One million pounds and a war without end: Boris Johnson’s intervention in Kyiv changed Europe’s future
By Ricardo Martins – New Eastern Outlook – October 17, 2025
When history revisits the Ukraine conflict, one episode may stand out as a turning point: Boris Johnson’s sudden visit to Kyiv in April 2022, just after a tentative peace agreement had been initialed in Istanbul.
At that moment, a ceasefire was within reach. Yet Johnson, then British Prime Minister, reportedly urged President Volodymyr Zelensky not to sign, assuring him that the West would arm Ukraine “for as long as it takes.” That decision, now under renewed scrutiny following revelations by The Guardian, may have changed the course of the conflict—and Europe’s political destiny.
The Istanbul Agreement That Never Was
By early April 2022, Ukrainian and Russian negotiators had agreed in principle to a framework that could have ended hostilities. Ukraine would forgo NATO membership in exchange for security guarantees. But after Johnson’s unannounced visit to Kyiv, talks collapsed.
Following The Guardian investigation, David Arakhamia, a member of Zelenskyy’s own negotiating team in Istanbul, appeared to lend the idea credence. “When we returned from Istanbul, Boris Johnson came to Kyiv and said that we would not sign anything with them at all, and let’s just fight,” he said in a November 2023 interview.
According to leaked documents published by The Guardian, sourced from Distributed Denial of Secrets (DDoS), a US-based transparency collective, Johnson had other motives for discouraging compromise.
The investigation traces a £1 million payment from businessman Christopher Harborne, a major shareholder in a British drone manufacturer supplying the Ukrainian military, to a private company created by Johnson shortly after leaving office. Harborne also accompanied Johnson to Kyiv, raising questions about direct lobbying and influence-peddling at the highest level of government.
Following the Money
Harborne’s donation, ostensibly legitimate under UK law, takes on a darker significance in this context. As Johnson lobbied Zelensky to prolong the war, Harborne’s company stood to benefit from expanded arms contracts. The Guardian’s exposé describes this payment as “a reward for services rendered,” a euphemism for bribery in geopolitical disguise.
Johnson dismissed the report as “a pathetic Russian hack job,” yet neither he nor Downing Street has provided a transparent accounting of the donation or its timing. The optics are damning: a former prime minister allegedly persuading a wartime ally to reject peace while personally profiting through associates linked to the arms trade.
The Price of Prolongation
Since that fateful spring, the toll has been catastrophic. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian and Russian soldiers and civilians have perished. More than three trillion US dollars in Western aid and military spending have flowed into the conflict, much of it financed by debt and by diverting funds from social programmes.
European citizens are paying the price. Budgets once earmarked for welfare, healthcare, and pensions have been repurposed to sustain the war effort. Energy costs have soared, industrial competitivity has sunk, inflation has eroded savings, and social unrest has become regular across the continent.
The narrative of European solidarity has given way to anger and fatigue. Populist and far-right parties are sweeping across Europe. In this sense, Johnson’s intervention did not only prolong a war; it accelerated a social and political crisis within Europe itself.
From Peace Project to Proxy War
The European Union once prided itself on being a “peace project.” Yet its handling of the Ukraine conflict has projected a very different image: that of a continent complicit in militarisation and escalation. France and Germany, the supposed guardians of diplomatic balance, quietly aligned themselves with Washington’s maximalist stance.
No leader publicly questioned why the Istanbul Agreement was abandoned. No parliamentary inquiry has addressed whether Johnson’s visit influenced European policy and why European leaders did not censure Johnson.
In retrospect, Europe’s passivity reveals both dependency and cowardice. The EU’s foreign policy has become an echo of Washington’s strategic interests and those of arms manufacturers, such as Mr. Harborne, while dissenting voices were marginalised as “pro-Russian”. This reflex has stifled honest debate about the human and economic costs of the war and about who truly benefits from its continuation.
The Corruption Business
War has always been fertile ground for corruption, and Ukraine is no exception. From inflated procurement contracts to opaque aid transfers, vast sums have disappeared without audit. Johnson’s alleged bribe merely symbolises a broader pattern: the convergence of political ambition, corporate profit, and ideological fervour.
Bribery and influence-trading have evolved into sophisticated transnational systems cloaked in legality: foreign lobbying, consultancy fees, and donations to foundations. Such practices blur the line between governance and outright corruption. They ensure that conflicts endure not because peace is impossible, but because war remains profitable.
Europe’s Crisis of Leadership
The scandal surrounding Boris Johnson’s intervention in Ukraine exposes a deeper political and strategic crisis within Europe. The same continent that once championed diplomacy and human rights now finances a proxy war that has devastated a nation and destabilised an entire region.
European leaders invoke solidarity while diverting resources from welfare and pensions, tolerating rising inequality and industrial competitivity decline to sustain arms deliveries. The rhetoric of democracy has been replaced by the logic of deterrence.
Across the continent, disillusionment is fuelling the ascent of populist and far-right parties. Citizens who once viewed the EU as a guarantor of peace now perceive it as complicit in perpetual conflict. From Slovakia to the Netherlands, voters are turning against Brussels’ alignment with Washington, revealing a growing mistrust of supranational elites and foreign-driven policy agendas.
Johnson’s defenders claim his visit to Kyiv stemmed from moral conviction, not financial interest, but conviction cannot erase consequence. Had the Istanbul peace framework been pursued, thousands of lives and trillions in resources might have been spared. Instead, Johnson’s theatrics helped entrench a war whose primary beneficiaries are defence contractors and political opportunists.
That the European Union tolerated this manipulation without investigation or accountability reflects a failure of leadership, not merely a lapse of ethics. By outsourcing strategic direction to NATO and moral authority to Washington, Europe has strayed from its founding principles of peace and autonomy.
The result is a continent economically weakened, politically fragmented, and increasingly defined by the conflicts it once sought to prevent.
In sum, The Guardian investigation has done what official institutions would not: follow the money and expose the moral bankruptcy behind the rhetoric of freedom. Whether courts or parliaments act on these revelations remains uncertain. But the evidence is clear enough for history’s judgment.
Ricardo Martins, PhD in Sociology, specializing in International Relations and Geopolitics
Toxic AIPAC
By Adam Dick | Peace and Prosperity Blog | October 16, 2025
On Wednesday, Seth Moulton, a Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives from Massachusetts, announced he is running for the US Senate in a Democratic primary challenge to incumbent Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA). The next day, Moulton made another announcement — that he is returning all contributions he has received from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and refusing to accept any more AIPAC donations or support.
Is the timing coincidence for this candidate who has received AIPAC money while in the House, or has Moulton’s nascent Senate campaign recognized it can do better in its primary challenge against Markey if Moulton can disassociate himself from AIPAC? The latter seems the likely answer. AIPAC is disliked by many people for its pulling of levers behind the scenes to ensure Congress members keep supporting the US government giving massive financial and military support to the Israel government despite opposition from the American public.
AIPAC can and does give candidates a lot of money. But, at least for some campaigns, the toxicity of being connected to AIPAC can impose a cost greater than the benefit AIPAC’s money can buy.
Saleh al-Jafarawi, the Doghmush clan, and the illusion of ceasefire

By Mohammad Aaquib | MEMO | October 13, 2025
Saleh al-Jafarawi was abducted and executed by members of the Doghmush clan—an anti-Hamas faction within Gaza. He was not killed in battle, but in a context of internal militias acting under external influence.
