UNRWA head slams ‘outrageous’ Israeli law to cut water, energy to agency’s facilities
Press TV – December 30, 2025
The head of the UN agency for Palestinian refugees has strongly slammed new Israeli legislation to cut water and energy to UNRWA facilities, calling it a violation of international law and a direct challenge to the United Nations system.
Philippe Lazzarini, Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), said legislation passed by Israel’s Knesset (Parliament) to cut energy and communication lines of the agency undermines the agency’s mandate.
“Yesterday’s vote by the Israeli parliament passing new legislation against UNRWA is outrageous,” Lazzarini wrote Tuesday on X.
“It is a direct affront to the mandate granted to the Agency by the UN General Assembly and contrary to findings of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which oblige Israel to fulfil its responsibilities as a UN Member State to UNRWA and the broader UN system.”
According to Lazzarini, the law authorizes Israeli authorities to cut water, electricity, fuel and communications to UNRWA facilities and allows for the expropriation of UN property in occupied East al-Quds, including the agency’s headquarters and its main vocational training centre.
He added that the bill explicitly excludes UNRWA from Israeli legislation implementing Israel’s obligations under the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, describing this as “a clear violation” of the Israeli regime’s obligations under international law.
Lazzarini said the move builds on laws passed last year and implemented since January 2025 that banned UNRWA’s operations in occupied East al-Quds and halted all contact between Israeli officials and the agency. He described the legislation as part of a sustained effort to weaken multilateral institutions.
“The new legislation is a further blow to the multilateral system,” he said, adding that it was part of “an ongoing, systematic campaign to discredit UNRWA and thereby obstruct the core role that the Agency plays in providing human-development assistance and services to Palestine Refugees.”
Those services, Lazzarini noted, have been deemed essential by the ICJ for upholding the UN’s commitment to Palestinian rights, including self-determination.
He recalled that in October the court reiterated Israel’s obligation under international law to facilitate, not hinder, UNRWA’s work, calling the new law “an unacceptable rejection of the ICJ’s findings.”
Lazzarini said disputes with UNRWA should be addressed through UN mechanisms, warning against unilateral actions. He pointed to recent incidents on the ground, including the storming of UNRWA’s compound in East al-Quds earlier this month, when Israeli officials tore down the UN flag and replaced it with an Israeli one. In May, he said, authorities forced the closure of UNRWA schools in the city, affecting hundreds of Palestinian refugee children.
“These legislative steps have been accompanied by unilateral actions on the ground that show a repeated disregard for international law,” he said.
Lazzarini warned that the measures are having a direct operational and legal impact on UNRWA’s work across the occupied Palestinian territory, including Gaza, where the agency is central to humanitarian operations.
He stressed that Palestinian refugee rights exist independently of UNRWA under international law and UN resolutions, including Resolution 194, and would endure even without the agency.
He added that the legislation sets a “grave precedent” by rejecting the UN’s independence and immunities, cautioning that failing to push back could undermine humanitarian and human rights work worldwide.
Israel has banned UNRWA from operating in the occupied territories after accusing some of its staff of being involved in the al-Aqsa storm operation in October 2023.
Despite repeated requests from UNRWA for the Israeli regime to provide evidence supporting its allegations, the agency has received no response.
The UN agency has faced deepening financial turmoil since Israel launched a defamation campaign against it.
Trump Says Hamas Will Be Given a ‘Short Period of Time’ to Disarm
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | December 30, 2025
President Donald Trump said that Hamas will be given a short period of time to disarm, threatening to be “hell to pay” if the Palestinian group refuses.
During a Press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump was asked about demilitarizing Hamas. “They will be given a very short period of time to disarm. If they don’t disarm, as they agreed to do, there will be hell to pay,” he said. If Hamas does not disarm, “it will be horrible for them, horrible. It’s going to be really, really bad for them.”
Trump suggested that Hamas would be disarmed by Middle Eastern countries, rather than the US or Israel, which are willing to commit forces to demilitarize Gaza.
However, Hamas did not agree to disarm under the October agreement. At the time, a US official told Fox News that the Israel and Hamas ceasefire agreement was negotiated at “lightning speed” and did not address several key issues. Two outstanding questions are what group will secure Gaza and whether Hamas will disarm.
Hamas has maintained that it will only disarm if it is in the process of creating an independent Palestinian state.
Since the signing of the truce earlier this year, Tel Aviv has taken several steps to block the creation of a Palestinian state, and Prime Minister Netanyahu has repeated his long-standing position against the two-state solution.
