The new assault of the Zionist lobby in Brazil
By Raphael Machado | Strategic Culture Foundation | April 14, 2026
The role of the Zionist lobby in the U.S. is so notorious that it has practically become contemporary folklore. Some European authors also emphasize the great influence that the Zionist lobby enjoys, primarily in France, and secondarily in the United Kingdom and Germany. Nowadays, there is also increasing talk of its influence over Argentina, especially in the context of the Andinia Plan.
But Brazil is almost always left out of this equation. To some extent, it is as if the image of a tropical “paradise” in perfect balance between Catholic faith and Dionysian spirit does not quite align with Zionist manipulations. But this perception is misleading.
In the past, we have commented on the overwhelming neo-Pentecostal growth in Brazil. Today, they make up approximately 30% of the Brazilian population, and with their theological specificities, they bring with them an obsession with the State of Israel. Moreover, there are plenty of theses claiming that neo-Pentecostal penetration in Latin America was a successful operation orchestrated by the CIA to subvert hegemonic Catholic spirituality and pave the way for Zionism.
In parallel, however, the Brazilian Jewish community itself has gradually built a modestly influential lobby, well-connected in politics, the media, and the judiciary, though far less aggressive than the Zionist lobby in other countries.
The test to verify, however, the degree of Zionist influence in Brazil and how much neo-Pentecostal expansion will serve to guarantee Zionist designs is unfolding now.
After the Gaza War, in which the State of Israel clearly attempted to carry out a Palestinian genocide, Israel’s reputation was completely shattered. All the credit accumulated because of the Holocaust was entirely exhausted by the scenes of mass extermination of innocent women and children. The lies and hypocrisy were so great that many people even began to question more easily whether Israel might have been behind 9/11 and the Kennedy assassination.
In recent years, Israel’s influence schemes became famous, including paying virtual activists to make pro-Israel comments in online discussions. This has been given the name “Hasbara.” It is nothing other than propaganda.
We could say, therefore, that Gaza made decades of “Hasbara” disappear.
Naturally, however, Israel could not give up such an important asset. As much as Israel seems to disdain international opinion, this opinion plays an important role in pressuring governments to maintain friendly relations with Israel despite its atrocities.
Hence, it was predictable since the Gaza ceasefire that Israel would seek to react; but since it is impossible to regain the goodwill of world public opinion, the Zionist lobby would simply set out to try to censor anti-Zionist opinions, without worrying about winning over that public opinion.
Recently, we came across something that proves this.
At the end of March 2026, a bill (PL 1424/26) was introduced in Brazil aimed at criminalizing antisemitism. Antisemitism is already a crime in Brazil, as a form of racism, but it is not defined, so the interpretation of what constitutes antisemitism is left to the judge.
The bill in question, however, aims to define antisemitism according to the definition of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). Among the various conduct categorized as antisemitism, the IHRA includes, nonetheless, advocating for the end of the State of Israel as a specifically Jewish state. In other words, even advocating for the transformation of the State of Israel into a free, open Palestinian state where Jews can live is considered antisemitism.
This bill is authored by Tábata Amaral, a federal deputy for the PSB, and it received a total of 44 signatures upon its introduction, from federal deputies belonging to the governing Workers’ Party (PT), the Bolsonarist opposition PL, and various centrist parties.
But where did this bill come from, and who is behind it?
Starting with the purported author of the bill, Deputy Tabata Amaral — known for promoting every globalist agenda in Brazil — belongs to that category of “prodigy students” who are awarded scholarships to Western universities, in her case Harvard. Her stay there was funded mainly by the Lemann Foundation, created by Swiss-Brazilian billionaire Jorge Paulo Lemann.
Lemann, one of the richest men in Brazil, is a friend of George Soros and recently hired the Rothschild Bank to represent him before his creditors in the bankruptcy case of “Americanas,” a company he owns. But unlike Soros, who has a different focus, Lemann in his “philanthropic” activities has the more specific goal of renewing the Brazilian political class. Deputy Tabata Amaral is an example of what Lemann intends.
Furthermore, in the last elections, Amaral’s campaigns received funding from various figures in the Brazilian financial market — such as bankers Armínio Fraga and Cândido Bracher — and from the Zionist lobby — such as speculators Marcos Lederman and Luís Stuhlberger. Lederman, Stuhlberger, and Bracher, along with other oligarchs who fund Tabata Amaral’s electoral campaigns, such as Nizan Guanaes and Elie Horn, are figures who frequently appear at events and initiatives promoted by CONIB (the Israeli Confederation of Brazil), the Brazil-Israel Institute, and FIERJ (the Jewish Federation of Rio de Janeiro), important institutions of the Brazilian Zionist lobby.
And as for the bill itself, who convinced Tabata Amaral to promote it?
According to exclusive information from sources in Brasília, the bill was drafted within the NGO Stand With Us Brazil, a Zionist institution with extensive and notorious links to the Mossad, chaired by André Lajst, with Argentine Bruno Bimbi as its strategy and policy manager. Bimbi is said to have been the main architect of the bill and went door to door in Congress to pressure parliamentarians into putting their signatures on it.
Bimbi is a notorious activist for LGBT causes and was one of the main organizers of the pressure campaign for the legalization of same-sex marriage in Argentina and Brazil. Now, however, his focus is more on Zionist activism.
To show that this is a broad-spectrum coordinated initiative, aimed at involving the right, left, and center simultaneously with this bill, the Lula government itself, through its Ministry of Human Rights and Citizenship, will hold an event on “antisemitism” this April, coordinated by Clara Ant.
The event will put on its agenda the definition of antisemitism, relying precisely on the same International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance that defines criticism of the State of Israel as a possible expression of antisemitism. Among the speakers at the event will also be the presidents of the aforementioned CONIB, Claudio and Fernando Lottenberg.
And who is Clara Ant, the event coordinator? Born in Bolivia but raised in Israel, she has been Lula’s right-hand woman since the 1970s and was one of the founders of the CUT, the main trade union institution of the Workers’ Party. Ant is also a constant presence at CONIB events.
Another link between the PT and the Zionist lobby is Senator Jaques Wagner, who in his youth was an activist in the Labor Zionist movement Habonim Dror, where he received his intellectual formation. Both as governor and as senator, Wagner — who was one of those who signed in support of Tabata Amaral’s bill — worked specifically to bring Brazil and Israel closer, especially in the areas of security and intelligence, even serving as rapporteur for an agreement that ceded confidential Brazilian intelligence information to the Mossad.
It does not seem likely that, at the present moment, given all the controversy the case has generated, this bill will be approved in Brazil. Nevertheless, the case serves to exemplify the tentacular and multifaceted character of the Zionist lobby’s activities in Brazil.
US Strikes Kill Five in Alleged Pacific Anti-drug Campaign
teleSUR – April 13, 2026
United States military forces killed five men after striking two boats in the Pacific Ocean suspected of links to drug trafficking, according to the US Southern Command (Southcom).
Southcom said the vessels were intercepted along known routes in the Eastern Pacific and targeted on the grounds that they were associated with organizations designated as terrorist groups. In the first boat, three crew members were onboard; two were killed and one survived. Authorities notified the US Coast Guard to initiate search and rescue protocols for the survivor. In the second vessel, all three occupants died in the strike.
The command released a 34-second video showing explosions on both boats while at sea, describing the actions as part of a strategy of “applying total systemic friction on the cartels.” The strikes are part of Operation Southern Spear, launched in September across Central America, South America, and the Caribbean.
Despite having the operational capacity to intercept vessels, seize alleged illicit cargo, and detain those onboard, US forces have continued to carry out bombardments in similar scenarios.
Since the start of the campaign, U.S forces have killed at least 168 people and destroyed 50 vessels, according to official records and analyses of search and rescue data. Reports indicate that at least 15 individuals have survived such operations, with two briefly detained by the US Navy before being repatriated. Another 11 people are presumed dead after not being located during rescue efforts.
Washington has framed the campaign as part of its efforts to curb drug trafficking flows in the region.
EU Defense Agency head says compulsory military service could be necessary
RT | April 13, 2026
Compulsory military service could be reinstated in the EU, Andre Denk, the head of the European Defense Agency (EDA), has said, citing a lack of volunteers.
Several EU countries have reintroduced the draft since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, citing the perceived ‘Russian threat’.
President Vladimir Putin has dismissed claims that Russia harbors aggressive intentions against its Western neighbors.
In an interview with Spain’s El Pais published on Monday, Denk said, “we have a human resources problem, and one of the ways to solve it will be through mandatory military service” – adding that his home country of Germany will likely go down this path eventually.
Denk also urged EU nations to invest more in domestic arms production, with a particular focus on drones and anti-drone systems.
Last year, Finland announced plans to raise the upper age limit for rank-and-file military reservists by 15 years, from 50 to 65, starting in 2026.
The country, which shares a 1,340-km (830-mile) land border with Russia, abandoned its long-standing policy of military neutrality and joined NATO in April 2023.
Around the same time, Lithuania unveiled an expanded conscription plan that would run year-round from 2026 on. It reinstated compulsory military service in 2015 after a seven-year suspension.
In neighboring Latvia, Defense Minister Andris Spruds stated last September that his party, the Progressives, would seek mandatory military service not only for men, but also for women, starting from 2028.
Several months earlier, Denmark announced that it would begin drafting women this year.
In Germany, a new law that took effect on January 1 and introduces a voluntary model has sparked protests, with critics warning that it could open the door to reinstating conscription, which was suspended in 2011.
France To Vote On Bill That Would Criminalize Criticism Of Israel
France Is About To Outlaw Criticism Of Israel
Protesters hold a banner reading “Supporting Palestine is not a crime” and “Stop genocide in Gaza” at a rally against the Yadan bill, in Paris on 12 April 2026.