This stark fact deserves to be front and center, because it exposes a quiet architecture of violence that functions even in moments when a ‘ceasefire’ supposedly holds. This is the occupation’s most insidious form, a war fought not through tanks or jets but through collaborators and chaos, ensuring that Gaza never truly rests. In this architecture of endless war, ceasefires are illusions, fragile pauses that conceal the unbroken machinery of control, where Israel’s hand remains unseen but ever present, orchestrating violence even in silence.
Netanyahu’s June 2025 admission confirms what many analysts have long suspected: Israel has been “activating” clans that oppose Hamas, arming or supporting them at least tacitly, leveraging internal divisions in Gaza. In multiple statements, he claimed that, acting “on the advice of security officials,” the Israeli government has enabled certain Palestinian clans to operate against Hamas. “What’s wrong with that? It’s only good. It saves the lives of IDF soldiers,” Netanyahu declared.
One of the prominent clans so enabled is the Abu Shabab clan, based in Rafah, which Israel admits to having activated. The “Popular Forces,” linked to them, have been accused by Palestinians and aid workers of criminal behavior, including looting incoming humanitarian aid convoys. These clans are local players with complicated histories: some held influence before Hamas’s takeover of Gaza in 2007; some engaged in smuggling or informal power networks; some have been marginalized under Hamas rule. What Netanyahu has done is to take these existing internal cleavages and weaponize them—using clan rivalries as a tool of proxy warfare.
Against this background, the abduction and killing of Saleh al-Jafarawi by Doghmush clan members is more than an individual tragedy. It’s a case study: how collaborators or clan-militias are used to silence voices loyal to the resistance, to undermine local governance, and to sow fear. Al-Jafarawi was known for his coverage of destruction, displacement, and civilian suffering—aligning him clearly with Hamas’s movement of resistance. That he was taken and killed by a clan opposed to Hamas points to targeted violence, not random crime. It shows how Israel’s support for these clans is more than just logistics or rhetoric; it makes them dangerous internal agents.
The idea of a ceasefire is deeply compromised in this model. Even when shelling or open military operations between Israel and Hamas pause, the war continues in shadow. Militia violence, kidnappings, assassinations: these are not paused by ceasefire agreements. The killing of al-Jafarawi during a period when hostilities at the border were reduced shows that ceasefire does not guarantee safety. It merely shifts some forms of warfare from open battlefields to intra-Palestinian rivalries and clandestine operations. This makes peace an illusion for many civilians, who cannot distinguish between external assaults and internal betrayals.
This is not a failure of policy but its intended outcome. Israel has long understood that total military victory in Gaza is unattainable; they have seen countless defeats. What is attainable is permanent incoherence. The tactic amounts to a form of entropic warfare: the deliberate creation of chaos to prevent reorganization. Rather than occupying territory directly, Israel governs through collapse. The breakdown of social cohesion performs the same function as a garrison. When Palestinians no longer trust their own institutions or each other, Israel’s strategic goals are met without the need for visible control. The killing of Saleh Al-Jaafrawi illustrates this invisible war.
Moreover, this use of clan proxies weakens governance in Gaza in fundamental ways. Hamas enjoys a degree of popular legitimacy: it won the 2006 elections, and many Gazans still see it as a symbol of resistance against occupation and as the de facto government providing social services amid blockade and war. When opposing clans act—and are backed or enabled by Israel—they do not just challenge Hamas militarily; they undermine its ability to govern. They create parallel sources of power, insecurity, and unpredictability. For citizens that means nobody is fully safe, nobody is fully accountable, and public institutions become weaker because they must not only fend off external pressure but internal sabotage.
This strategy reflects patterns seen elsewhere: in Lebanon, for example, Israel has historically supported militias and local factions hostile to dominant groups such as Hezbollah in order to fragment power, reduce unified resistance, and create zones of distrust. These tactics often lead to long-term instability, cycles of violence, social fragmentation, and a human cost that lingers long after any overt war is over.
What emerges is a pattern: Israel’s strategy is not limited to confronting Hamas militarily; it includes enabling internal enemies of Hamas to degrade support for it, destabilize its governance, terrorize its supporters, and silence its voices. Al-Jafarawi’s killing becomes emblematic. He was not killed at the border, not during an Israeli airstrike, but through internal betrayal—abducted and executed by anti-Hamas actors. This highlights a grim truth: even with ceasefires, peace is not restored unless the structures that enable proxy violence and mobilize collaborators are dismantled.
This form of warfare carries the advantage of plausible deniability. When Palestinians fight among themselves, Israel can posture as a bystander, lamenting “internal chaos” while benefiting strategically from it. The spectacle of disorder reinforces the narrative that Palestinians are incapable of self-rule, thereby justifying continued external control.
The clans that turn against their own people under the lure of Israeli support are not merely opportunistic criminals; they are instruments of a much darker political project. By accepting money, arms, or protection from the occupation, they become extensions of a state built on apartheid and domination. Their betrayal corrodes the moral fabric of Palestinian society from within, achieving what bombardments and blockades alone cannot: the dismantling of solidarity, the erosion of trust, and the quiet assassination of resistance.
Purging America First: Inside the GOP’s Zionist Vetting Machine
By Jose Alberto Nino – The Occidental Observer – October 12, 2025
In the dimly lit corridors of Capitol Hill, where backroom deals shape American foreign policy, House Speaker Mike Johnson recently conducted what can only be described as a strategic war council. On the afternoon of September 17, 2025, Johnson gathered with a who’s who of pro-Israel organizations for a private meeting ostensively designed to eliminate dissenting voices within the Republican Party. What emerged from this closed-door session reveals a coordinated effort to ensure ideological orthodoxy on Israel.
The meeting itself reads like something out of a tired political thriller. Johnson, who described himself to the assembled group as a “Reagan Republican” focused on “peace through strength,” went on to make a startling admission that isolationism is rising within the Republican Party and that a major debate on the issue is likely once President Donald Trump leaves office.
But Johnson’s most revealing statement came when he told the group that in his candidate-recruiting efforts, he’s working to filter out isolationists to prevent that wing of the party from growing more prominent in the House. Four people who attended the meeting confirmed this extraordinary pledge to Jewish Insider.
“The speaker was very, very direct about the U.S. role with Israel and in the world and understands that there are voices that don’t agree in both parties, on both extremes, and urges us all to be involved in fighting back against those extremes,” Eric Fingerhut, CEO of the Jewish Federations of North America, told the publication.
The guest list for Johnson’s gathering was a who’s who of America’s most powerful pro-Israel organizations. In attendance were representatives from The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, the Republican Jewish Coalition, Agudath Israel of America, AIPAC, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, National Council of Jewish Women, Synergos Holdings, CUFI Action, the Orthodox Union, the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, Standard Industries, the American Jewish Committee, Zionist Organization of America, National Debt Relief, Jewish Institute for National Security of America, the Deborah Project, Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Coalition for Jewish Values and the Endowment for Middle East Truth. This comprehensive coalition represents the full spectrum of pro-Israel advocacy, from religious organizations to political action committees to think tanks—a formidable alliance with vast resources and influence.
The Hunt for Republican Heretics
The Israeli lobby’s crosshairs have settled on several prominent Republicans whose independence on foreign policy has made them targets. Chief among them is Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), whose voting record has made him perhaps the strongest opponent of Israel in Congress according to Jewish advocacy groups.
Massie’s legislative actions against pro-Israel interests are extensive and well-documented. In December 2023, at the height of Israel’s war against Hamas, Massie shared a social media post implying that Congress was more interested in “Zionism” than “American patriotism.” In October 2023, following the Hamas attack, Massie was the only Republican to vote against a bipartisan resolution standing with Israel. He was also the sole Republican to vote against the Iron Dome Supplemental Appropriations Act and the only member of either party to vote against a resolution honoring Jewish American heritage and denouncing antisemitism.
“Antisemitism is deplorable, but expanding it to include criticism of Israel is not helpful,” Massie wrote on X, explaining his vote against a resolution reaffirming Israel’s right to exist. Even more provocatively, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) has emerged as an unexpected critic from the MAGA wing. In a dramatic departure from her previous pro-Israel stance, Greene has characterized Israel’s actions in Gaza as “genocide.”
Her transformation has prompted a furious response from AIPAC, which issued a fundraising message comparing her to progressive Democrats Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar:
Let’s call this what it is: Marjorie Taylor Greene is the newest member of the anti-Israel Squad. She may think this earns her praise from the far-left or online radicals — but we see it for what it is: a betrayal of American values and a dangerous distortion of the truth.
In response to AIPAC’s attack against her, Greene has doubled down, telling One America News Network that AIPAC should register as a foreign lobbyist and posting a photograph of a sign on her office door reading “no foreign lobbying.” She has accused Israel of having “incredible influence and control” over nearly every member of Congress, exposing pro-Israel lobby trips that she argues amount to foreign lobbying without accountability.
LinkBookmarkPerhaps nowhere is the Israeli lobby’s intervention more telling than in Texas’s 23rd Congressional District, where gun rights YouTuber Brandon Herrera mounted a formidable challenge against moderate Republican incumbent Tony Gonzales last election cycle. Herrera, known as “the AK Guy” to his 4.4 million YouTube subscribers, came within 354 votes of unseating Gonzales in the 2024 primary runoff.
Gonzales, a 20-year Navy veteran and cryptologist who rose to the rank of Master Chief Petty Officer, built his political résumé through Washington’s national security circles. He served as a legislative fellow in Senator Marco Rubio’s office and was a National Security Fellow at the pro-Israel Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a neoconservative think tank known for its hawkish foreign policy stance. In Congress, Gonzales has reflected that worldview by backing aid to Ukraine and Israel, stating that “if we fail to support our allies, China, Russia, and Iran will only become more powerful” with regard to a military aid spending package pending final passage in the U.S. House in April 2024.
The closeness of this race terrified pro-Israel groups, who saw Herrera as a genuine threat to their influence. AIPAC’s United Democracy Project spent $1 million opposing Herrera in a two-week ad buy, while the Republican Jewish Coalition added $400,000 in attack ads.
More significantly for the lobby’s concerns, Herrera had stated he would have voted against supplemental aid to Israel and other U.S. allies. “I would absolutely vote AGAINST the new proposed spending package for $95+ billion for foreign conflicts, while spending $0 on our southern border,” Herrera posted on X on April 19, 2024. “Any Republican who claims to be America first CANNOT vote for America last legislation.”
When asked directly whether he would pledge to end foreign aid, including to Israel, Herrera reiterated his position: “We can’t claim to be ‘America First’ while pushing spending bills like the most recent foreign aid package that gave almost $100 billion to every country except the US.”
The combined $1.4–1.5 million in spending by AIPAC and RJC helped Gonzales narrowly survive with 50.6% to 49.4%—a margin so slim it demonstrated the growing threat posed by America First candidates to the establishment’s foreign policy consensus. Herrera has already announced his intention to challenge Gonzales again in the 2026 Republican primaries, setting up another expensive battle. This time, the political winds may finally shift in Herrera’s favor.
The most audacious display of the Israeli lobby’s power may be their campaign against Thomas Massie. Pro-Israel Republican megadonors have established the MAGA Kentucky super PAC with $2 million specifically to oust the congressman. Paul Singer contributed $1 million, John Paulson added $250,000, and Miriam Adelson’s Preserve America PAC provided $750,000.
This goes far beyond normal political opposition; it’s a declaration of total war against foreign policy dissent among Republican ranks. AIPAC has already demonstrated this approach works. During the 2024 election cycle, AIPAC’s independent spending arm, the United Democracy Project, spent over $300,000 on Fox affiliate ads criticizing Massie’s voting record. UDP spokesperson Patrick Dorton did not mince words about UDP’s attacks against Massie: “We are not playing in the primary, but we are trying to shine a light on the radical anti-Israel record of Tom Massie. We want every single voter in the state of Kentucky to know about his anti-Israel actions.”
The Post-October 7 Reality
The October 7 Hamas attacks fundamentally transformed the Israeli lobby’s strategy and urgency. AIPAC increased its political spending nearly threefold in the months following the attacks, with average weekly spending jumping from $275,000 to over $740,000.
“Our focus in the 2024 election is to broaden and strengthen the bipartisan pro-Israel majority in Congress — and to defeat anti-Israel detractors,” AIPAC spokesman Marshall Wittmann told Capital News Service. “In the aftermath of the Hamas barbaric attack and the mounting threats of Iranian terrorist proxies, the importance of a pro-Israel Congress standing with our ally is clearer than ever.”
This represents more than increased spending; it’s a systematic campaign to ensure ideological conformity. The Israeli lobby’s post-October 7 mobilization has created what one Democratic donor adviser called “a huge, underappreciated change to the landscape.” Thousands of smaller donors who weren’t previously engaged have been activated, providing the financial foundation for an unprecedented intervention in American electoral politics.
Johnson’s pledge to “filter out isolationists” in candidate recruitment represents the institutionalization of ideological screening within the Republican Party leadership. This transcends opposing candidates in primaries and is mostly focused on preventing them from running in the first place by controlling access to party resources, endorsements, and financial networks.
The vetting process appears comprehensive. As the Jewish Insider report noted, Johnson is working to prevent the isolationist wing from “growing larger in the House” through his recruiting efforts. This suggests a systematic review of potential candidates’ positions on Israel and foreign aid, with those deemed insufficiently supportive being denied party backing.
This represents a fundamental shift in how American political parties operate. Rather than allowing primary voters to choose between competing visions, party leadership, at the behest of the Israel lobby, is pre-selecting candidates based on their adherence to specific foreign policy positions. The Israeli lobby has essentially outsourced candidate vetting to organizations whose primary loyalty is to world Jewry.
The Israeli lobby’s campaign to purge non-interventionist candidates and incumbents is part of a comprehensive campaign to eliminate legitimate foreign policy debate within the Republican Party. The success of this strategy in cases like the Gonzales-Herrera race demonstrates its effectiveness in the short-term. By deploying overwhelming financial resources against grassroots candidates, the lobby can overcome significant popular support for America First policies. Herrera’s near victory despite being outspent by millions shows the genuine appeal of his message and precisely why American Jewry views such candidates as existential threats.
The implications extend far beyond individual races. If successful, this campaign will fundamentally re-shape the Republican Party by eliminating voices that prioritize American interests over foreign commitments. With “unlimited” resources pledged against figures like Massie and systematic vetting of new candidates, Israeli interests are working to ensure that future Republican leaders never can question America’s relationship with Israel.
This endeavor may not be a walk in the park for organized Jewry, however. New trends point to younger voters souring on Israel. A University of Maryland Critical Issues Poll conducted between July 29 and August 7 showcased a dramatic generational divide within the Republican Party. While 52 percent of Republicans aged 35 and older sympathize more with Israel, that figure drops to just 24 percent among those aged 18 to 34.
The split grows even wider when it comes to Gaza. Among older Republicans, 52 percent view Israel’s actions as justified. Among younger ones, only 22 percent agree. “The change taking place among young Republicans is breathtaking,” said Shibley Telhami, the poll’s principal investigator. “While 52 percent of older Republicans (35+) sympathize more with Israel, only 24 percent of younger Republicans (18–34) say the same—fewer than half.”
This generational realignment accelerated after Operation Al-Aqsa Flood on October 7, 2023. Pew Research Center data show that unfavorable views of Israel among Republicans under 50 climbed from 35 percent in 2022 to 50 percent in 2025 — a striking 15-point jump. In contrast, Republicans over 50 shifted only slightly, from 19 percent to 23 percent.
Even evangelical Republicans, once Israel’s most reliable allies, are showing signs of fatigue. Among older evangelicals, 69 percent express sympathy for Israel, compared to only 32 percent among younger ones. Just 36 percent of younger evangelical Republicans consider Israel’s actions in Gaza justified.
In a broader rebuke of bipartisan orthodoxy, a September 2025 AtlasIntel poll found that only 30 percent of Americans support continued financial aid to Israel, underscoring how Washington’s “blank check” is increasingly out of step with public opinion. An increasing share of Republicans now argue that U.S. policy serves Israeli interests more than America’s.
The question now is whether the Republican Party belongs to its voters or to Tel Aviv. The battle lines are drawn, and the outcome will reveal who truly holds power in Washington.
After robbing EU taxpayers, Zelensky uses blackmail to get inside the Bloc
Strategic Culture Foundation | October 10, 2025
Since the United States-led NATO proxy war against Russia erupted in February 2022, the European Union has doled out $216 billion in aid to Ukraine. That’s equivalent to €186 billion, according to the EU’s latest official count. The true figure is likely to be even more.
The United States has given a similar amount to Ukraine. All paid for by taxpayers.
That’s about $400 billion total in three years, with the EU promising more over the next few years.
To put this in perspective, the EU aid to Ukraine is multiples more than all of the 27 member nations have received – combined – from the bloc’s collective budget and administration. According to Euronews reporting, some of the biggest recipients of EU subsidies each year are Germany (€14 bn), France (€16.5 bn), and Poland (€14 bn). Some of the smaller recipient countries are Austria, Denmark, and Ireland (around €2 bn).
That means Ukraine has received heaps more than all of the EU members combined.
Get your head around that. Ukraine, which is not a member of the European Union, is receiving manifold what actual member states are receiving. And you wonder why people in France are angrily taking to the streets because their shambolic government wants to cut pensions and other social welfare services to save money. Elsewhere, European governments are collapsing from unsustainable debt. And, at the same time, European citizens are constantly being lectured that their states need to spend more and more money on the NATO alliance, even to the insulting point of having to accept the cutting of social benefits and public services.
Ukraine and its corrupt Kiev regime of NeoNazis has bled Europe dry. The so-called president, Vladimir Zelensky (who canceled elections last year, so he’s not really a legitimate president), is reported to be funneling €50 million a month to overseas funds for his retirement while his wife goes luxury shopping in New York and Paris. Other members of the regime, like former prime minister and now “defense” minister Denys Shmyhal, are also reportedly up to their eyes in corruption, siphoning off billions in the military aid that Western taxpayers have paid for.
This week, Zelensky took his brassneckery to new levels – if that’s possible. He is demanding that Ukraine be made a member of the EU, and he wants to change the rules of the bloc to speed up the process. The EU has granted Ukraine (and Moldova) a fast-track path to membership, but, to its credit, Hungary has objected to this.
In June, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán cast a veto on continuing access talks for Ukraine. According to EU rules, there must be unanimity among member nations for the approval of new members. Orbán said Ukraine is not eligible because of the current war against Russia. “We would be importing a war,” he said.
Also, Budapest objects to Ukrainian language laws that discriminate against a Hungarian minority in the western Zakarpattia region of Ukraine. (The Russian language has been banned, too, in public offices.)
A referendum held in Hungary in June recorded that 95 percent of voters were against Ukraine becoming a member of the EU.
Zelensky is pushing ahead regardless, with his peevish wheedling. In a joint press conference in Kiev on Monday, with the indulgence of the Dutch PM at his side, Zelensky said: “Ukraine will be in the European Union, with or without Orbán, because it is the choice of the Ukrainian people.”
The little dictator flaunted his insufferable presumptuousness by hinting that the European Union would change its rules to bypass Hungary’s veto – all just to accommodate his scrounging regime. “Changing the procedure is called finding a way without Hungary,” he said. And in a further arrogant dismissal of democratic process, Zelensky asserted that the Hungarian people support his EU ambitions, contradicting the referendum back in June.
Orbán responded firmly by telling Zelensky he could not blackmail his way into the European Union.
Hungary’s Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó added a dose of reality by stating: “The decision on which country is ready to join the European Union and which can join the EU will not be made by the president of Ukraine, but by the European Union itself, where such decisions require unanimity.”
In a further comment, Szijjártó nailed it by saying that Zelenskyy is “completely detached from reality.” The Hungarian diplomat also reminded that the Kiev regime is blowing up energy infrastructure and jeopardizing the EU members’ vital interests.
Last month, Ukrainian forces exploded the Druzhba oil pipeline from Russia, cutting off energy supplies to Hungary and Slovakia. The Zelensky regime carried out the sabotage as retribution for Budapest’s opposition to Ukraine’s EU application. This is what Orbán was no doubt referring to when he slammed Zelensky this week for using blackmail.
So, there you have it. A corrupt, unelected, Neo-Nazi regime headed up by a Jewish scam-artist who plays piano with his penis while wearing women’s high heels is using terrorist tactics to attack the vital interests of EU members, and is now telling those members that they won’t have a vote in the EU processes, because the regime has decided it will become a member of the bloc. You could not make it up. This, too, after robbing the taxpayers of the bloc of €186 billion to wage a war against Russia – a war that has killed 1.5 million Ukrainian soldiers – which could spiral out of control into a nuclear Third World War.
If this is the kind of ruination that this regime can inflict while not being a member of the EU, one can only imagine the hellscape it will bring after becoming a member.
An analogy could be a householder being tormented by a criminal gang hanging around the gate, and then for the household to invite the gang inside the premises. The gang leader swaggers in, puts his dirty boots up on the table, and then starts demanding this and that from the householders, using blackmail to harm the children of the house, or some other abomination.
However, the real culprits in this obscene farce are the American and European elites who have fomented the war against Russia. Together, they have weaned and pampered the Kiev regime with largesse and indulgence, paid for by the taxpayers. The U.S.-EU transatlantic ruling class has cultivated the regime of corruption and war since the 2014 CIA-backed coup in Kiev against an elected president. The racket has laundered hundreds of billions of public money to the Western military industrial complex. The racket has destroyed the economies of Europe and is now destroying the semblance of democracy within Europe. (It’s not clear what Trump’s position in all of this is, but he probably doesn’t count anyway.)
The Western imperialist ruling class is so obsessed with its scheme for “strategic defeat” of Russia (and China) and for global domination that it is willing to cultivate any scumbag regime it can make use of for its goals, no matter how much that violates international law and its own professed democratic principles.
Zelensky’s corrupt dictatorship is just a pale reflection of his patrons in Washington, Brussels, Paris, Berlin, and London. They are all detached from reality.
No evacuation for Palestinian gangs collaborating with Israel in Gaza: Report
With a ceasefire in effect, ISIS-linked smuggler Yasser Abu Shabab and his militia face an uncertain future
The Cradle | October 9, 2025
Palestinian collaborator with Israel and Wall Street Journal columnist Yasser Abu Shabab and his “Popular Forces” will stay in Gaza following the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, according to a report by Israel Hayom on 9 October.
