Hamas, Israel agree to first phase of Gaza ceasefire under Trump plan
The Cradle | October 9, 2025
The newly announced ceasefire agreement, which was reached by mediators overnight, is set to take effect in Gaza on 9 October.
Phase one of US President Donald Trump’s 20-point plan will begin in the coming hours and days.
According to Israel’s Channel 14, the signing of the agreement will be followed by Israeli cabinet and government meetings to ratify the deal.
The Israeli army will then carry out its first withdrawal from Gaza’s population centers, in line with the agreement’s withdrawal map.
Twenty living Israeli captives will be released following 72 hours. In exchange, Tel Aviv is required to release 250 prisoners serving life sentences and 1,700 Palestinians detained from Gaza since 7 October 2023.
It remains unclear if Israel has approved the list of high-profile prisoners whose release Hamas has demanded, as the names have not been published.
Hamas leader Osama Hamdan said five border crossings will be opened for aid to enter the strip and be distributed by the UN and international aid groups.
According to an Israeli official in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office, cited by Channel 12, the ceasefire will not come into effect until the government ratifies the agreement on Thursday afternoon.
Drone strikes and artillery shelling have been reported in Gaza, despite announcements of the ceasefire.
Trump announced early Thursday that the “first phase” of the deal has been signed off on following hours of negotiations in Egypt.
“This means that ALL of the hostages will be released very soon, and Israel will withdraw [its] troops to an agreed upon line as the first steps toward a strong, durable and everlasting Peace,” he added, calling it a “great day for the world.”
“Tonight, an agreement was reached on all the provisions and implementation mechanisms of the first phase of the Gaza ceasefire agreement, which will lead to ending the war, the release of Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners, and the entry of aid. The details will be announced later,” said Qatari Foreign Ministry spokesman Majed al-Ansari.
Hamas also released a statement confirming that an agreement has been reached.
“An agreement has been reached to end the war on Gaza, withdraw occupation forces from the strip, allow the entry of aid, and carry out a prisoner exchange,” Hamas said. “We call upon President Trump, the guarantor states of the agreement, and all Arab, Islamic, and international parties to compel the occupation government to fully implement the terms of the agreement and prevent it from evading or delaying.”
“We affirm that the sacrifices of our people will not be in vain,” it added.
Gaza Civil Defence: Israel using car bombs in strikes on residential areas despite Trump’s calls for halt
MEMO | October 9, 2025
The General Directorate of Civil Defence in the Gaza Strip said Wednesday that Israeli forces continue to deploy car bombs packed with large quantities of explosives against residential neighbourhoods, despite recent calls from the US President Donald Trump to stop bombing the enclave.
In a statement, Civil Defence officials reported that Israeli forces are using an average of ten car bombs daily in densely populated areas, including Al-Nasr, Sheikh Radwan, and Al-Daraj neighbourhoods, as well as in Tal Al-Hawa and Al-Sabra.
According to the statement, each explosion causes widespread destruction within a 300-meter radius, with damage extending as far as 500 meters. Shrapnel reportedly travels over a kilometre, inflicting severe injuries on civilians, including displaced families and patients in nearby hospitals.
The Civil Defence said some of the blasts reached areas less than 200 meters from Al-Thalathini Street, one of Gaza City’s main arteries, calling the strikes a deliberate targeting of infrastructure and residential zones regardless of civilian presence.
The Directorate described the use of car bombs of this scale as “an unprecedented development in modern warfare and a flagrant violation of international laws prohibiting the targeting of civilians.” It also held the international community responsible for its “deafening silence,” warning that inaction amounts to tacit encouragement for further bloodshed and destruction.
