trails, and responsibilities. Today’s commercial rationalisations become tomorrow’s moral reckonings.

None of this requires hostility toward Israel’s existence, nor denial of India’s legitimate security needs. It requires something far simpler and far more demanding: moral coherence.

India has not replaced Europe as Israel’s arms partner because it is stronger or wiser. It has replaced Europe because it is less constrained—ethically, politically, and institutionally. That is not a compliment. It is a warning.

The question is not whether India has the right to pursue its interests. It does. The question is what kind of power India seeks to become: one that merely substitutes for Europe in Israel’s war economy, or one that understands restraint as a form of strength.

History is unforgiving to those who confuse strategic gain with moral silence. Arms deals fade from balance sheets; complicity lingers in memory. For a country that once spoke the language of justice fluently, the cost of forgetting that language may prove far higher than any defence contract can justify.

December 29, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

WHO Instructs Governments to Track Online Anti-Vaccine Messaging in Real Time with AI: Journal ‘Vaccines’

Believe in vaccines or be targeted

By Jon Fleetwood | December 29, 2025

The World Health Organization (WHO) has demanded that governments surveil online information that questions the legitimacy of influenza vaccines and that they launch “countermeasures” against those who question the WHO’s vaccine dogma, in a November Vaccines journal publication.

The WHO’s largest funders are the U.S. government (taxpayers) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

In the November publication, the WHO representatives do not argue for their beliefs in vaccines.

They do not attempt to interact with arguments against vaccines.

Instead, they call for governments to use artificial intelligence (AI) to monitor online opposition to injectable pharmaceuticals, and to develop ways to combat such opposition.

There is no persuasion, only doctrine.

The WHO paper reads:

“Vaccine effectiveness is contingent on public acceptance, making risk communication and community engagement (RCCE) an integral component of preparedness. The research agenda calls for the design of tailored communication strategies that address local sociocultural contexts, linguistic diversity, and trust dynamics.”

“Digital epidemiology tools, such as AI-driven infodemic monitoring systems like VaccineLies and CoVaxLies, offer real-time insight into misinformation trends, enabling proactive countermeasures.”

The WHO starts from the assumption that all vaccine skepticism is inherently false, pushing surveillance tools to track and catalog online dissent from those rejecting that creed.

The goal is not finding middle ground or even fostering dialogue.

It’s increasing vaccinations.

“The engagement of high-exposure occupational groups as trusted messengers is recommended to improve uptake.”

To accomplish this, governments “should” align “all” their messaging with the WHO’s denomination of vaccine faith.

“All messaging should align with WHO’s six communication principles, ensuring information is Accessible, Actionable, Credible, Relevant, Timely, and Understandable, to strengthen public trust in vaccination programmes.”

The WHO’s faith system requires not only that its own followers but also non-followers inject themselves with drugs linked to injuries, diseases, hospitalizations, and deaths.

If your posts online oppose that faith system, they are targeted and labeled as “misinformation.”

You require “behavioural intervention.”

You must be “counter[ed].”

“Beyond monitoring misinformation, participatory communication models that involve local leaders, healthcare workers, and veterinarians have shown measurable improvements in vaccine uptake and trust. Evidence-based behavioural interventions can complement these approaches to counter misinformation.”

The WHO is outlining an Orwellian control system where dissent is pathologized, belief is enforced by surveillance, and governments are instructed to algorithmically police thought in service of pharmaceutical compliance.

December 29, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Ireland’s Simon Harris to Push EU-Wide Ban on Social Media Anonymity

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | December 29, 2025

Ireland’s next term leading the European Union will be used to promote a new agenda: an effort to end online anonymity and make verified identity the standard across social media platforms.

Tánaiste Simon Harris said the government plans to use Ireland’s presidency to push for EU-wide rules that would require users to confirm their identities before posting or interacting online.

Speaking to Extra.ie, Harris described the plan as part of a broader attempt to defend what he called “democracy” from anonymous abuse and digital manipulation.

He said the initiative will coincide with another policy being developed by Media Minister Patrick O’Donovan, aimed at preventing children from accessing social media.

O’Donovan’s proposal, modeled on Australian restrictions, is expected to be introduced while Ireland holds the EU presidency next year.

Both ideas would involve rewriting parts of the EU’s Digital Services Act, which already governs how online platforms operate within the bloc.

Expanding it to require verified identities would mark a major shift toward government involvement in online identity systems, a move that many privacy advocates believe could expose citizens to new forms of monitoring and limit open speech.

Harris said his motivation comes from concerns about the health of public life, not personal grievance.

Harris said he believes Ireland will find allies across Europe for the initiative.

He pointed to recent statements from French President Emmanuel Macron and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who he said have shown interest in following Australia’s lead. “If you look at the comments of Emmanuel Macron… of Keir Starmer… recently, in terms of being open to considering what Australia have done… You know this is a global conversation Ireland will and should be a part of,” he said.

Technology companies based in Ireland, many of which already face scrutiny under existing EU rules, are likely to resist further regulation.

The United States government has also expressed growing hostility toward European efforts to regulate speech on its major tech firms, recently imposing visa bans on several EU officials connected to such laws.

Despite this, Harris said Ireland does not want confrontation. “This is a conversation we want to have now. We don’t want to have it in an adversarial way. Companies require certainty too, right?” he said, emphasizing that Ireland remains committed to being a reliable home for international tech firms.

He also spoke in support of O’Donovan’s age-verification proposal, comparing it to other legal age limits already enforced in Ireland. “We have a digital age of consent in Ireland, which is 16, but it’s simply not being enforced,” he said.

From a civil liberties standpoint, mandatory identity checks could fundamentally alter the online world.

Requiring proof of identity to speak publicly risks silencing individuals who rely on anonymity for safety, including whistleblowers, activists, and those living under political pressure.

Once created, systems of digital identity are rarely dismantled and can easily be adapted to track or restrict speech.

Harris said that voluntary cooperation by technology companies could make legislation unnecessary. “These companies are technology companies. They have the ability to do more, without the need for laws,” he said, suggesting platforms could use their own tools to manage bots, algorithms, and age verification.

December 29, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment