Mark Levin Trashes the Constitution to Protect Violent West Bank Settlers
By Kurt Nimmo | Another Day in the Empire | September 8, 2026
Mark Levin is at it again. He is livid over a decision by the UK government to ban trade with violent illegal settlers in the West Bank. Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband said this week the UK will ban imports of all goods from settlements in the occupied West Bank, in addition to services including financing, construction, infrastructure, real estate, and advertising for settlements.
For Levin and the Zionists in Israel and the United States, a boycott of Kahanist settlers is antisemitism, the same as public criticism of Israel over its slaughter of Palestinians, most of whom are women and children, is hatred of Jews.
Levin considers himself a constitutional lawyer. However, his interpretation of the US Constitution is highly selective. As an ardent and outspoken Zionist and defender of apartheid and genocide, he believes a boycott of Israel is not protected by the First Amendment. The right to boycott was reaffirmed in 1982 with a Supreme Court ruling on NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. It held that nonviolent political boycotts are a form of protected speech. However, this is irrelevant when it comes to Israel.
The case centered around a civil-rights boycott of white-owned businesses in Mississippi. The Court upheld the right to peaceful advocacy, association, and political expression that were integral to the campaign.
In 2022, the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed Arkansas’ anti-boycott contracting legislation. The majority determined that the law governed commercial purchasing choices rather than safeguarding speech. In February 2023, the Supreme Court decided not to review an appeal.
However, court rulings in Texas, Arizona, and Arkansas have upheld the right to boycott as as a protected form of political expression under the First Amendment, challenging the legality of anti-BDS laws across the United States.
“Close to 40 states across the U.S. have laws that require ending contracts with and/or divesting from companies that engage in antisemitic boycotts, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) against Israel,” Levin posted to social media on September 7.
These states whose combined GDP is significant should publicly make clear to countries such as the UK that companies that engage in BDS because of their decisions will face consequences under state anti-BDS laws. By the way, Florida and Texas combined have a much larger GDP than the UK.
The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction (BDS) movement is now illegal in 38 states. Congress has also considered anti-boycott legislation. In 2019, the Senate passed S.1, which contains anti-boycott provisions. In 2023, Republicans, including Marco Rubio, reintroduced the Combating BDS Act.
Most Americans oppose anti-BDS laws by a wide margin. 72% oppose laws penalizing people who boycott Israel while 22% supported such laws, according to the University of Maryland’s Critical Issues Poll.
Levin is not opposed to BDS if it focuses on the correct target. In 2021, for instance, he demanded a BDS-style boycott of big tech and major television networks in response to criticism of Israel. “He argues that the way to fight against distortions and false claims, and to counter the media censors, is take a page from the anti-Israel activists’ playbook,” reported the Jerusalem News Syndicate in 2021.
Does Levin disagree with the colonial protests against British goods in the 1760s and 1770s that led to the Boston Tea Party? Does he believe the Montgomery bus boycott in the mid-1950s was illegitimate? How about the United Farm Workers boycotts in the 1960s, or the NAACP Mississippi boycott of white-owned businesses, also in the 60s?
No, probably not. The only legitimate opposition to BDS concerns Israel. The Zionist state gets a pass and the Constitution is null and void when confronted with spurious accusations of antisemitism.
UK Police Arrested 62,199 People Over Online Speech In Five Years
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | September 8, 2026
Britain’s police arrested at least 62,199 people over five years under laws governing what people say online or over the phone.
That’s a busy period for the written word. And the number of those charged over the same period is 18,510, while 12,292 people were convicted.
The Big Brother Watch report, Britain’s Free Speech Problem: How Growing Restrictions Are Stifling Speech Online and Offline, covers the period between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2025.
The laws are Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988, Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, and Section 179 of the Online Safety Act 2023.
What do they concern? Indecent or grossly offensive messages, electronic communications that are grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, or menacing, as well as the persistent use of a public network intended to cause annoyance, inconvenience, or needless anxiety.