The Dissident | April 13, 2026
A bill that the French National Assembly will vote on, on April 16th and 17th, effectively outlaws criticism of Israel, making it a criminal offence to question Israel’s “right” to exist as a Jewish supremacist apartheid state on occupied Palestinian land, compare Israel’s conduct to the Nazis, or support armed resistance against Israeli occupation and aggression.
The bill writes, “Today, anti-Jew hatred in our country feeds on obsessive hatred towards Israel, regularly delegitimized in its existence and criminalized. This phenomenon is exacerbated by extreme spirits who, under the pretext of expressing their hatred towards a State, are the instigators of a reinvented anti-Semitism, which could be described as ‘geopolitics’.”
The bill seeks to criminalize critics of Israel and paint them as terrorists, writing that the “call for the destruction of Israel and its comparison to a Nazi regime – are rooted in consciences with impunity, taking up the rhetoric of movements recognized as terrorist such as Hamas or Hezbollah.”
The bill seeks to criminalize:
- “Public remarks presenting acts of terrorism as legitimate resistance” (ie support for armed resistance against the Israeli genocide in Gaza or occupation of Lebanon).
- “Causing the destruction or denial of a State or publicly advocating its destruction or denial” (i.e., questioning Israel as a Jewish apartheid state, including calls for a single democratic state in historic Palestine with equal rights).
- “to clarify and extend the crime of challenging the Shoah, by enshrining several essential contributions of case law” adding “the comparison of the State of Israel to the Nazi regime would therefore be sanctioned as an outrageous trivialization of the Shoah” (i.e. factually pointing out that the state of Israel is behaving like the Nazis, including by committing Genocide in Gaza, as the UN independent international commission found in September of last year, and by calling for an expansionist greater Israel and ethnic cleansing to establish Jewish settlements ,similar to the Nazi concept of Lebensraum, an idea that has been openly endorsed by Benjamin Netanyahu and his main political opponent Yair Lapid).
Analyst Arnaud Bertrand documented that the bill attempts to make the criminalization of speech as broad as possible.
He noted that “Article 1 introduces the concept of ‘implicit’ provocation to terrorism and punishes it with five years imprisonment and a fine of €75,000,” adding, “What does ‘implicit provocation to terrorism’ mean? Nobody knows. And that’s the point. It means whatever a prosecutor wants it to mean: a perfectly good case could be made that, for instance, quoting international law on the right of occupied peoples to resist with respect to Hamas is, in fact, ‘implicit provocation to terrorism.’”
He added that “The same article also expands the terrorism apology offense to include ‘minimizing or trivializing acts of terrorism in an outrageous manner’” adding that “a judge could decide that providing context, explaining root causes, or insufficiently condemning an act amounts to ‘trivializing’ terrorism”, “for instance, a history teacher explaining the origins of Hamas or Hezbollah is providing context – but a prosecutor could argue that contextualization is trivialization. The same reasoning could apply to a journalist, a researcher, or anyone on social media who says ‘yes, it was terrible, but here’s why it happened.’ The ‘but’ becomes a crime, as it is trivialization.”
He also noted that, “ if you advocate for a one-state solution where Israelis and Palestinians live as equals, you are de-facto calling for the ‘destruction’ of the state of Israel. Well, that would now be punishable by 5 years in prison”.
The bill is called “the Yadan Law” because its creation was headed by National Assembly deputy Caroline Yadan, who represents the “French legislative constituency for citizens abroad” where “Israel has the largest number of voters in the constituency, with over 50,000 registered French voters”.
JNS noted that, “Yadan was elected to parliament as a representative of Renaissance but downgraded her ties to the party, switching to an independent affiliated lawmaker in September following the Macron administration’s decision to recognize a Palestinian state.”
In other words, the bill was brought by a Zionist French politician whose main constituency are Israelis.
Arnaud Bertrand noted, “The U.S. has congressmen paid by AIPAC: France has cut out the middleman entirely, we have MPs whose constituency is literally in Israel.”
Caroline Yadan is a genocide denier who has written, “The term genocide corresponds neither to the rights nor to the facts, nor to the intentions of the war in Gaza.”
Referring to the bill, the former French anti-terrorism judge Marc Trevidic said, “I’d never seen anything like it, the notion of implicit incitement to terrorism. Can you imagine what that means? A censor of other people’s thoughts, trying to figure out what a person meant”.
There is no doubt that this bill is designed to silence criticism of Israel, and that the lawmaker behind it is pushing it forward on behalf of her Israeli constituents.
How UK Regulator Ofcom Quietly Bypassed International Law to Police American Speech
A UK regulator bypassed every formal legal treaty and just emailed American companies into compliance, 98% of them apparently obliged
By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | April 9, 2026
A Freedom of Information response has confirmed what the UK’s speech regulator would probably have preferred to keep quiet. Ofcom fired off 197 information demands to American tech companies under the Online Safety Act, and not a single one went through the US-UK Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, the formal diplomatic process that exists for exactly this kind of cross-border legal enforcement. Every one of those 197 notices was sent directly, by email or post, to companies operating entirely on American soil.
The number comes from a FOI request filed by Daniel Lü, who asked Ofcom a series of pointed questions about how it enforces the Online Safety Act against non-UK targets.