The Hebrew news outlet noted that Abu Shabab’s militia is deployed in areas that will not be evacuated by the Israeli army in the first phase of the ceasefire agreement, allowing the group to enjoy further Israeli protection, at least temporarily.
The Popular Forces established a base under Israeli guidance in the area east of the destroyed city of Rafah on the Gaza border with Egypt.
This area is far behind the “yellow line,” to which Israeli troops must withdraw, according to the map detailing US President Donald Trump’s ceasefire plan.
Abu Shabab’s men are also behind the “red line” of withdrawal, up to which an international force will allegedly be deployed. Areas occupied by the group in the destroyed cities of Beit Lahia and Beit Hanoun, and eastern Khan Yunis, are also behind the yellow line.
In early 2024, as Israel was imposing its starvation siege on Gaza, Israeli intelligence armed and funded Abu Shabab’s militia, tasking them with attacking and looting convoys carrying humanitarian aid into Gaza, including from the UN.
Israeli officials then blamed the attacks and chaos on Hamas, using the excuse to seize control of aid distribution in Gaza via the deadly Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF).
Abu Shabab was arrested by Hamas in 2015 and sentenced to 25 years in prison on charges of drug trafficking and theft.
He escaped in October 2023 after Israeli airstrikes hit the prison where he was being held. Leaders of Abu Shabab’s Tarabin clan publicly disowned him and have called for his killing for collaborating with Israel.
Hossam al-Astal, the Popular Forces commander in eastern Khan Yunis, claimed the group would remain in Gaza, while Hamas would be forced to leave.
“The Hamas dogs will not be happy, we exist and they are (the ones) leaving,” Astal claimed.
On the other hand, a security source in the Ministry of Interior in Gaza told Quds Press on Thursday that members of Abu Shabab’s militia fear being prosecuted after the genocide ends.
The source said members of the group have recently begun communicating with several families and tribal leaders, in hopes of opening indirect channels with the Ministry of Interior to resolve their legal and tribal status and ensure they are not subject to prosecution.
The source explained that this communication took place in secrecy, via intermediaries from local and tribal leaders, who relayed messages between the police leadership in Gaza and the militia members who wished to settle their status.
A specific mechanism was agreed upon for them to surrender and stand trial, while ensuring the confidentiality of the proceedings, the source added.
Sources also revealed to Quds Press that Abu Shabab’s group had helped Israeli forces arrest Dr. Marwan al-Hams, the director general of field hospitals, from a medical facility in Rafah about two months ago.
The sources said that additional information regarding the militia’s crimes would be revealed “in the coming days.”
Larry Ellison funded Rubio’s political rise after vetting him for ‘loyalty to Israel’
The Cradle | October 3, 2025
Larry Ellison, the billionaire co-founder of tech giant Oracle, vetted US Secretary of State Marco Rubio for his support of Israel before making large donations to the senator from Florida’s 2016 presidential election campaign, Drop Site news reported on 3 October.
Leaked emails released by an Iranian hacker group, Handala, show that Ellison discussed Rubio’s loyalty to Israel with Ron Prosor, who at that time served as the Israeli ambassador to the UN.
In April 2015, Ellison and Prosor exchanged several emails discussing Rubio and whether the senator would be an advocate for Israel.
After Ellison met Rubio for dinner, Prosor sent a message to Ellison asking how their meeting went.
“How was the conversation with Mario Rubio. [sic] Did he pass your scrutiny? Did you have a chance to talk about Israel? Would love to chat.”
Ellison responded by saying, “Hi Ron. Great meeting with Marco Rubio. I set him up to meet with Tony Blair,” adding, “Marco will be a great friend for Israel.”
At the time, Rubio was seen as a strong challenger in the Republican presidential primary, which was ultimately won by upstart candidate Donald Trump.
Ellison then donated $4 million to Rubio’s presidential campaign, making him among the top donors of the 2016 cycle.
Since that time, Rubio has been a staunch advocate for Israel and is currently helping Ellison in his goal of building a media empire and taking control of Gaza.
Drop Site notes Rubio has played a role in helping Ellison take control of TikTok, which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu views as crucial to influencing young people in the US to support Israel.
While under Chinese ownership, TikTok allowed relatively free criticism of Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza.
Ellison is seeking to expand his influence over the traditional media in the US as well. His son David is moving to take control of CBS News, CNN, Warner Brothers, and Paramount, and will reportedly install pro-Israel journalist Bari Weiss as editor of CBS News.
Ellison is also seeking to benefit from post-war Gaza reconstruction through former UK prime minister Tony Blair and the institute he heads.
Blair is seeking to lead a committee that US President Donald Trump plans to establish to rule Gaza and oversee the reconstruction of the enclave once it has been emptied of its roughly 1.7 million Palestinian inhabitants.
Drop Site notes further that Trump’s son-in-law, New York real estate investor Jared Kushner, tasked the Tony Blair Institute this spring to develop a plan for post-war Gaza.
As Secretary of State, Rubio is in a position to influence the plans for Gaza and help determine who will benefit financially from Trump’s plan to build a high-tech city, the “Riviera of the Middle East,” on stolen Palestinian land.
If Blair is given the role of overseeing Gaza’s reconstruction, Ellison will have strong influence in the enclave. Drop Site observed that the “Tony Blair Institute has effectively become an offshoot of Oracle,” following donations of $350 million from Ellison.
Ellison has long been a supporter of Israel. At a 2014 fundraiser attended by other pro-Israel billionaires, he declared that “there is no greater honor” than supporting the Israeli military.
In 2017, Ellison donated over $16 million to the Friends of the IDF, the largest-ever donation to the organization. Ellison is also good friends with Prime Minister Netanyahu, who has been a guest at Ellison’s private island in Hawaii.
The Nature of hypocrisy: pharma-funded journals smearing independent voices
Nature alleges that I endanger public health, but it is the journal — steeped in pharma money — that ought to be looking inward.
By Maryanne Demasi, PhD | October 1, 2025
When an editor from Nature emailed me this week, it wasn’t a neutral request for comment. It was a prelude to a hit piece — filled with defamatory accusations and framed around a predetermined narrative.
According to the email, I was being lumped into an “anti-vaccine movement,” accused of “endangering public health,” and “profiting from disseminating misinformation.”
No evidence was provided. No articles were cited. No definition of “anti-vaccine” was offered. No complainants were named. Just blanket accusations intended as a character assassination.
Conflict of interest at the heart of Nature
And who is casting these stones?
Nature — a journal that publishes vaccine research while pocketing revenue from pharmaceutical advertising and sponsored content.
To then assign an editor to target independent journalists who scrutinise that very industry is a glaring conflict of interest.
A medical journal acting as both mouthpiece and judge of what counts as “misinformation” is like a tobacco company funding lung health studies while attacking anyone who questions them.
The hypocrisy is staggering.
On its own website, Nature boasts of partnerships with Johnson & Johnson, Merck, AstraZeneca and other vaccine companies, dressing them up as “pioneering collaborations” to “support science.” It even publishes paid advertising features.

Meanwhile, I’ve never taken a cent from the drug industry. My work is sustained by readers who choose to support independent journalism.
Yet Nature accuses me of “profiting” — as if being funded by the public is more corrupting than raking in thousands, if not millions, from the very companies you’re supposed to scrutinise.
To test how deep the rot runs, I’ve requested that Nature disclose its advertising revenue for the past decade, broken down by pharmaceutical corporations, government agencies, and NGOs.