That’s as well as sending a message that the sender knows to be false, without reasonable excuse, and with the intention of causing non-trivial physical or psychological harm to a likely
audience.
These are the “crimes” that the 62,199 people are suspected of committing, but the rate at which people are arrested under these laws varies greatly across the country. By as much as 43 times.
Cumbria Constabulary is leading the way with 25.7 people arrested per 10,000 residents. And at the other end of the spectrum is Staffordshire Police with 0.58.
That’s a 43-fold difference.
The report also details the case of Child A, a “vulnerable” teenager from the West Midlands. She viewed a TikTok post about a teacher, but did not create, share, or comment on it.
However, her school inspected her phone, found no account connected to the post, and then gave her name to the police.
Two officers then visited the family home and demanded that Child A hand over her devices. The family was told that she could either attend a voluntary interview or face arrest.
The family chose the former and Child A gave a written statement, after which the investigation was closed with no further action.
And then there’s the case of Anneka Svenska, an animal rights campaigner. Two Sussex Police officers visited her over a social media video in which she said that MBR Acres, a company that breeds beagles for research, sent “hundreds of kilograms of animal remains” to incinerators.
This happened in July 2026, and is therefore outside the five-year period covered by the report. But Svenska was offered a community resolution that included taking an “online thinking skills” course and an online “impact exercise,” or face arrest.
After her lawyer sent evidence supporting her claims to Cambridgeshire Police, the matter was reportedly dropped, in about 15 minutes, although the evidence had been available in the original video.
Svenska did not accept the community resolution.
In the five years covered by the report, there were 43-fold fewer arrests in some postcodes compared to others. But Big Brother Watch said that the Online Safety Act has already had a devastating effect on free speech, with some 300 small community forums closing or changing ownership in order to avoid the new law’s requirements.
And while the group doesn’t want all laws regulating communications to be scrapped – because some messages can indeed constitute crimes – the three laws in question are formulated in a broad and unclear manner, leading to their uneven application across the country, and investigations that are “avoidable.”
These investigations can be “punitive” even when no conviction follows, as people are subjected to police visits, demands to hand over their devices, interviews, arrests, and charges.
The group is now asking Prime Minister Andy Burnham to review what it calls “anti-free speech laws.”
Svenska, at least, escaped the online thinking skills course. It took the police about 15 minutes to catch up.
Anti-War Activists Are Getting ‘Debanked’ In The UK
The UK’s decent into authoritarianism continues
By Justin K.P. | The Dissident | September 5, 2026
The UK has been, for years, waging an all-out war on its own people, particularly on those who are anti-war and anti-Zionist.
Journalists like Richard Medhurst and Asa Winstanley have had their devices seized by UK “counterterrorism” authorities for their reporting on the Israeli genocide in Gaza, while thousands of peaceful activists have been arrested on terrorism charges for holding signs stating they support Palestine Action, a non-violent direct action group which was proscribed as a terrorist organisation by the UK government at the behest of the Zionist lobby.
The war on anti-war and anti-Zionist figures continues, with multiple anti-war figures recently losing their bank accounts within a short time period.
George Galloway, a former Labour MP, known for his staunch firebrand opposition to Zionism and empire, had his bank account closed without explanation, preventing him from receiving his parliamentary and old age pensions, which he paid into throughout his career.
On X, Galloway wrote: “39 years ago I opened a personal bank account with Bank of Scotland in Byres Rd, Glasgow. Yesterday, without explanation or notice, they closed my accounts. My parliamentary and old age pensions are paid into these accounts. The mortgage on our family home is paid out of them. The mortgage is with them. They haven’t heard the last of this.”
Shortly before Galloway was debanked, the independent news outlet The Canary reported that it had its Bank account closed for the second time within months, the first time being in July.
“This has meant that once again, some staff were not paid for August,” the outlet noted, adding that, like Galloway, it received no explanation for why it lost its Bank account.
Due to the debanking, the outlet was forced to “suspend operations” which “is a necessary step to protect what remains of the Canary and to give us the opportunity to rebuild on a stable foundation.”