Ofcom confirmed that as of February 26, 2026, it had issued 197 Section 100 notices to US businesses. Zero through MLAT. The treaty between the US and UK that governs how one country’s legal process gets enforced in the other’s jurisdiction was treated as optional. Ofcom decided it didn’t apply.
That admission drew an immediate response from Preston Byrne, the American lawyer who represents 4chan and other US companies targeted by Ofcom.
Byrne called the 197 notices a “breathtaking” “attack on the First Amendment” and pointed out the uncomfortable math.
Only two US companies, 4chan and Kiwi Farms, have publicly refused to comply with Ofcom’s demands. If Byrne’s assessment is right, that leaves Ofcom enjoying “a 98% compliance rate with foreign censorship orders that violate the First Amendment.”
A British regulator sent nearly 200 demands to American companies, bypassed every established legal channel, and almost all of them appear to have simply done what they were told. The chilling effect is already here.
Ofcom Uses Free Speech to Hide Its Censorship Methods
Lü did more than ask for the number of notices. He asked for policy documents about how Ofcom selects its foreign enforcement targets, what guidance it gives its teams about the legality of emailing criminal penalty warnings to US corporations, and whether Ofcom has any internal guidance on protected speech.
Ofcom admitted it holds much of that information. Then it refused to hand it over. The reason, cited directly from the FOI Act, was that disclosure “would, or would be likely to, inhibit the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation; and/or would otherwise prejudice, or would be likely otherwise to prejudice, the effective conduct of public affairs.”
A speech regulator is claiming that transparency about its censorship operations would damage free and frank deliberation. Ofcom is borrowing the language of free expression to shield itself from accountability over how it suppresses expression. The irony is so complete it feels deliberate.
On the question of whether Ofcom holds any guidance on protected speech, the answer was even more revealing. Ofcom said it doesn’t have any. No internal documents addressing what speech is protected when it exercises its enforcement powers against foreign companies.
It pointed instead to its general obligations under the Online Safety Act, the Communications Act 2003, and the European Convention on Human Rights, along with links to already-public guidance documents. That’s the speech protection regime for companies being censored by the UK from American soil: a few hyperlinks to existing publications.
The MLAT Problem Isn’t New. It’s Getting Worse.
The treaty issue is central. MLAT exists so that when one country wants to enforce its laws against people or companies in another country, there’s a formal process involving both governments. For the US side, that means routing through the Department of Justice. A judge gets involved. There’s oversight. There are procedural protections.
Ofcom has previously argued it doesn’t need to use MLAT because its Section 100 notices are administrative, not criminal. That distinction might satisfy Ofcom’s lawyers in London, but it doesn’t satisfy anyone else. Byrne and his clients have argued in federal court that Ofcom’s demands have no legal force precisely because they skipped the treaty process. 4chan and Kiwi Farms received their enforcement demands by email, sent to addresses that in some cases weren’t even authorized to accept legal service.
The Lü FOI also asked whether Ofcom holds any correspondence with the US Department of Justice or the FBI about its enforcement activity. Ofcom’s response: it holds no information related to this question. The regulator didn’t talk to anyone in the US government before firing off 197 demands to US companies. It just hit send.
What the FOI Actually Revealed, and What Ofcom Hid
Lü’s request covered six questions. The pattern in Ofcom’s responses tells its own story. On the questions where Ofcom could respond by linking to documents that are already public, it was happy to share. On everything else, it cited exemptions, claimed it didn’t hold the information, or both.
When asked for policy documents about enforcing the OSA against non-UK providers, including any records discussing MLAT, Ofcom said it holds some information but won’t release it. It also claimed it holds no records of MLAT discussions or legal guidance about whether emailing criminal penalty warnings to American corporations is valid. Either Ofcom never considered whether its enforcement method was legal under international law, or it did consider it and doesn’t want anyone to see that analysis.
When asked how it selects non-UK enforcement targets, Ofcom cited exemptions under the Communications Act 2003 and linked to its public enforcement guidance, plus its own decisions against 4chan and other US entities. The internal criteria, the actual decision-making process for choosing which American companies to go after, stayed hidden.
When asked about its approach to “qualifying worldwide revenue,” the basis for calculating fines that can reach £18 million or 10% of global revenue, Ofcom linked to its public guidance explaining that companies are expected to self-report their revenue to Ofcom. Companies that Ofcom is threatening with fines are supposed to voluntarily tell Ofcom how much money they make, so that Ofcom can calculate a bigger fine. The compliance incentives here are about as perverse as they get.
Byrne Goes to Congress
Byrne said he forwarded Ofcom’s admission directly to the US government. He tagged US Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers, Senator Eric Schmitt, and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, and called on Congress to act. This is consistent with Byrne’s approach throughout the Ofcom fight. He has previously said he copies the US government on Ofcom correspondence that crosses his desk.