Italian PM Meloni Embroiled in ICC Complaint Alleging Complicity in Gaza Genocide
21st Century Wire | October 9, 2025
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and a number of ministers are confronted with an ICC complaint that accuses them of complicity in genocide, as a group of jurists and attorneys point to ongoing arms collaboration with Israel and a lack of protection for the Global Sumud Flotilla. Jurists and Lawyers from Giuristi e Avvocati per la Palestina (GAP) have initiated two legal actions aimed at holding Italy accountable for its involvement in the Gaza conflict. The first initiative, submitted to the ICC, charges the Italian government with complicity in war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. The second initiative addresses the government’s purported negligence in safeguarding the Global Sumud Flotilla, a civilian fleet transporting humanitarian aid to Gaza, which was intercepted by Israeli forces in international waters.
According to a report from Lavialibera, the initiative has garnered backing from more than fifty notable figures in Italy, many of whom are active in politics and culture. The initiative has currently attracted the support of nearly 6,000 citizens. Gianluca Vitale, one of the GAP lawyers behind this action, explained to Lavialibera:
“We are calling for proceedings to be initiated against the Italian government, namely Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni , Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani , and Defense Minister Guido Crosetto , as well as Leonardo Spa CEO Roberto Cingolani” adding, “If there is substantial collaboration with Israeli authorities who are committing crimes, it means that the Italian authorities are complicit in the crime being committed.”
In a recent interview with Italian state broadcaster RAI 1, Meloni acknowledged that she and the aforementioned individuals faced a complaint at the International Criminal Court for their alleged involvement in the Gaza genocide.
Despite Meloni’s nervous reaction, the move is not unexpected, given that comparable actions have already been taken throughout Europe. In Germany, legal actions have been filed with the ICC and local courts targeting government officials and arms manufacturers for their alleged involvement in supporting Israel’s military actions in Gaza. Furthermore, more than 100 lawyers in France have officially requested the ICC to look into France’s potential complicity in genocide concerning Gaza.
In her July 2025 report, Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Palestinian Territories, indicates that eight states and at least 1,650 companies, including Italian manufacturer Leonardo S.p.A., contribute to the manufacturing and distribution of components and parts for the Israeli F-35 fleet, which Israel customizes and maintains in partnership with US defense contractor Lockheed Martin and local companies. INVESTIGATE, a project run by Action Center for Corporate Accountability of the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), which exposes corporate complicity in state violence, issued a comprehensive report regarding Leonardo S.p.A., Italy’s largest weapons manufacturer and its dealings with Israel.
As per information from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Italy was among just three nations that exported “major conventional arms” to Israel between 2020 and 2024. However, it is noteworthy that the United States and Germany accounted for a staggering 99 percent of the exports in the broader category of larger weaponry, which encompasses aircraft, missiles, tanks, and air defense systems.
Furthermore, the Jurists and lawyers for Palestine organization (GAP) formally cautioned the Italian government on September 24, urging it to “take all necessary measures to genuinely safeguard the Global Sumud Flotilla and its participants.” With civilian ships trying to breach the Israeli naval blockade and provide humanitarian assistance to Gaza being intercepted and their crew members detained, legal proceedings are being contemplated to assess the potential accountability of the Italian government regarding the actions of the Israeli Navy. It is generally recognized that the Israeli military’s recent actions against the Global Sumud Flotilla are deemed illegitimate, as they took place in international waters where Israel lacks the legal right to intervene, intercept and abduct its passengers against their will, making such actions a potential act of piracy.
In accordance with the recommendations issued by the UN International Court of Justice (ICJ), all state parties the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court—which Italy ratified on July 26, 1999—are required upon learning of, the existence of a serious risk that genocide will be committed, to implement reasonable measures within their power to prevent genocide. However, according to GAP, Meloni’s Government has not only refrained from doing so but, to the contrary, contributed to Israel wae crimes against the Palestinians.
According to GAP’s lawyer, the Italian government’s liability hinges on two key factors:
Firstly, demanding compliance to the Israeli blockade and thus deeming it legitimate amounts to complicity in the crime. The blockade is integral to Israel’s criminal actions, whether they be war crimes or genocide, as it plays a role in perpetuating the offensive within the Gaza Strip and employs starvation as a weapon.
The second factor pertains to the choice to withdraw the Navy vessel that was only briefly sent to escort the Global Sumud Flotilla. Withdrawing and consequently denying assistance signifies a failure to fulfill the duty of protection and, once again, inadvertently aids in the perpetration of a crime.