I will publish those figures if and when they are provided.
Loaded language
Nature’s email branded me part of an “anti-vaccine movement.” But what does that actually mean?
Is questioning regulatory capture “anti-vaccine”?
Is demanding the timely publication of safety signals “anti-vaccine”?
Is exposing the failures of the vaccine injury compensation scheme “anti-vaccine”?
Is pointing out the poor oversight of vaccine trials “anti-vaccine”?
By that logic, critics of arsenic in drinking water would be “anti-arsenic,” and anyone calling for safer driving would be “anti-car.” The absurdity is obvious, yet the label is useful to silence debate.
And the email’s language was revealing.
Phrases like “scientific consensus” and “peer-reviewed science” are waved around like trump cards, but in practice they are red flags — appeals to authority rather than evidence.
‘Consensus’ can be manufactured. And ‘peer review’ is no shield against corruption when journals themselves are compromised.
I have documented journal–pharma ties, the retraction of inconvenient studies, and the use of pharma-funded “fact checks” masquerading as science to discredit politically uncomfortable findings.
So when an editor of Nature hides behind these clichés instead of addressing the evidence I present, it tells you everything. This isn’t about protecting science, it’s about protecting a narrative.
And I’m clearly not the only target.
Dr Robert Malone — also a Substack publisher and now a member of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunisation Practice — received the same media request from Nature.
The journal’s smear campaign extends even to those who now sit on America’s top vaccine advisory body.

Nature insists that “anti-vaccine stances are supported by a small body of evidence compared to the larger weight of evidence for vaccination.”
But that’s probably because journals act as gatekeepers, blocking challenges to orthodoxy and shutting out novel viewpoints. Studies that raise concerns are rejected, buried or retracted, while industry-friendly findings sail through unopposed.
It isn’t the science that’s lacking — it’s the willingness of journals to let inconvenient results see the light of day. The house of cards is collapsing, and that is why the attacks on dissent are more aggressive than ever.
And those attacks often come from self-proclaimed experts who are themselves conflicted, embedded in institutions sustained by the teat of industry, and unwilling to disclose their own conflicts.
Pot calling the kettle black: the Proximal Origin scandal
Notably, while Nature postures as a guardian against “misinformation,” it bears responsibility for one of the pandemic’s most notorious scandals.
In March 2020, Nature Medicine — part of the Nature portfolio — published “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2,” which declared the virus could not have been engineered in a lab.

The paper was splashed across headlines and weaponised to dismiss the lab-leak theory as a “conspiracy.”
But private emails and Slack chats told another story. The authors harboured serious doubts and admitted a lab origin could not be ruled out.
Hundreds of scientists now call the paper a ‘political tract’ dressed up as science, and thousands have petitioned for its retraction. Yet Nature Medicine refuses, brushing it aside as a “point of view” piece.
If that isn’t misinformation, then what is?
Even the White House has distanced itself. Its website now acknowledges that the Proximal Origin paper was used to suppress debate, and alleges the authors were nudged by Dr Fauci to push the “preferred” zoonotic origin narrative.
Time for accountability
Make no mistake, this is ‘the system’ at work.
Powerful journals with financial ties to industry unleashing hatchet men to smear independent journalists and scientists, rather than engaging with evidence.
I won’t play along. My job is to hold institutions accountable, not to curry their favour. If Nature wants to brand that “misinformation,” so be it. History shows that today’s heresy is often tomorrow’s truth.
This goes to the heart of the corruption of medical publishing — a system Robert F. Kennedy Jr has repeatedly warned about, and one that now demands scrutiny at the highest levels.
With Dr Jay Bhattacharya at the helm of the National Institutes of Health, there is finally an opportunity to investigate the conflicts of interest, selective censorship, and financial entanglements that journals like Nature have normalised.
When those who profit from pharma partnerships claim the authority to police what lies “outside the scientific consensus,” public trust in science collapses.
And that collapse is not the fault of independent journalists asking hard questions. It is the fault of journals that serve industry interests over science.

The Israel Lobby Wants Thomas Massie Gone. Will Voters Obey?
By Jose Alberto Nino | The Occidental Observer | September 29, 2025
The knives are out for Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), and his political survival could prove whether Congress still answers to American voters or to a foreign lobby with limitless cash.
Pro-Israel Republican megadonors recently set up the MAGA Kentucky super PAC with $2 million specifically to oust Massie. Paul Singer contributed $1 million, John Paulson added $250,000, and Miriam Adelson’s Preserve America PAC provided $750,000. The Republican Jewish Coalition has promised “unlimited” campaign spending if Massie runs for Senate, with CEO Matt Brooks declaring that “if Tom Massie chooses to enter the race for US Senate in Kentucky, the RJC campaign budget to ensure he is defeated will be unlimited.”
President Donald Trump has also jumped into the fray, branding Massie a “pathetic loser” who should be dropped “like the plague.” Overall, a constellation of pro-Zionist forces is mobilizing at full force to unseat Congress’s most principled non-interventionist politician since Ron Paul retired in 2013. In many respects, Massie has taken up Paul’s mantle of foreign policy restraint — a political agenda that has never sat well with organized Jewry. Massie’s legislative track record on foreign policy speaks for itself.
Massie’s Long Track Record of Voting Against Foreign Policy Interventionism
Throughout his congressional career, Massie has established himself as Congress’s most consistent opponent of the neoconservative/neoliberal foreign policy consensus. His principled opposition to endless wars and foreign entanglements has earned him the nickname “Mr. No” — similar to his predecessor Ron Paul — for frequently casting lone dissenting votes against military interventions.
In 2013, Massie introduced the War Powers Protection Act to “block unauthorized U.S. military aid to Syrian rebels.” He argued that “since our national security interests in Syria are unclear, we risk giving money and military assistance to our enemies.” When Obama sought to arm Syrian rebels in 2014, Massie voted against the plan, declaring it “immoral to use the threat of a government shutdown to pressure Members to vote for involvement in war, much less a civil war on the other side of the globe.”
Massie consistently opposed U.S. involvement in Yemen’s civil war, co-sponsoring multiple bipartisan resolutions to invoke the War Powers Resolution and “remove United States Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities in the Republic of Yemen.” He stated that “Congress never authorized military action in Yemen as our Constitution requires, yet we continue to fund and assist Saudi Arabia in this tragic conflict.”
His opposition to NATO expansion proved equally consistent. In 2017, Massie was one of only four House members to vote against a pro-NATO resolution, explaining that “the move to expand NATO in Eastern Europe is unwise and unaffordable,” and such expansion contradicted Trump’s campaign assertion that “NATO is obsolete.”
Regarding the Russo-Ukrainian war, Massie maintained his non-interventionist stance, receiving an “F” grade from Republicans for Ukraine. He opposed the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act, multiple aid packages, and efforts to strip Ukraine funding. Massie argued that supporting Ukraine aid was “economically illiterate and morally deficient,” declaring that “the American taxpayers have been conscripted into making welfare payments to this foreign government.”
Most recently, in June 2025, Massie introduced a bipartisan War Powers Resolution with Rep. Ro Khanna to “prohibit United States Armed Forces from unauthorized involvement” in the Israel-Iran conflict. After Trump’s strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, Massie criticized the action as “not Constitutional,” remaining the only Republican co-sponsor of the war powers resolution.
Massie’s Anti-Zionist Streak
Massie’s most politically dangerous positions involve his consistent opposition to pro-Israel legislation, earning him the distinction of being the lone Republican opposing numerous Israel-related measures.