The legal strategy from the US side has been to deny Ofcom any clean precedent. The four companies that received formal enforcement action, 4chan, Kiwi Farms, a mental health forum called SaSu, and the social network Gab, all refused to comply. 4chan responded to one of Ofcom’s fines with a picture of a hamster. The point was to make Ofcom’s orders publicly and visibly unenforceable on American soil, turning each attempted punishment into a political liability for the regulator rather than a deterrent for the rest of the American internet.
But the 197 number changes the scale of the problem. Those four companies were the public-facing enforcement targets, the ones Ofcom wanted to make examples of. Behind them, 193 other US companies apparently received quieter demands and, if Byrne’s analysis is correct, most of them complied without a fight. Without lawyers, without publicity, without anyone in Congress knowing it happened.
Byrne has pushed the GRANITE Act, a proposed law that would allow US entities to sue foreign governments for censorship attempts and void foreign censorship orders in US courts. Sarah Rogers, the US Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, has appeared on GB News in London suggesting Congress is considering a federal version of the law. The Trump administration has made public statements objecting to the Online Safety Act. The US State Department sent diplomats to London in 2025 to challenge Ofcom directly.
Whether all of that translates into legislation remains an open question. Ofcom, for its part, has already moved on to bigger targets. After spending a year trying to fine platforms like 4chan and getting nowhere, the regulator recently opened new investigations into Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Roblox, and X. The small companies held the line. The question now is whether the large ones will too, or whether they’ll decide that complying with a foreign regulator’s censorship demands is easier than asserting their constitutional rights.
Alberta Bill Would Fine Political Deepfakes $10,000 Without Satire Exemptions
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | April 7, 2026
Alberta’s government wants the power to fine people $10,000 for creating a political deepfake. The bill makes no distinction between a fake video designed to suppress votes and a satirical meme poking fun at the premier.
Justice Minister Mickey Amery tabled Bill 23, the Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2026, on March 30.
The legislation would prohibit individuals and entities from creating or distributing deepfakes that are likely to mislead voters about the conduct or statements of a party leader, minister, leadership or nomination contestant, MLA candidate, the chief electoral officer, the election commissioner, Elections Alberta employees or election officers.
We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.
The ban’s reach is notable for what it doesn’t say. There is no carve-out for satire, no exemption for parody, no protection for political memes. A deepfake clearly labelled as humor could still be prosecuted if someone, somewhere, decided it was “likely to mislead voters” about a politician’s statements. Who decides what’s likely to mislead? The election commissioner, the same office empowered by the bill to issue directions to stop the creation, distribution, or publication of content it deems in violation.
Officials said the prohibition would apply at all times, not only during the election cycle. The ban operates year-round, every year, regardless of whether Albertans are anywhere near a ballot box. It applies to content about sitting politicians even when no one is voting.
“We know that deepfake technology is going to continue to improve, and the distinction between what is reality and what is fake is becoming more and more difficult to distinguish,” Amery said.
Alberta’s bill takes a different approach. Rather than relying on existing fraud and election interference laws to prosecute genuine bad actors, it creates a broad new category of banned speech and gives a government appointee the power to enforce it.
“Bill 23 ensures that our elections will remain fair and honest,” Amery said. “This is why Bill 23 will prohibit the creation and distribution of deepfakes that are likely to mislead voters about the statements or conduct of a candidate. Public confidence is essential to a healthy democracy.”
The phrase “likely to mislead” is where the real power sits. A deepfake of a premier singing a ridiculous song, obviously fake to any viewer, could technically be argued to mislead someone about the premier’s “conduct.” A satirical clip of a justice minister saying something absurd could be classified as a misleading depiction of their “statements.” The legislation provides no guidance on how to distinguish a genuine attempt at voter suppression from a political joke that happens to use AI-generated media.
Those who violate the rules face fines of up to $10,000, and entities up to $100,000. Additional fines could be imposed for each day of non-compliance. Those are serious penalties for speech that may well be constitutionally protected under the Canadian Charter. The chilling effect is predictable. An Alberta resident thinking about making a satirical AI video about their MLA now has a strong incentive to not bother. The government doesn’t need to prosecute anyone for the law to work exactly as a speech restriction always works, by making people think twice before they speak.
The bill also happens to be buried inside a much larger piece of legislation that quietly reshapes how Albertans can challenge their own government. Bill 23 would create a 12-month blackout period before and after provincial elections for starting or continuing a citizen initiative petition. It would also repeal deadlines for the government to call a referendum for any future successful policy or constitutional petition. A citizen petition that gathers enough signatures no longer comes with any deadline for the government to actually act on it. A petition delayed long enough is a petition that never matters.
Alberta already has laws against fraud and election interference. The question is whether a province needs a new law that bans a broad category of political expression, with vague definitions and no protections for satire or parody, enforced by fines that would bankrupt most individuals.
Opposition parties have indicated tentative support for the bill, which is unsurprising.
The deepfake provisions will probably pass. They’ll sit on the books alongside the citizen petition restrictions, the removed referendum deadlines, and the expanded government oversight of the signature verification process. Bill 23 gives the Alberta government more tools to control what citizens say about their politicians and fewer obligations to respond when citizens try to hold those politicians accountable.