Turkiye to boost US gas imports, cut reliance on Iran and Russia
The Cradle | October 9, 2025
Turkiye is moving to cover more than half of its natural gas demand by 2028 through domestic production and increased US liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports, decreasing reliance on Iran and Russia, according to analysts cited by Reuters on 8 October.
The plan follows a White House meeting on 25 September, during which US President Donald Trump urged Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to curb Russian energy purchases, as part of the US push to press allies to scale back ties with both Moscow and Tehran.
Ankara’s strategy centers on expanding LNG terminals and boosting local output through the state-owned energy firm, Turkish Petroleum Corporation (TPAO).
According to Turkiye’s Energy Exchange (EPIAS), the country’s LNG terminals can now import up to 58 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas each year, enough to meet its entire domestic demand.
Domestic production and contracted LNG imports are projected to exceed 26 bcm annually from 2028, compared with 15 bcm this year.
That would account for more than half of Turkiye’s 53 bcm gas demand, sharply reducing its need for Russian and Iranian pipeline supplies.
“Turkiye has been signalling that it will take advantage of the [global] LNG abundance,” said Sohbet Karbuz of the Paris-based Mediterranean Organisation for Energy and Climate (OMEC).
Although Russia remains Turkiye’s largest supplier, its share of the market has fallen from over 60 percent two decades ago to 37 percent in the first half of 2025.
Moscow’s long-term pipeline contracts – covering 22 bcm annually via Blue Stream and TurkStream – are nearing expiry. Iran’s 10 bcm contract ends next year, while Azerbaijan’s 9.5 bcm deals run until 2030 and 2033.
To replace these, Ankara has signed $43 billion worth of LNG agreements with US suppliers, including a 20-year deal with Mercuria in September.
Turkish Energy Minister Alparslan Bayraktar said in a recent interview that Turkiye “must source gas from all available suppliers,” which includes Russia, Iran, and Azerbaijan, but noted that US LNG offers cheaper alternatives.
Analysts believe Ankara will likely burn Russian and Iranian gas domestically while re-exporting imported LNG and its own output to Europe, where a full ban on Russian energy is expected by 2028.
Turkiye’s state energy company BOTAS has already begun small-volume exports to Hungary and Romania as part of its efforts to become a regional gas hub.
Japan’s Green Energy Failures Serve as a Warning to the US
By Yoshihiro Muronaka | The Western Journal | October 6, 2025
In August 2025, Japanese media revealed that Mitsubishi Corporation was preparing to withdraw from three offshore wind projects off the coasts of Chiba and Akita prefectures.
In 2021, Mitsubishi had won these sites with remarkably low bids of 8 to 11 cents/kilowatt-hour (kWh), hailed as proof of Japan’s corporate strength and renewable ambition.
But reality was harsh. Costs for steel, turbines, and logistics surged. The yen weakened, interest rates rose, and certification processes faced delays. By 2025, Mitsubishi had already booked over $350 million in impairment losses, with more likely if the projects continued. The retreat is not just a corporate failure; it exposes apparent self-contradictions in Japan’s energy policy.
Across the Atlantic, offshore facilities have faced similar headwinds. On the U.S. East Coast, Ørsted cancelled two large projects in New Jersey, absorbing billions in losses. BP and Equinor abandoned contracts in New York after costs rose by 40 percent beyond estimates. In some cases, companies chose to pay hefty penalties rather than commit to losing ventures.
Europe, the pioneer of offshore wind, has also stumbled. In the U.K., Vattenfall halted its Norfolk Boreas project, citing a 40 percent cost increase. Even Denmark, often celebrated as a leader, has delayed new tenders.
Market signals in these regions were clear: When economics fail, projects are scaled back or canceled. Japan, however, continues to treat offshore wind as a central pillar of its 2040 roadmap, aiming for 45 gigawatts of capacity. Why the difference?