It wrote that “recent events have created circumstances in which we have been left with no responsible alternative but to suspend the Canary’s operations with immediate effect,” adding that, “It is the direct consequence of the debanking of the Canary’s funds, the resulting financial disruption, and the serious internal consequences that followed.”
It seems clear that this is a coordinated effort, almost certainly spearheaded by the British state, to debank voices critical of Zionism and warmongering, in yet another attempt to shut them down.
Reporters Without Borders calls for EU to close loopholes allowing Europeans access to censored Russian media
RT | September 4, 2026
The EU- and US-funded press watchdog, Reporters Without Borders (RSF), has called for tighter controls on AI-based search technology, after discovering that chatbots bypass European censorship laws and present Russian media sources banned by in Western Europe to users.
The Paris-based RSF, which lists EU and the US National Endowment for Democracy among its backers, found that popular AI services can provide RT articles, links, excerpts, and news summaries to web users. “Public chatbots can access these websites and redistribute their content,” a statement by the organisation claimed on Wednesday.
The EU and UK have banned numerous Russian news outlets since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, including RT and Sputnik. Moscow has denounced the EU-wide ban as an attempt to silence coverage of the conflict that contradicts Brussels maximalist political stance.
The censoorship has since spread across virtually every publishing channel, including websites, apps, chats and social media. RT has been blocked and removed from practically all Western tech platforms, while RT France was forced to close in 2023 after its accounts were frozen and RT America suffered a similar fate in 2024.
Though VPN technology is used by a significant portion of netizens, making RT’s counter-mainstream reporting accessible to its loyal audience, in July, the EU’s top court ruled that even individuals running free, non-commercial websites can be found guilty of redistributing RT content.
RSF asked popular AI services to retrieve international news exclusively from sanctioned outlets, including RT, Sputnik, and RIA Novosti.
ChatGPT and Grok emerged as the “leading bots for circumventing EU sanctions,” retrieving headlines and providing links, excerpts and detailed summaries. ChatGPT complied “without reservation,” according to RSF, while Claude responded with “unfailing consistency.”
French AI-bot Vibe located the requested material on VKontakte (known as ‘Russia’s Facebook’) and through an app carrying Telegram posts. RSF praised its “remarkable ingenuity” and described the bot as a “resourceful sleuth.”
Gemini cited sanctions to refuse requests while Meta AI, whose parent company unilaterally banned RT from Facebook and Instagram in September 2024, was the only chatbot tested that “consistently refused” to provide the requested material.
RSF called on the European Commission to investigate ChatGPT under the EU’s Digital Services Act – a raft of legislation that allows the EU to manufacture consensus and alienate dissent from narratives it wishes to impose on its population. The RSF, which is funded by the bloc and the controversial US NED called for cases to be taken over other AI services capable of providing access to sanctioned Russian media.
Blair directed PA to eliminate mention of ‘Palestine’ from textbooks, former UK envoy reveals
Press TV – September 2, 2026
Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has been tasked by a body set up by US President Donald Trump to approach the Palestinian Authority (PA) and propose removing the term “Palestine” from school textbooks, replacing it with the Jewish name “Samaria.”
Jeremy Greenstock, who served as Britain’s ambassador to the UN from 1998 to 2003, said on Wednesday that Blair sought to influence the Palestinian Authority.
He stated that if the PA wished to be recognized by the so-called Board of Peace as a legitimate partner capable of negotiating a resolution with Israel to conclude the genocidal war in Gaza, the term “Palestine” should be removed from educational materials.
Greenstock said in an extensive interview on the David Hearst Podcast that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas rejected the request.
Greenstock further noted that his former superior was facing “challenges” in his new position managing the postwar administration of Gaza for the board.
“He recently, I understand, was asked by the Board of Peace to go to Ramallah and ask to remove from the Palestinian curriculum any mention of the word Palestine if they were to be treated by the Board of Peace as capable of coming to an agreement with Israel to end the current conflict that had stemmed from October 7 onwards,” Greenstock said, adding that the information was obtained from a source at the ministerial level.