The US-Israeli War on Science is an Assault on our Future
The late Dr. Mortada Sorour (left) and Dr. Hussein Bazzi (right), professors at Lebanese University who were killed by Israel.
International Union of Scientists | April 1, 2026
The International Union of Scientists condemns the American-Israeli killings of scientists and bombing of universities.
On 12 March 2026, the Israeli military killed Dr. Hussein Bazzi, chemistry professor and Dean of the Faculty of Sciences, and Dr. Mortada Srour, Professor of Chemistry and Physics, two scientists at the Lebanese University’s Rafik Hariri Campus in Hadath. This killing of scientists occurred in the context of Israeli bombings and invasion that have displaced around one million Lebanese and killed over 1100, a crisis that has been compared to the Nakba of 1948 and the ongoing Gaza Genocide. Israel has been destroying housing, including the apartments of surgery professor Haytham Kaafarani and chemistry professor Bilal Kaafarani.
On 23 March, US-Israeli forces killed Dr. Saeed Shamghadri, a distinguished professor of engineering at the Iran University of Science and Technology (IUST), along with his two children and others in his building. Since then, the US and Israel have bombed at least 20 of Iran’s universities, including the IUST in Tehran and the Isfahan University of Technology. This destruction is part of a larger pattern of US-Israeli scholasticide in Iran, including the massacre of more than 170 people, mostly schoolchildren, at an elementary school in Minab, and the targeting of more than 600 schools across Iran. The US military also tested a new weapon on a school in Lamerd, killing 21, mostly children.
Dr. Saeed Shamghadri, professor of engineering, killed in a US-Israeli bombing
Israel and the US have likewise attacked healthcare. Israel has bombed more than 60 healthcare facilities in Lebanon, while the US-Israel coalition has attacked at least 50 hospitals in Iran.
We recognize this violence as a continuation of the scholasticide perpetrated in Gaza, where US-backed Israel destroyed all of Gaza’s universities as part of their genocide. Scientists, universities, schools, and hospitals represent the future that humanity aims to build. By killing scientists, the US and Israel aim to destroy the futures of the people of Lebanon and Iran. Since the start of the Gaza Genocide in 2023, Israel and its backers have dismantled international law and the rules of war established in the era since 1945. These latest attacks confirm that the US and Israel have a vision of lawless destruction and slaughter.
The International Union of Scientists therefore condemns in the strongest possible terms the killing of scientists and the destruction of educational infrastructure by US and Israeli forces. We call upon the international scientific community to document these crimes against scientists and students, extend material support to displaced scholars, and demand accountability for the aggressors.
Germany seeks to restrict stays abroad for men of fighting age – Berliner Zeitung
RT | April 7, 2026
German men who remain abroad for more than three months without prior approval may start facing penalties under a military-related legal requirement, according to the Berliner Zeitung.
The rule obliges men of fighting age, between the ages of 17 and 45, to obtain permission before extended stays abroad. It came into force on January 1, 2026, but April is when the first three-month period expires and enforcement may begin, the outlet has said.
Germany is in the process of a massive military buildup, with plans to spend reportedly more than €500 billion (around $580 billion) on defense by 2029. German officials have set 2029 as the deadline for the armed forces to be “war-ready” for a potential conflict with Russia.
Moscow has repeatedly denied any plans to attack NATO as “nonsense” and ridiculed Western politicians over such claims. In February Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that Russia had “no reason” to attack the EU or NATO unless attacked first.
The new requirement, which was introduced under the Military Service Modernization Act and reportedly largely went unnoticed, previously applied only during a “state of tension” or a “state of defense,” defined as situations of heightened external threat or armed attack. Since the amendment took effect, it now applies at all times, including in peacetime. The Defense Ministry said the measure is intended to maintain a reliable registry of individuals eligible for military service.
Several EU states, including Germany, have recently moved to reintroduce conscription. The German government has said the armed forces should grow from around 180,000 active soldiers to more than 260,000 by 2035.
Students staged protests in late March in German cities against Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s plans to expand military service. Demonstrators accused the government of preparing forced mobilization, with some chanting that “Merz should go to the front himself and risk his own life.”
The new rules faced criticism from the MPs in the Bundestag, with the Green Party’s security policy spokeswoman, Sara Nanni, telling Die Welt on Sunday that “citizens have a right to know quickly whether they are required to report, and if so, what their reporting obligations are.”
When addressed about the backlash by Politico on Tuesday, a spokesman for the German Defense Ministry said that it “is currently developing detailed provisions to allow for exemptions from the approval requirement, also with a view to avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy.”
According to the ministry, approvals to leave the country are expected to be issued in all cases as long as military service remains voluntary in Germany.
How I fell foul of the BBC thought police
By Charlie Spedding | TCW Defending Freedom | April 5, 2026
THE BBC recently featured a United Nations report which claimed the Earth’s ‘Energy Balance’ was dangerously disrupted by excess heat caused by rising carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels. This is false for many reasons, but rather than explain why, I want to discuss the BBC.