Is Israel About to Return to Genocide? Three Scenarios for What Comes Next
By Robert Inlakesh | The Palestine Chronicle | December 30, 2025
With Tel Aviv openly rejecting withdrawal and insisting on disarmament, the “ceasefire” risks sliding into either renewed mass killing or a slow-motion attempt to impose control and displacement.
Debate rages on over what Phase Two of the Gaza Ceasefire will look like, as US President Donald Trump demands the disarmament of the Palestinian resistance. Meanwhile, Gaza refuses to hand over its weapons. Most analyses are, however, missing the mark when it comes to reading Tel Aviv’s calculations.
The so-called Gaza Ceasefire has proven itself to be little more than an extended pause in the mass slaughter of civilians. While it is still described as a ceasefire, there were three major changes to the predicament on the ground that took hold during “Phase One,” as the war continued to rage on.
The first major change, perhaps the most notable, was that the Israelis committed to no longer killing an average of around 100 civilians on a daily basis. The second was that more aid entered Gaza, although nowhere near the amount required or agreed to. The third was a mutual prisoner exchange.
Assessing the strength and direction of the ceasefire in its first phase is important to reading what the second phase may have in store, if it is even reached.
To the Israelis, the benefits of the partial implementation of Phase One were numerous. To begin with, the least consequential element, they relieved themselves of the burden of releasing their captives. This was important for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in that he managed to clear the topic of returning the captives, especially as he heads into a new election cycle.
Then we have the other benefits for the Israelis. Gaza exited the international headlines, as daily killings appeared too low to even register as a major issue in the biased Western press. Meanwhile, Israeli soldiers were able to continue doing the exact same work inside Gaza that has constituted the majority of its military operations throughout the genocide: building demolition work.
These demolition missions, for which a privatized Israeli workforce has been employed to operate alongside the occupation army’s engineering units, have constituted the vast majority of the military’s efforts on the ground. Face-to-face combat on the ground has never been a notable feature of the Israeli genocide; they simply refused to actually fight the Palestinian resistance groups.
One thing that troubled the Israelis was that this demolition work, which sometimes included destroying entrances to tunnels, came with a high risk of running into armed ambushes. The Palestinian fighters would prepare traps and set up ambush operations for their forces, especially when Israel would invade or reinvade any new area they had not retained a permanent presence in.
Phase One of the Gaza Ceasefire agreement, therefore, guaranteed that soldiers were not going to be subjected to the same dangers as before, as the Palestinian resistance groups would halt all operations against the invading army.
It is important that this reality is established when analyzing Israel’s decision-making, because what is being done to Gaza is a genocide, not a conventional war. Israel’s intent is to wipe out Gaza, ensuring that it becomes totally uninhabitable, with the intention of mass expulsion in mind. This is also why they rarely targeted the armed wings of the Palestinian factions, focusing on maximum damage to the civilian population instead.
Any other way of framing this issue is misleading and whitewashes what the Israeli regime has committed since October 7, 2023. It also robs any analyst of his or her ability to assess Israel’s calculations critically.
With this in mind, consider that the Israelis have now had over two months where their armed forces have still been working, but have had a break from any fighting or the fear of being ambushed. Israeli tanks, armored personnel carriers, and other equipment were also being repaired, as the decision-makers in Tel Aviv and Washington designed new plans for their fronts against Iran, Yemen, and Lebanon.
They also needed fewer soldiers for security reasons, as a so-called Civil-Military Coordination Center (CMCC) took over in monitoring the situation and helping shape the realities imposed on the ground. Every country involved in the CMCC was therefore made complicit in the genocide.
This phase came with the additional benefit for the Israelis that they now had the space to experiment with new approaches, conjure up more conspiracies, and seek to find a way to ensure the ethnic cleansing of the Gaza Strip occurs. As Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz has explicitly stated, his army has no intention of withdrawing from the besieged coastal territory.
Phase Two and What It Will Show Us
If we establish the fact that the Israelis are adamant on achieving ethnic cleansing, that their military operations have always sought to achieve this goal, and that they are continuing to conspire to achieve this, then we have arrived at the starting point from which to assess the implementation of a so-called Phase Two.
During the first phase, the groundwork was laid for a new set of conspiracies against the people of Gaza. The population was subjected to countless pressures, which the criminal CMCC oversaw, including the deprivation of sustainable living conditions, with only a handful of its nongovernmental organizations even raising issues about it.
Despite the best efforts of the Hamas-affiliated government security forces to restore order, they were dealing with an impossible situation. Over a million people live in tents that are unstable or susceptible to dire weather conditions, a lack of adequate medical supplies, sanitary supplies, and many food items are even restricted. Amid this, most people don’t have jobs, few have adequate salaries coming in, and even for those in a better economic standing, they remain traumatized and unable to return to their homes. Inevitably, this leads to social issues that no regular security force can fully repel.