Once designated a national project, policies in Japan are difficult to reverse. Offshore wind has been tied to three goals at once: decarbonization, energy security, and industrial revitalization. Billions in subsidies through the Green Innovation Fund are already committed, while local governments and industries expect contracts and jobs.
In effect, offshore wind has become a new type of public works project. Ports, construction companies, heavy industry, and trading houses all benefit from government support. For politicians, it delivers regional development; for bureaucrats, it provides visible progress. Under these conditions, corporate withdrawal is treated as a temporary setback and prompts no policy review.
The debate over energy costs often centers on the Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE), which narrowly focuses on the cost of generating a kilowatt-hour of electricity. However, this metric fails to capture the broader economic realities encapsulated by the Full Cost of Electricity (FCOE).
FCOE provides a more comprehensive assessment by incorporating additional factors such as the expense of backup power from fossil or nuclear plants to address the intermittency of renewable sources, the costs associated with grid expansion and balancing services to maintain stability, as well as subsidies, premiums, and public support schemes that often prop up certain energy technologies. Furthermore, FCOE accounts for the long-term costs of decommissioning, recycling, and environmental restoration, ensuring a more accurate reflection of the true economic and environmental impact of electricity production.
When these are included, offshore wind’s cost can be double or triple its LCOE.
Offshore wind’s LCOE is around 12 to 16 cents/kWh, but when the full cost of electricity (FCOE) is considered, it rises to 20 to 30 cents/kWh. Nuclear and gas remain much lower, at roughly 12 to 14 cents/kWh and 10 to 12 cents/kWh, respectively.
OECD studies confirm that as “renewables” such as wind and solar rise from 10 percent to 30 percent of the grid, FCOE escalates sharply. Yet Japan highlights falling LCOE while downplaying FCOE, creating an illusion of competitiveness.
Because fixed-bottom projects face difficulties, Japanese policymakers increasingly promote floating offshore wind as a unique advantage. Japan’s deep coastal waters, they argue, make floating turbines more suitable.
Globally, however, floating wind remains at the developmental stage. Norway’s Hywind Scotland and France’s Provence Grand Large provide valuable data, but their costs remain far higher than fixed-bottom projects. Commercial viability has not yet been proven. Betting on floating wind as a “game-changer” risks repeating the same error: political enthusiasm without economic grounding.
Japan’s offshore wind experience is not just about Japan. It illustrates how energy policy everywhere can drift into policy inertia, selective cost reporting, technological optimism, and entrenched interests.
The lesson is clear. Policymakers should always assess the full costs, not just partial figures. They should heed market signals and adjust policy accordingly. Most importantly, they should avoid turning energy policy reliant on unproven technology into political patronage.
Mitsubishi’s retreat shows that even giants cannot overcome flawed policy frameworks. If Japan, with its formidable industrial base, struggles to make offshore wind viable, others should pay attention.
Japan’s offshore wind setback is more than a domestic issue. It is a global reminder of the dangers of ignoring full costs and clinging to illusions. Ambitious targets and political inertia can mask reality, but economics will always reassert itself.
For policymakers worldwide, Japan’s case should not be seen as an embarrassment, but as a warning and an opportunity: Energy transitions must be guided by facts, not hopes, if they are to be sustainable.
Hungary accuses Polish PM of ‘defending terrorists’
RT | October 9, 2025
Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto on Wednesday accused Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk of “defending terrorists,” over comments about the sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines.
Tusk had claimed the day before in a post on X that “the problem with North Stream 2 is not that it was blown up. The problem is that it was built.”
The Nord Stream pipelines, which carried Russian natural gas to Germany along the Baltic Sea floor, were blown up soon after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022.
Szijjarto condemned the Polish prime ministers post in a reply, asking what else the Polish prime minister could find “forgivable or even praiseworthy.”
“According to Donald Tusk, blowing up a gas pipeline is acceptable,” he wrote.
“That’s shocking… One thing is clear: we don’t want a Europe where prime ministers defend terrorists,” he added.
Tusk also argued on Tuesday that it is not in Poland’s interest to hand over a Ukrainian man German investigators believe was involved in the Nord Stream sabotage.