This story was on the evening news and also on the website. I read many of the comments posted online. The majority were worried and adamant that we must ‘do something before it is too late’. I wanted to reassure people that there is nothing happening to the climate that could be described as a crisis and carbon dioxide is not the control knob of planetary weather patterns. I decided it was best to direct them towards some of the world’s leading physicists rather than attempt to explain it myself. This is what I tried to post on the BBC website:
‘May I respectfully suggest that everyone worried about a man-made climate crisis do some research. I recommend the work of Prof Richard Lindzen, Prof William Happer, Prof Willie Soon, Nobel Laureate John Clauser and the CO2 Coalition. Most people don’t realise how much we are all manipulated by vested interests including the mainstream media. Be smarter than most and learn from world experts.’
The website moderators informed me that my post had been deleted because it broke their house rules: ‘We reserve the right to fail comments which . . . are considered likely to disrupt, provoke, attack or offend others, are racist, sexist, homophobic, sexually explicit, abusive or otherwise objectionable; contain swear words or other language likely to offend.’
I appealed against their decision, not because I expected them to change their minds, but because it gave me the opportunity to ask which part of my post they considered to be ‘sexist, racist, homophobic or abusive’. This was their response: ‘In this instance, we believe the moderator made the correct decision so we will be unable to uphold your appeal. Due to the volume of correspondence we receive, we are unable to discuss this matter further.’
They were confident the ‘rules’ had been broken but would not tell me which part of my message transgressed which part of their rules. I didn’t express an opinion about the climate but suggested that the opinion of world-renowned specialist scientists was worth reading. Did the BBC object to this, or was it my reference to manipulation by the mainstream media? I included that comment in reference to the BBC’s Environmental Correspondent, Justin Rowlatt, who was found to have lied about the climate in a 2022 BBC Panorama programme called Wild Weather. He said deaths worldwide were rising due to extreme weather caused by climate change – whereas the opposite is true.
The BBC’s Charter states that ‘The Mission of the BBC is to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain.’
The Public Purposes of the BBC are ‘To provide impartial news and information to help people understand and engage with the world around them.’
When it comes to coverage of the climate the BBC is not impartial, high-quality or informative. In this case, it has blocked an opportunity for people to discover high-quality scientific research from around the world. I am firmly of the opinion that I am not the one breaking rules; it is the BBC which is ignoring its own rules and charter.
Washington University removes professor who condemned US-Israeli war on Iran
Press TV – April 5, 2026
The University of Washington has removed a professor from his role as director of its West Asia Center after he criticized the illegal US-Israeli aggression against Iran and condemned Zionism.
Aria Fani, who will remain an associate professor at UW’s Jackson School of International Studies, said the new interim, Daniel Hoffman, told him last week he was fired from his leadership role at the West Asia Center.
Fani, who was born and raised in Iran and came to the US when he was 18 years old, said he was hired for his research on Iran. However, he told the Times that he now feels “profoundly hurt and betrayed” by his removal.
“There is a chilling effect on not just my academic freedom, but that of my colleagues; anyone who dares to speak out against the war and against aggression,” he said.
In a separate interview on Friday with My Northwest, Fani said he was removed “for improper use” of the center’s listserv, an email application.
“I sent out two memos about this atrocious war on Iran in which I offered historical analysis that’s lacking in the media,” Fani said.
“I was told that my email made ‘certain constituents feel attacked.’ By certain constituents, I assume the university means Zionists who would like to keep bombing every Middle Eastern country and continue dehumanizing their people.”
Last July Fani told the Daily UW, a student newspaper, that President Donald Trump’s militaristic foreign policy is not making the world safer.
“If you tell the dozens of children that were killed in Israeli bombardment… in Iran, or the families of the nuclear scientists who were just wiped out, I hardly imagine they would say that the world is a more peaceful place,” he said amid the first round of US and Israeli airstrikes on Iran.
Since then, many more Iranian children have been killed by US and Israeli bombing, including more than 100 students who were among around 175 people massacred in the February 28 US missile strike on a girls’ school in Minab.
“The [only] peace this secures is for weapons manufacturers, for oil companies, for drone companies,” Fani said in an implicit rebuke of Trump’s claim to be the “president of peace.”
“It secures peace for them, fills their pockets with money, and makes them fully invincible,” he added. “It’s creating a class of people that are living [on] an alternate planet.”
The US and Israel launched an unprovoked aggression against Iran in late February, by attacking 30 targets across Tehran and assassinating the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, along with several senior Iranian officials.
Since then, Iranian armed forces have retaliated strongly by launching barrages of missiles and drones at Israeli-occupied territories, as well as US bases across the region.
Al Mayadeen voices solidarity with Dr. Marandi amid death threats
Al Mayadeen | April 5, 2026
Al Mayadeen Media Network has expressed full and unwavering solidarity with Professor Mohammad Marandi in response to online campaigns openly calling for his assassination.