In July 2019, Massie cast the sole Republican vote against a resolution opposing the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement. The resolution passed 398-17, but Massie defended his position by stating he does not support “federal efforts to condemn any type of private boycott, regardless of whether or not a boycott is based upon bad motives” and that “these are matters that Congress should properly leave to the States and to the people to decide.”
In September 2021, Massie was the only Republican to vote against $1 billion in funding for Israel’s Iron Dome defense system. He explained that “my position of ‘no foreign aid’ might sound extreme to some, but I think it’s extreme to bankrupt our country and put future generations of Americans in hock to our debtors.” This vote prompted AIPAC to run Facebook ads stating “When Israel faced rocket attacks, Thomas Massie voted against Iron Dome.”
Perhaps most controversially, on May 18, 2022, Massie cast the lone vote against a resolution condemning antisemitism, which passed 420-1. The American Jewish Committee criticized him, stating that “while Democrats and Republicans united, Rep. Massie, who has also opposed bills on Holocaust education and Iron Dome funding, decided that combating rising hatred is not important.” Massie defended his vote by tweeting that “legitimate government exists, in part, to punish those who commit unprovoked violence against others, but government can’t legislate thought.”
In October 2023, Massie opposed a $14 billion aid package for Israel, proclaiming that “if Congress sends $14.5 billion to Israel, on average we’ll be taking about $100 from every working person in the United States. This will be extracted through inflation and taxes. I’m against it.” When AIPAC criticized him, Massie responded that “AIPAC always gets mad when I put America first. I won’t be voting for their $14+ billion shakedown of American taxpayers either.”
On October 25, 2023, Massie was the sole Republican to vote against a resolution affirming Israel’s right to defend itself following the October 7 Hamas attacks. A month later, on November 28, 2023, he became the only member of Congress to oppose a resolution affirming Israel’s right to exist and equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism, which passed 412-1.
The most explosive moment came in December 2023 when Massie posted a meme of the rapper Drake contrasting “American patriotism” with “Zionism,” implying Congress prioritized the latter. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called the post “antisemitic, disgusting, dangerous” and demanded he remove it. The White House labeled it “virulent antisemitism.” Republican Jewish Coalition CEO Matt Brooks condemned it, stating “Shame on you @RepThomasMassie. You’re a disgrace to the US Congress and to the Republican Party.”
Massie vs. Trump
Trump’s escalating attacks on Massie reveal the extent to which the sitting president serves pro-Israel interests rather than pursuing genuine ideological differences. The timing and intensity of Trump’s criticism align suspiciously with Massie’s most vocal challenges to Israeli influence in Congress.
In June 2025, after Massie criticized Trump’s Iran strikes as “not Constitutional,” Trump unleashed a scathing Truth Social response calling Massie “not MAGA” and declaring that “MAGA doesn’t want him, doesn’t know him, and doesn’t respect him.” Trump branded Massie a “simple-minded ‘grandstander’ who thinks it’s good politics for Iran to have the highest level Nuclear weapon” and concluded that “MAGA should drop this pathetic LOSER, Tom Massie, like the plague!”
This vitriol represents a dramatic shift from Trump’s 2022 endorsement, when he called Massie a “Conservative Warrior” and “first-rate Defender of the Constitution.” The transformation occurred precisely as Massie intensified his criticism of Israeli influence and foreign aid. Trump’s attacks escalated further after Massie’s explosive June 2024 Tucker Carlson interview where he revealed that “everybody but me has an AIPAC person. … It’s like your babysitter, your AIPAC babysitter who is always talking to you for AIPAC.”
Massie elaborated that “I have Republicans who come to me and say that’s wrong what AIPAC is doing to you, let me talk to my AIPAC person… I’ve had four members of Congress say I’ll talk to my AIPAC person and like it’s casually what we call them my AIPAC guy.” This revelation exposed the systematic nature of Israeli influence over Congress, prompting immediate backlash from pro-Israel organizations and likely contributing to increased donor funding against his re-election campaign.
The pattern makes clear that Trump’s hostility toward Massie stems less from policy disagreements than from his deference to powerful Jewish donors. Although he often claims to oppose “endless wars,” Trump’s attacks on Massie — the most consistent non-interventionist in Congress — expose where his true loyalties lie in advancing the agenda of Jewish supremacist interests rather than pursuing an independent foreign policy. House Speaker Mike Johnson has signaled that GOP leadership will abandon Massie, stating that “he is actively working against his team almost daily now and seems to enjoy that role. So he is, you know, deciding his own fate.”
AIPAC is on the Hunt
AIPAC’s 2024 electoral victories demonstrate the lobby’s willingness to spend unprecedented sums to eliminate critics of Israeli policy. The organization’s success in defeating progressive Democrats and protecting establishment Republicans reveals a coordinated strategy to purge Congress of independent voices. AIPAC will look to replicate its successes against the likes of Israel critics such as Massie.
Against Rep. Jamaal Bowman in New York’s 16th District, AIPAC’s United Democracy Project (UDP) spent $14.5 million opposing Bowman while also propping up challenger George Latimer. Independent media outlet Sludge reported that “the $14.5 million AIPAC’s super PAC has spent in the NY-16 Democratic primary is more than any outside group has ever spent on a single House of Representatives election race.”
The spending was fueled by Republican megadonors channeled through AIPAC, with WhatsApp founder Jan Koum donating $5 million to UDP. Responsible Statecraft noted that “AIPAC effectively acted to launder campaign funds for Republican megadonors into the Democratic primary, where the spending was generally identified in media as ‘pro-Israel,’ not ‘Republican.’” By election day, Latimer-aligned groups had outspent Bowman’s backers by over seven-to-one.
Against Rep. Cori Bush in Missouri’s 1st District, UDP spent over $8.5 million to attack her record on Israel and support her pro-Zionist challenger Wesley Bell. The Bush-Bell primary became one of the most expensive House primaries ever with over $18 million in total ad spending. Bush called it “the second most expensive congressional race in our nation’s history, $19 million and counting” funded by “mostly far-right-funded super PACs, against the interests of the people of St. Louis.”
Even in Republican primaries, AIPAC intervened to protect establishment allies. To defend moderate Rep. Tony Gonzales against challenger Brandon Herrera in Texas’s 23rd District, UDP spent $1 million opposing Herrera in a “two-week ad buy.” The Republican Jewish Coalition added $400,000 in attack ads against Herrera. Combined AIPAC and RJC spending totaled approximately $1.4-1.5 million, helping Gonzales narrowly defeat Herrera by just 354 votes with 50.6% to 49.4%.
These victories came as part of AIPAC’s broader $100+ million spending cycle, with Common Dreams noting that “AIPAC money has already made a significant impact, helping a pair of pro-Israel Democrats defeat progressive Reps. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) and Cori Bush (D-Mo.)—two of Congress’ most vocal critics of Israel’s assault on Gaza—in recent primary contests.”
How Massie’s Race Could Determine the Israel Lobby’s Actual Power
Massie’s 2026 primary represents the ultimate test of whether any politician can survive the full force of pro-Israel opposition. The Kentucky race will determine if AIPAC’s previous victories represent sustainable power or pyrrhic victories that expose the lobby’s long-term vulnerabilities.
Massie’s unique position may prove more defensible than Bowman’s or Bush’s urban districts. His rural Kentucky constituency shows less susceptibility to urban media campaigns and maintains stronger skepticism of foreign entanglements. Moreover, his local roots provide credibility that transcends typical political attacks. The Kentucky representative’s ability to frame opposition as foreign interference rather than domestic policy disagreements could resonate with voters increasingly suspicious of the pro-Israel establishment that dominates Washington’s political scene.