While Berlin’s prosecutors have attributed the sabotage to a small group of Ukrainian nationals, Moscow has dismissed the version of events as “ridiculous.” Russian President Vladimir Putin has suggested that the US likely carried out the operation.
The EU has called for a total cut of Russian energy by 2027, but some bloc members like Slovakia and Hungary rely on Russian crude delivered via the Soviet-era Druzhba oil pipeline.
Ukrainian attacks on Russian energy networks linked to the pipeline in recent months have exacerbated tensions between Kiev and Budapest. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has accused Ukraine of working to compromise his nation’s energy security because of his opposition to Kiev’s EU bid.
The Mystery of Trump, Ukraine, and Russia
By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | September 18, 2025
Hardly anyone in the mainstream press addresses the mystery of how Trump went from what was supposedly a secret agent of the Russians to an ardent opponent of Russia in the Ukraine-Russia war. My hunch is that the commentators in the mainstream press are so excited that Trump has turned pro-Ukraine that they don’t care that they were, not so long ago, accusing him of being a secret agent of Russia.
After all, who can forget the daily refrain during Trump’s first term in office. “Robert Mueller is going to save us!” We had to be subjected to that refrain from both Democrats and the mainstream press for more than a year. The notion was that Trump was, as president of the United States, secretly serving the interests of Russia. Democrats and most of the mainstream press were convinced that Robert Mueller, a lawyer who had been appointed as special counsel to investigate the matter, was going to save us all by concluding that Trump was, in fact, serving as a secret agent of Russia, which would then result in Trump’s removal from office through impeachment.
As we all know, Robert Mueller did not save us because there was nothing to save us from. The entire matter was one great big ridiculous conspiracy theory on the part of the mainstream press and Democrats. After a year of extensive investigation by a huge and very expensive staff of lawyers, Robert Mueller ended up concluding that the allegation was bogus.
Nonetheless, most everyone thought that Trump would do everything possible to establish friendly and peaceful relations with Russia. Such a policy, of course, wouldn’t make him a secret agent of Russia, any more than President Kennedy’s efforts in that direction made him a secret agent of Russia.
Yet in his first term in office, Trump ended up taking a fairly adversarial stand toward Russia. It was reasonable to conclude, however, that one reason he did that was an effort to bend over backwards to show that the secret-agent accusations were entirely bogus.
This time around as president, however, there was nothing that Trump had to prove. During his 2024 campaign, he made it clear that he intended to bring an end to the Ukraine-Russia war as soon as he took office. Of course, the easiest and fastest way to have done that was to immediately cut off all U.S. foreign aid to Ukraine. For a while, it appeared that that was precisely what Trump was going to do. When Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky visited Trump and Vice President Vance in the White House, both of them berated, insulted, humiliated, and dressed down Zelensky in public. Zelensky ended up leaving that meeting with his tail between his legs. Trump even stated that it was Ukraine that had started the war. The message seemed clear — U.S. aid to Ukraine was going to terminate, which would, of course, have been the logical course of action given Trump’s conviction that it was Ukraine that started the war.
However, sometime afterward, Trump did an about-face and began berating Russia and Russian president Vladimir Putin for not doing enough to end the war. He began threatening Putin with more economic sanctions. He made it clear that the U.S. government would continue supporting Ukraine, especially with weaponry. He has also taken an increasingly aggressive position toward Russia and Putin.
The mainstream press treats all this as perfectly normal. I myself find it extremely mysterious. How does a guy who is accused of being a Russian agent go all the way to becoming a Russian adversary? For me, that’s quite a switch.
The following is my opinion as to what has happened to bring about this very radical turnaround. As longtime readers of my blog know, I have long maintained that it is the national-security branch of the federal government — i.e., the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA — that is in charge of the federal government, especially in foreign affairs, and that the other three branches simply operate in support of the national-security branch.