Professor Mohammad Marandi, a distinguished Iranian academic with global recognition, has been targeted by pro-Israeli accounts on X, including a verified account that posted a $1 million bounty explicitly calling for his assassination.
Despite repeated requests for the post’s removal and the suspension of the account, the platform and its CEO, Elon Musk, have taken no action.
Al Mayadeen characterized the spread of such content on global media platforms as ‘blatant, intelligence-driven terrorism,’ expressing profound outrage and disbelief that US-owned media outlets would permit calls for the extrajudicial killing of academics and scientists.
The network condemned these assassination threats as a manifestation of ‘cowboy-era barbarism,’ underscoring that Professor Marandi wields only his voice and his commitment to independent thought.
Al Mayadeen further highlighted the stark hypocrisy in permitting such threats against a peaceful academic while systematically curtailing the voices of those associated with resistance movements.
Call for global solidarity
Al Mayadeen called on the global academic, scientific, and media communities to publicly support Dr. Marandi and condemn the policies of major digital platforms that tolerate incitement to violence while suppressing legitimate expression.
The network warned that such practices foster a perilous environment in which intimidation and assassination threats can flourish unchecked.
“The threats against Professor Marandi are a stark example of how media platforms enable terror under the guise of free expression, while silencing those who challenge the status quo”, Al Mayadeen stated.
Professor Mohammad Marandi continues to be a leading authority on Iranian and regional affairs, and Al Mayadeen reaffirmed its commitment to safeguarding his right to speak freely, free from threats of violence or state-orchestrated harassment.
Featured Video
New flu mRNA vac, dangers
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Israel and the FBI manipulated assassination plots to goad Trump into Iran war
By Max Blumenthal | The Grayzone | March 6, 2026
The FBI manufactured plots to convince Trump that Iran sought to kill him, while Israel and its administration allies exploited the president’s deepest fears to keep him on the war path.
“I got him before he got me,” an ebullient President Donald Trump remarked to a reporter when asked about his motives for authorizing the killing of Iran’s Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, on February 28, 2026.
With his off-the-cuff remark, Trump revealed that anxiety about his own assassination at the hands of Iranian agents influenced his decision to initiate a US-Israeli regime change war that has already resulted in American casualties, the bombings of schools and hospitals inside Iran, devastating Iranian retaliatory strikes on US military bases and embassies, and a spiraling global economic crisis. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- New mRNA Flu Vaccine Produced Much Higher Rates of Adverse Reactions Than Standard Shot
- Don’t Let Hunter Biden Whitewash His Father’s Genocidal Legacy
- Is Israel Planning to Assassinate President Trump?
- British taxpayers unknowingly subsidize therapy for Israeli soldiers: Report
- JPMorgan says Iran, Oman ‘legally justified’ to charge Hormuz navigation fees
- US National Debt Grows By Over $500Bln Since Beginning of July
- Ukraine provoking Bulgaria with drone incident
- Options to Defeat Iran
- Ukraine ‘Ideologically Selects’ PoWs by Reclaiming Some and Writing Others Off – Expert
- The Right to Be Left Alone
- If Americans Knew
- How Israel invented false Iranian quote repeated by Waltz, Fox, etc
- CIA had ‘low confidence’ in Iranian threat before Trump switched planes in Turkey
- Meet the media and militiamen funded by ‘Lebanese AIPAC Guy’ pushing Beirut into Israel’s hands
- New oral history project eulogises slain Palestinian journalists via friends’ voice notes
- Huckabee Calls Israeli Settler Siege of Palestinian Homes ‘an Act of Terror’ but Defends the Broader Settler Movement
- Research Reveals Systematic Suppression of Palestinian Digital Content Across Meta Platforms
- Israel assassinates civilian Gaza City police chief – Daily Update
- Controversial Israeli NGO is training U.S. sheriffs
- GOP senators not happy with Trump administration’s handling of Iran funding request
- Trump Says Lebanon Ceasefire ‘Working,’ Locals Would Beg to Differ
- No Tricks Zone
- New Research Documents The Lack Of Any Net Decline In GBR Coral Cover Since The 1980s
- New Study Details Massive Recent Sea Ice Expansion And Cooling In The Greenland Sea
- Germany Also Saw Extreme Drought Conditions In The 1940s…Worse Than Today
- Another New Study Links Modern And Past Global Warming To Natural Changes In Cloud Cover, Not CO2
- Uncertainty In Estimating Solar Forcing Across The Arctic Is 100-350x Larger Than CO2’s Alleged Climate Impact
- Farce Of The Week: Germany’s Weather Site Donnerwetter.de Attempts To Measure The Rhine River’s Temperature!
- Analysis: Robert Koch Institute’s Heat Death Model Is “A Joke”… Deaths “Assumed” To Be Due To Heat
- New Research Finds Increasing CO2 Induces Cooling In The Lower Atmosphere Over The Arctic
- Germany’s Industrial Suicide… Grid Agency Prepares Secret Power Rationing Plans Amid Electric Power Bottlenecks
- ECMWF Models Throwing Cold Water On Extreme Germany Heat Wave Forecast Next Week
Aletho News 