Meanwhile, the Israelis expand the so-called Yellow Line, behind which they were supposed to remain, instead using this line to execute anyone who comes within a few hundred meters of it, thus deterring them from returning to their own homes or land, where they could possibly plant small crops. Behind this ever-expanding occupying line, the Israeli military and private contractors destroy more and more infrastructure. All of this is monitored by the US-Israeli-led CMCC.
The plan is rather overt in its goals, but still vague in its precise stages of implementation. Both US and Israeli officials have made it crystal clear that they seek reconstruction only inside the Israeli-controlled portion of the Gaza Strip, where five ISIS-linked death squads are being strengthened by Israel and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
The UN’s most shameful Resolution 2803, passed by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in November, makes it apparent that the goal is to implement a “Board of Peace” (BoP) and International Stabilization Force (ISF). The BoP makes Donald Trump the de facto ruler of Gaza, and the ISF is set to be a multinational invasion force tasked with fighting the Palestinian resistance factions.
This Monday, the new spokesperson for the Qassam Brigades of Hamas, who has also taken on the alias Abu Obeida, announced a staunch opposition to disarmament, instead calling on the Israelis to disarm, as they are the ones responsible for committing a genocide. All the Palestinian factions, with the exception of the mainstream branch of Fatah, which controls the Palestinian Authority (PA), are united on this issue.
The PA is in favor of Donald Trump’s plan for him to rule the Gaza Strip and disarm the resistance by force, but it is irrelevant in terms of representing Palestinians. This authority only continues to exist because it is propped up by the Israelis, Americans, Saudis, and Europeans, and its popularity, beyond its base of employees, is in the single digits among the Palestinian people. It does not even represent the sentiments of the majority of Fatah supporters anymore.
All of this is to say that if any Phase Two is going to be implemented, neither side is going to be in agreement about it. Netanyahu’s government demands disarmament, while the Palestinian factions demand Gaza’s self-governance and will only disarm by handing over their weapons to a newly established Palestinian state. Hamas is clear that it would allow a technocratic administration to take over Gaza and is not demanding that it remain as the government of Gaza.
Considering that neither side can agree upon the basis on which a Phase Two can begin, keeping in mind that Israel and the US are the sides with military dominance, there are three ways that this will unfold:
The US and Israel will proceed with aggressively implementing their plan, as laid out in the shameful UNSC Resolution 2803. They will begin deploying a regime change force and attempt to implement a number of schemes to start a slow ethnic cleansing of the territory amid this.
Israel will restart its full-scale genocide.
The shaky ceasefire will continue, but remain in limbo. This will mean periodic spats of violence, as the Israelis and the US attempt to slowly and partially implement the ISF-BoP agenda. This will be a process during which the people of Gaza will be subjected to more pressure, but not enough to collapse the agreement altogether.
An Aggressive Phase Two?
The first means of implementing the next phase of the Gaza Ceasefire initiative would likely buckle under the immense pressures destined to befall it. If we look at the ISF alone, it is a recipe for total disaster.
Forcing the “International Stabilization Force” aggressively on the people of Gaza means that it will start going after Palestinian resistance factions. Two major issues will immediately pop up. The resistance will certainly kill some of these foreign soldiers, who will return to their home nations in body bags and cause domestic chaos. A heavy-handed approach here would also likely result in civilians being killed, another major debacle in its own right.
The Israelis are adamant that Türkiye, Qatar, and other Muslim-majority nations they take issue with cannot deploy their armed forces in Gaza. Whether they get their way or not, consider that this armed force would mean gathering a few hundred soldiers from one country, a few thousand from another, and so on.
If this kind of ISF was sent into Gaza aggressively, considering that so far there has been no agreement concerning how to implement this invasion initiative or which countries will participate, it will be thrust into a complex urban warfare environment. They all speak different languages, work off different military doctrines, are ill-prepared, likely ill-equipped for their tasks, and, according to reports, will only number in the tens of thousands.
Donald Trump recently boasted that the nations which, he says, are participating in his so-called “peace plan” will work to destroy Hamas if it refuses to disarm, even bragging that Israel would not be required to act and that foreign invading forces would do all the work for them.
In order to conduct a regime change operation of this nature, the ISF would have to be at least 250,000 men strong. Bear in mind that mobilizing a multinational invasion force of this kind would take many months, an enormous amount of funding, and the key feature would be that it actually fights, unlike the Israeli army, which refused to go after the Palestinian resistance factions on the ground.