It was the national-security branch that used NATO to successfully provoke Russia into attacking Ukraine. It did that by having NATO, an old relic from the Cold War racket, move eastward toward Russia’s borders knowing full well that Russia would object and ultimately invade Ukraine, after which they could condemn Russia for its “aggression.” The objective was to use a war with Russia to “degrade” Russia, give Russia its own “Afghanistan,” and bring about regime change within Russia. The U.S. would supply the weaponry and cash to Ukraine to accomplish this. It would only be Ukrainian soldiers, not American soldiers, who would be dying and so the American people wouldn’t care about what the national-security branch had done to bring about the war.
What the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA failed to confront was the distinct possibility that Russia would end up winning the war, which would necessarily mean a defeat of the United States. After the deadly 20-year U.S. fiasco war in Afghanistan and the installation of a pro-Iranian regime in the U.S. war of aggression against Iraq, the last thing the national-security branch wants is the humiliation of another military defeat, especially at the hands of Russia — its adversary in its old Cold War racket.
So, it’s my opinion that the national-security establishment has put the squeeze on Trump and made him see how important it is to “national security” that Russia not be permitted to win this war. It is my opinion that Trump has caved in to such pressure, just like Congress and the federal courts have long deferred to the national-security branch. That, to me, is a logical explanation for Trump’s about-face on Russia and also why he no longer heavily emphasizes the need to “drain the swamp” and bring an end to the “deep state.”
NATO eyeing ‘forceful’ response to Russia – FT
RT | October 9, 2025
NATO is considering easing restrictions on pilots to allow them to fire at unauthorized Russian aircraft, and drastically increasing its military footprint on the country’s border, the Financial Times reported on Thursday, citing sources. This comes amid Western claims that Russia violated EU airspace, which Moscow has denied.
Last month, Estonia and Poland claimed that Russian aircraft illegally entered their airspace. Western media has also speculated that Russia may be behind drone incidents in other EU nations, which at times disrupted air traffic. Moscow has said the West has not provided any evidence for the claims.
Several NATO members are now debating “a more forceful response” to Russia, according to the Financial Times.
The reported proposals include arming surveillance drones that currently gather intelligence on Russian military movements and lowering the threshold for fighter pilots on NATO’s eastern border to take down perceived threats. Other options under discussion involve conducting military exercises directly along the Russian border, the report said.
Two NATO officials told the FT that one urgent task is to simplify the rules of engagement, which now differ among member states. Some nations require pilots to visually identify targets before firing, while others permit engagement based on radar data or the perceived direction and speed of an approaching aircraft.
FT sources noted that the talks, initiated by states bordering Russia and backed by France and the UK, later developed into a bloc-wide discussion – which, however, is said to be in the early stages. Some governments reportedly advocate for strong deterrence policies, though others urge restraint to avoid direct confrontation.
The article comes on the heels of last week’s EU summit on creating a ‘drone wall’ to deter alleged Russian incursions, with Politico reporting that the meeting “descended into a familiar stalemate.”
Russia has accused NATO of escalating tensions near its borders through expanded military deployments and exercises. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has also stated that NATO is “de facto at war” with Russia due to the bloc’s support for Ukraine.
White House Has Not Provided Proof That Boats Destroyed in Caribbean Were Carrying Drugs
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | October 8, 2025
Two US officials said the White House has not provided proof to Capitol Hill that the four boats destroyed by the US military in the Caribbean were part of drug trafficking operations.
Starting in September, the US military began targeting vessels in the Caribbean Sea that were allegedly smuggling drugs for cartels designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations. The US has destroyed at least four ships, killing 21 people.
Two sources speaking with the AP said the Trump administration has not provided evidence to Congress that the boats were in fact linked to narco-terrorist cartels. The officials explained the White House has only pointed to the videos published by President Donald Trump and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth showing the boats being destroyed by US strikes.
The Constitutionality and legality of the strikes are in question. Congress has not declared war on the cartels. President Donald Trump says the US is now engaged in an armed conflict with the narco-terrorist organizations.
The White House has been tight-lipped about its legal authority to use military force in law enforcement matters. Attorney General Pam Bondi refused to tell Congress how the White House believes it has the authority to conduct extrajudicial executions.