“President Mahmoud Abbas said he would do no such thing,” he said.
“But the very fact that the Board of Peace could ask for that to be done in the Palestinian educational curriculum makes me wonder what principles the Board of Peace is working on, and what understanding they have of justice, of the sense of fairness, of the history of all of this,” Greenstock added.
A spokesperson for Blair refuted the claim that the former UK prime minister made such a request. “This is not true and a complete fabrication.”
Blair is known to have travelled to the Israeli-occupied territories in mid-August alongside Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, and Nickolay Mladenov, the high representative for the so-called Board of Peace.
The trio engaged in intense discussions with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has dismissed the proposed roadmap for Gaza. They then proceeded to Cairo, where they met with a Palestinian technocratic group expected to assume control of Gaza, along with representatives from the Hamas resistance movement.
During the interview, Greenstock was critical of Blair’s current role in the Board of Peace, saying he did not think Blair could engage with both sides with the same level of respect.
“Because of his record on Iraq and on Palestine since he left government, he will be seen as prejudiced. So I think he will have, and is having, difficulties.”
Greenstock, who left government service in March 2004, called the Board of Peace an “abstract and arbitrary committee” whose composition would not have any real effect on the ground with either Israel or the Arab side to the question of Palestine.
“I don’t think the Board of Peace is a strong enough construct to bear the weight of the difficult decisions that are going to have to be made about the future of the Palestinian territories.”
As part of an international campaign, Israel and its allies have been amplifying their endeavors to remove the word Palestine from educational materials and museums.
On Tuesday, Israeli authorities began imposing their curriculum on more than 45,000 Palestinian students in state-run schools in East al-Quds, as part of a wider crackdown on education in the occupied territory.
A revised curriculum is reported to be circulating privately for consultation in the occupied Palestinian territories.
Trump Censorship Machine Loses Again in Court
By James Bovard | Mises Wire | August 31, 2026
The Trump administration’s crusade to crush campus criticism took another wallop on Friday in a California courtroom. Federal judge Noël Wise ruled that the Trump administration’s “ideological-deportation policy” brazenly violated the US Constitution.
The Stanford Daily—one of the best-known college student newspapers in the nation—sued the Trump administration for changing its “immigration policy and pattern of enforcement, namely by arresting, detaining, and deporting students with F-1 visas when those students use their freedom of speech to express opinions that the government does not like.” It asserted that the Trump administration’s “actions have specifically impacted Stanford Daily by decreasing the quantity and diversity of opinion pieces The Stanford Daily is able to publish on the conflict between Israel and Palestine.” Foreign students who had written on the issue requested that their previous articles be deleted, and other foreign students were no longer willing to comment on hot issues.
The Trump administration claims unlimited discretion to silence foreign students by deporting those whose opinions it disapproves of. Judge Wise wrote, “The language of the [First] Amendment makes clear that it is not the government that gives freedom of speech to the people. Instead, that freedom is imbued in the people. . . . It is not the government’s to take.” This is a notion that conservatives instinctively understand when it comes to the Second Amendment and the right of self-defense. But many people fail to recognize the same right for freedom of speech. Conor Fitzpatrick—the chief supervising attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)—which represented the student newspaper, declared, “Today’s ruling proves that free speech isn’t a privilege, but the inalienable right of every man, woman, and child.” FIRE president Greg Lukianoff clarified the scope of the ruling:
This ruling does NOT say the government must admit anyone, issue anyone a visa, or grant anyone citizenship. It says that once a person is lawfully here, the government cannot deport them because they engaged in protected speech. The government cannot tell a legal immigrant: An American is free to say this, but if you say it, you’re out.
George Porteous—Editor in Chief of Stanford Daily—hailed the decision: “The reporters in our newsroom shouldn’t have to fear that writing a story will result in their deportation. Today’s victory means they won’t have to.” But it remains to be seen whether this latest judicial rebuff slows the Trump censorship juggernaut.