If an ISF that numbers only in the tens of thousands is going to try and defeat the Palestinian resistance, it will suffer heavier casualties than the Israeli military did. Any Arab or Muslim-majority nation deploying forces could experience mass protests or rebellions against their role in the genocide. Without going into the fine details, it makes no sense and if it is tried, it will quickly fail. Even the Egyptians, who along with Israel will be the guarantors of the strategy, have been advocating for a force equivalent to Lebanon’s UNIFIL to enter Gaza, which is not what UNSC Resolution 2803 approved.
Israel Collapses the Ceasefire
The next way this can go is that Benjamin Netanyahu decides to collapse the ceasefire altogether. Some argue this wouldn’t happen because the US is committed to its “peace plan.” This is not a serious argument. Donald Trump has demonstrated that he will go along with whatever the Israelis choose. He isn’t a strong leader on this question and clearly possesses a level of knowledge about the region that you would expect of a public high school student who took history and didn’t really bother to listen.
There are only two circumstances under which the Israelis will collapse the ceasefire in its entirety. They no longer believe that any of the schemes they sought to implement under the so-called ceasefire will work, and there is some kind of political benefit to returning to all-out combat. The second reason is that they are scared that the Palestinian resistance may launch some kind of offensive while the Israeli army is also battling Hezbollah and Iran.
Collapsing the ceasefire demonstrates that the Israelis are without any direction and lack a coherent plan to actually end the fighting on the Gaza front. It means that they are simply reverting to all-out genocide, with the hope that eventually an opportunity arises which will allow a mass ethnic cleansing event, or a slow process of ethnic cleansing as they exterminate tens of thousands more civilians.
Stuck Between Phase One and Phase Two
Another option is for the Israelis and Americans to stall the collapse of the ceasefire. It would mean placing the situation in limbo, not allowing its total collapse, but undergoing a process of trial and error, whereby it slowly attempts to force elements of “Phase Two” into reality.
This is a very likely outcome, designed to keep the Gaza front closed while focusing more on Iran, Lebanon, and perhaps even Yemen. We could therefore expect to see the ISF deployed in a less meaningful capacity than is currently envisaged in Washington, disastrous plots implemented involving private military contractors and aid distribution, and attempts to ethnically cleanse the population slowly here and there. All of these schemes will fall flat on their faces, but not without inflicting suffering on the civilian population of Gaza.
In the meantime, the US-Israeli alliance will have Tehran in its sights. The thinking behind this would be to squeeze the civilian population of Gaza, while prioritizing Iran and Hezbollah as their major strategic threats.
Israel’s Failure Hedges against Iran and Hezbollah
The conspiracies of Washington and Tel Aviv against Gaza can be defeated, but this hinges upon Hezbollah and Iran for the most part. If Iran and Hezbollah manage to deal enormous blows to the Israelis, refusing to play their game of fighting short defensive conflicts, then Israel will be dragged into deep waters.
All that is required of Hezbollah and Iran is that they don’t stop firing, no matter the degree of carnage exacted against their people. If Hezbollah drags the Israeli military into Lebanese lands and refuses the calls for a ceasefire, instead forcing the Israelis into a war that it intends to fight for many months, and Iran does the same, the Israelis will be in a major crisis.
The details of such conflicts are a topic for different pieces and many outcomes could occur, yet it suffices to say that major moves from Lebanon and Iran could put the Israelis in a very weak position, one that even enables major action from Gaza also.
If Iran and Hezbollah are either defeated or taken out of the picture for an even longer period after agreeing to meaningless ceasefires, after short rounds of fighting, also suffering the assassinations of major figures, this is the most favorable outcome for Benjamin Netanyahu. Victories in these arenas will open the door to ethnically cleansing the Gaza Strip, even if slowly rather than in a stampede into the Sinai Peninsula. This is, of course, assuming there are no other major fronts which suddenly open to preoccupy them.
As things stand, the Israelis are in a very weak position, having failed to defeat any of their enemies. The only exception is the fall of the previous Syrian regime, which was not directly fighting Israel, but was a major land bridge for the Iranian-led Axis of Resistance. For now, Syria can be considered a victim of Israel, but poses no immediate threat.
Ultimately, Israel has fought for over two years and failed to defeat the Palestinian resistance, Hezbollah, Ansarallah, Iran, or any of its other adversaries, even after dealing varying degrees of blows against each of them. Netanyahu’s long-sought-after “total victory” does not appear likely, yet he still continues to double down on attempting to achieve this goal. The primary reason for this is the refusal of the people of Gaza, and also Lebanon, to give up.
Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine.
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 Post, reported 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