The financial strain of AIPAC’s previous victories may also constrain future spending. The organization’s $100+ million commitment across multiple races represents an unsustainable pace that could face donor fatigue. Each expensive victory exposes the lobby’s methods to greater scrutiny and potential backlash. Progressive groups increasingly highlight AIPAC’s role in primary defeats, potentially mobilizing opposition that limits future effectiveness.
Massie’s survival would demonstrate that principled politicians can withstand pro-Israel pressure through constituent loyalty and grassroots support. His defeat would confirm that no elected official can challenge Israeli interests regardless of their domestic support. The Kentucky race thus represents a pivotal moment in determining whether American foreign policy serves American interests or remains subordinate to foreign influence.
If Massie withstands the assault, it will mark the first crack in the façade of Zionist invulnerability; if he falls, it will prove that American politicians can be bought and buried by World Jewry’s limitless stockpiles of cash.
Israel wins TikTok
By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos | Responsible Statecraft | September 27, 2025
A year ago, powerful critics in Congress and the tech world were complaining that TikTok was promoting anti-Israel messaging and were suggesting it needed to be shut down.
Turns out it didn’t need to be eliminated. TikTok is a message force multiplier after all, and only requires, apparently, the right people to own it. Like Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, the second richest man in the world and the single biggest private donor of the Israeli Defense Forces, who has referred to the state of Israel as his own. He has direct stakes in a head spinning galaxy of news, television and Hollywood media companies, mainly through the recent Paramount Skydance Corporation takeover, a mega conglomerate now run by his son David Ellison (who is reportedly on the cusp of making vigilantly pro-Israel journalist Bari Weiss a top exec at newly-acquired CBS). Ellison the elder also is a major stakeholder in X and Tesla.
Add Rupert Murdoch, head of media conglomerate NewsCorp (Fox News), a perennial critic of “anti-Israel bias” in the media who in 2024 said Israel is “alone on the front line of Western democratic civilization.” Also Ellison’s right-hand at Oracle, Israeli-American Safra Catz, great friend of President Trump, who has traveled to Israel several times since Oct. 7, 2023 in support of its war and continued Oracle partnerships there, and in a July appearance in Israel told an an audience that “we (Oracle) are on the side of freedom. We are on the side of democracy.” She followed that with “some of the best people in the world are here in Israel, and there’s no question about that. And everyone knows it. Some of the big winners will be here. Mark my words.”
Throw into this mix billionaire Jeff Yass, a top GOP donor and current TikTok investor whose philanthropy is connected to a carousel of pro-Israel outfits that have funding ties to the IDF and AIPAC, plus explicitly anti-Muslim campaigns that among their issues, advocate for U.S. confrontation with Iran.
All of these individuals and more are reportedly part of a mega deal to buy TikTok for $14 billion. The details are here. Trump says the full roster of private U.S. investors (China’s Bytedance can only own a 20% stake) will be announced in a “matter of days.” But Forbes says Ellison’s “Oracle, private equity firm Silver Lake and MGX, an AI-focused investment firm established by the government of Abu Dhabi” will have a whopping 40% stake in the new TikTok. Oracle is reportedly to get 15% and be named the app’s “security provider.”
The $14 billion deal is being called a “fire sale” by some observers who point out that Elon Musk paid triple that for Twitter in 2022. This highly suggests that this transaction is more about geopolitics and ideology rather than a financial gain for investors. Aside from its more than 1.5 billion regular users world-wide, TikTok has now become where 30% of Americans get their news. Now, not only will American companies like Oracle, which has numerous government tech contracts spanning defense, intelligence, and civilian agencies, have access to TikTok’s user data, it will also have control of the algorithms that manage the kind of news, the messaging and images, that all of those users see.
“This was not a fair-market transaction,” said Milton Mueller, a professor at Georgia Tech specializing in digital governance, in Newsweek. “It’s a politically determined restructuring.” Some might say, with the constellation of GOP and MAGA supporters in the reported investor mix, this has the makings of a new Trump-friendly megaphone. But it is so much more. In essence, like Safra Catz says, the big “winners” will be in Israel.
‘Israel’ pays influencers $7K per post to whitewash Gaza genocide
Al Mayadeen | October 1, 2025
Responsible Statecraft on Wednesday published an investigative report uncovering how the Israeli government is secretly bankrolling a vast social media influence campaign, paying Western content creators thousands of dollars per post to launder pro-“Israel” propaganda online as Palestinian civilians continue to be massacred in Gaza.
The investigation, authored by Nick Cleveland-Stout, reveals that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu personally endorsed the effort, urging Israeli officials and media allies to coordinate messaging through paid influencers.
“We have to fight back. How do we fight back? Our influencers. I think you should also talk to them if you have a chance, to that community, they are very important,” Netanyahu said at a closed-door meeting Friday, openly acknowledging the regime’s strategy to shape public opinion through paid social media figures.
According to US filings under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), “Israel’s” Ministry of Foreign Affairs contracted Bridge Partners, a Washington DC-based lobbying and public relations firm, to manage the covert operation, codenamed the “Esther Project.” The project, coordinated with Havas Media Group Germany, carries a budget of $900,000, spanning June to November 2025.
After subtracting legal and administrative costs, approximately $552,946 was allocated for direct influencer payments between June and September. With 75 to 90 paid posts projected in that timeframe, each influencer could be earning between $6,100 and $7,300 per post, effectively turning social media feeds into a battlefield of paid Israeli state messaging.
Neither Havas nor Bridge Partners responded to questions from reporters seeking clarity on which influencers were hired or what guidelines governed their content.
State-funded disinformation during genocide
The documents show the operation was deliberately routed through US intermediaries to conceal direct Israeli sponsorship, allowing Tel Aviv to flood Western platforms like TikTok and Instagram with state-crafted narratives while evading transparency laws.
Bridge Partners’ co-founders, Yair Levi and Uri Steinberg, each hold a 50 percent stake in the firm. Among their senior advisors is Nadav Shtrauchler, a former Israeli army Spokesperson Unit major, a division notorious for whitewashing Israeli war crimes and manipulating wartime coverage.
For legal counsel, the firm hired Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, a US law firm previously linked to NSO Group, the spyware company behind Pegasus, which has been used to surveil journalists, activists, and Palestinian human rights defenders.
The “Esther Project” represents a new frontier in “Israel’s” propaganda machine, weaponizing Western influencer culture to sanitize a campaign that has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians, mostly women and children, under what UN investigators have deemed acts of genocide.
Digital warfare and Western complicity
The name “Esther Project” bears resemblance to the Heritage Foundation’s “Project Esther”, a US initiative that seeks to brand critics of “Israel” as antisemites or terrorist sympathizers. While no formal link has been proven, both efforts reflect a shared strategy: criminalize solidarity with Palestine while amplifying pro-“Israel” voices through digital media manipulation.
Analysts warn that such state-funded disinformation campaigns not only distort reality but also exploit Western audiences’ ignorance, turning popular culture and lifestyle platforms into tools of psychological warfare.
“We have to fight back,” Netanyahu told his aides, a statement critics say lays bare the government’s reliance on paid influence rather than truth to maintain Western support.
The investigation by the Responsible Statecraft offers a rare glimpse into how “Israel” is exporting its information war into Western social media ecosystems, spending public funds to drown out Palestinian voices and whitewash atrocities in Gaza.