While the Trump administration says the goal of the attacks is to stop the flow of lethal drugs to the US, reports say the White House is moving towards attempting to remove Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro from power.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio claims that Maduro is the leader of a narco-terrorist cartel.
UK universities spied on students for arms firms supplying Israel: Report
Press TV – October 8, 2025
Leaked emails have revealed that UK universities spied on students’ social media and chat groups at the request of arms companies supplying weapons to Israel.
According to internal correspondence obtained by The Guardian and Liberty Investigates, several universities assured these weapons manufacturers that they would keep watch over students’ online activity to detect and preempt potential protests.
Over the past two years, large-scale pro-Palestinian demonstrations have taken place across UK campuses, with students demanding an end to arms sales to the Israeli regime.
In one case, a university responding to a weapon manufacturer’s “security questionnaire” said it would conduct “active monitoring of social media” to detect any planned protests against Rolls-Royce during a careers fair.
Rolls-Royce, the UK’s second-largest arms manufacturer, directly supplies key components for Israeli military vehicles. Its German subsidiary, MTU, also produces engines used in Israel’s battle tanks, armored personnel carriers, and warships.
Loughborough University told a recruitment firm running a “Rolls-Royce roadshow” that its security team was conducting “active monitoring of social media … to provide early intelligence about protests.”
Emails from Heriot-Watt University suggest that Raytheon UK requested the university to “monitor university chat groups” on its behalf before a careers fair — and the university agreed to “implement the measures you have suggested.”
Similarly, Glasgow and Cardiff universities faced pressure from major UK aerospace firms — BAE Systems and Leonardo — to track online activity before career events. Some events were later moved online after potential protests were identified.
The UK also supplies BAE-made components to a global pool of F-35 fighter jets that Israel can access.
The surveillance of students’ social media has sparked outrage among advocacy groups, who argue that universities should support peaceful protest, not criminalize it.
Jo Grady, general secretary of the University and College Union, called the universities’ actions “utterly shameful,” adding that “so many universities have spent time and resources surveilling students who are engaged in peaceful protest against genocide.”
Data compiled by Liberty Investigates shows that one in four UK universities — 37 out of 154 — launched disciplinary investigations into pro-Gaza student and staff activists between October 2023 and March 2025, affecting up to 200 people.
The United Kingdom maintains close political and military ties with Israel, including arms sales, intelligence sharing, and military partnerships.
British arms companies continue to provide key components for Israeli military vehicles, fighter jets, and naval vessels — a relationship that human rights groups say makes the UK complicit in the regime’s war crimes in Gaza.
Exposed: Western journalists secretly served ‘Israel’s’ war propaganda
Al Mayadeen | October 8, 2025
Leaked emails from the inbox of former Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Ron Prosor reveal that prominent Western journalists, ncluding The Atlantic’s David Frum and British writer Douglas Murray, secretly offered to write speeches and provide other forms of assistance to Israeli officials during the entity’s 2014 war on Gaza, according to a report by journalists Murtaza Hussain and Ryan Grim published on Drop Site.
The correspondence, obtained by the hacker collective Handala and published by the whistleblower group Distributed Denial of Secrets (DDoSecrets), includes communications between Prosor and several journalists and media figures.
The trove reveals that while “Israel” faced global condemnation for its war that killed over 2,200 Palestinians, more than 550 of them children, figures in Western media were privately coordinating with Israeli diplomats on messaging and advocacy efforts.
Frum’s dual role: Journalist and speechwriter
David Frum, a senior editor at The Atlantic and a former speechwriter for US President George W. Bush who coined the phrase “Axis of Evil,” began his editorial role at the magazine in early 2014. Just months later, at the height of “Israel’s” bombardment of Gaza, Frum sent Prosor a full draft of a UN speech.
In an email dated July 31, 2014, Frum told Prosor he had collaborated with Seth Mandel, a writer for the neoconservative publication Commentary, to prepare the text. The draft portrayed “Israel’s” war on Gaza as part of the “free world’s” struggle against “tyranny”, comparing it to the Allied defeat of Nazi Germany and invoking figures such as Harry Truman and the architects of the Marshall Plan.
The speech urged Americans not to grow “war weary” and to maintain support for “Israel’s” military actions. Prosor thanked Frum and said he would review the draft, though it remains unclear whether the text was ever used.
Remarkably, just one day earlier, Frum had contacted Prosor in his capacity as a journalist for The Atlantic, requesting an interview for a profile of the ambassador. Two months later, The Atlantic published Frum’s piece, “Israel’s Man at the United Nations,” which praised Prosor for his “toughness” and diplomatic skill in defending “Israel” against international criticism.
Douglas Murray’s contributions and fundraising
Frum was not alone. British commentator Douglas Murray, now an associate editor at The Spectator and a frequent television pundit, also sent Prosor a proposed draft for a UN speech on the same day, July 31, 2014.
In his email, Murray described the text as “first draft ideas,” noting it may include “more diplomatic things than needed.” His proposed speech echoed hardline pro-“Israel” narratives, including condemnation of BDS movements and disparaging references to European Muslims.
Murray pledged to continue assisting the ambassador. “I will give all the time I can to helping get it right,” he wrote.
In subsequent months, Murray continued corresponding with Prosor, sharing articles and offering public relations advice. Later that year, he informed the ambassador that he had hosted a London fundraiser that brought in over £1 million for the Association for the Wellbeing of Israeli Soldiers, a group providing direct support to Israeli occupation forces.
Prosor thanked Murray for his “wonderful work”, calling his efforts vital to “Israel’s cause”.
The revelations contrast sharply with Murray’s later insistence on journalistic independence. In an April 2025 appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience, he chastised critics of “Israel’s” Gaza policies for lacking firsthand experience, saying he avoided commenting on countries he hadn’t visited.
Murray has frequently appeared in public wearing a “PRESS” flak jacket while embedded with Israeli forces, without disclosing his prior speechwriting and fundraising for the same military he was covering.
CNN producer’s role in Iron Dome fundraising
The leaked correspondence also implicates Pamela Gross, a former CNNproducer, who maintained close ties with Prosor during the war. Emails show that Gross and her husband, media executive Jimmy Finkelstein, then-owner of The Hill, privately discussed raising money for “Israel’s” Iron Dome missile system.
In one July 2014 message, Gross wrote to Prosor, “Clearly Iron Dome is doing the trick and saving lives. Please dear friend, let’s get it finished. Please let me know what is still left to be done at your soonest convenience.”
Prosor responded by thanking Gross for her “amazing work in fundraising for the Iron Dome project,” calling her and her husband “true assets to the state of Israel.” Gross later asked the ambassador to connect her with officials who could provide details about the project’s funding needs and how to channel donations.
Gross continued to book Prosor for CNNappearances while maintaining their personal friendship. In one 2015 exchange, she invited him on air to discuss Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to the US Congress, telling him she and her husband had recently dined with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak.
Unanswered questions, ethical fallout
The leaked cache contains hundreds of verified messages, photographs, and attachments, though DDoSecrets noted it could not independently authenticate every file. Handala, the hacking group that released the material, issued a violent threat against Prosor, which DDoSecrets publicly condemned.
None of the journalists or organizations named in the emails, including Frum, Murray, Mandel, CNN, or the Israeli Embassy in Germany, where Prosor now serves, responded to requests for comment from Drop Site, which first reported the findings.
The revelations raise fresh ethical concerns about the blurred lines between journalism and government lobbying efforts during times of war. While journalists are expected to maintain independence and avoid conflicts of interest, the emails suggest that several prominent figures in Western media privately worked to shape pro-“Israel” narratives during one of the deadliest wars on Gaza.
For “Israel”, such alliances helped bolster its messaging at a time of mounting global outrage over civilian casualties. For the public, however, the leaks expose the extent to which supposedly independent voices in Western journalism may have functioned, willingly or not, as part of a broader influence campaign.