When former president Donald Trump was campaigning to get elected as president in 2024, he openly promised at a campaign event, “One thing I do is, any student that protests, I throw them out of the country. You know, there are a lot of foreign students. As soon as they hear that, they’re going to behave.” This was a linchpin of the promise on Trump’s campaign website to “make our college campuses safe and patriotic again.”
Trump presumed that non-citizens have zero right to free speech and his appointees have enforced that policy with an iron fist. On March 25, 2025, masked ICE agents seized Rumeysa Ozturk—a Turkish graduate student—off the streets outside Boston. Ozturk was locked up for 45 days and her student visa covertly canceled because she co-authored an op-ed criticizing Tufts University for failing to divest from Israel in response to the genocide in Gaza. Secretary of State Marco Rubio vilified her as a “lunatic” and implied that the feds had ample evidence of her crimes and abuses. Rubio later justified targeting Ozturk because she met the standard of “people that are supportive of movements that run counter to the foreign policy of the United States.” (Ironically, a large majority of Americans now oppose Trump’s foreign policy regarding his war on Iran). A leak to the Washington Post revealed that the feds had nothing on her—except that op-ed. Federal Judge William Sessions ordered Ozturk released because her arrest “potentially chills the speech of the millions and millions of people in this country who are not citizens.” But that was the whole point.
Last September, in a case similar to the Stanford Daily case, federal judge William Young ruled that the Trump’s administration’s implementation of the Executive Orders (on foreign students),
. . . was targeted intentionally at specific viewpoints in order to chill speech. The evidence presented at trial included the Public Officials’ many public statements suggesting that they wished to staunch public protest related to Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, including the President’s campaign promise that he would put an end to the student protests on this issue by kicking out protestors.
A Trump Executive Order interpreted “support” for terrorists “to be centered on core First Amendment speech and expressive conduct, such as attending public protests, leading such protests, or even publishing op-eds.” Judge Young declared that he “saw virtually no evidence that anyone along the way [any Trump official] seriously questioned whether pure political speech in support of Palestine or against Israel could be construed as support for terrorism.” Instead, that was the self-evident truth driving the crackdown.
The Stanford Daily case vivified how far the Trump administration will go to snuff dissent. A New York Times headline captured the essence of the case: “Judge Rules Trump Unlawfully Targeted Foreign Students Who Criticized Israel.” If a foreign student engaged in violence at a protest, that would be sufficient to deport them regardless of their opinions. But the Trump administration cast a far wider net, relying heavily on a list of 5,000 foreign students provided by the Canary Mission, which, according to Wikipedia, is “an Israel-based anonymously-run doxing website established in 2014 that publishes the personal information of students, professors, and organizations that it describes as anti-Israel or antisemitic.”
Judge Wise’s decision included stunning examples of how far the Trump administration stretched its definition of terrorist support or antisemitism to justify deporting aliens. John Armstrong—the chief of the Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs—carried out Secretary Rubio’s crackdown on non-citizens. During legal proceedings, Armstrong was asked if a “statement calling for limiting military aid to Israel could be covered” (i.e., sufficient to deport). He answered, “[i]n my opinion, yes.” When did foreign aid become sacred?
Judge Wise concluded her 90-page ruling by declaring that the strength of American democracy,
. . . is diminished when members of our society—citizens and noncitizens alike—must self-censor and “behave” or suffer the government’s retaliation. In March 2025, that retaliation was directed at those engaged in pro-Palestine and anti-Israel speech. In September 2025, caught in the government’s net were people critical of Charlie Kirk. In May 2026, it potentially included “weighing in on a peace deal that’s being negotiated” in Iran regarding the Strait of Hormuz. Tomorrow, or perhaps even today, targets may include anyone in the United States who exercises their freedom of speech to simply express opinions the government does not like.
That warning reverberates as the Trump administration further decimates the privacy of Americans returning from abroad, claiming the right to seize and copy all the contents on their cell phones. The Trump administration proposed that foreign visitors will have to surrender their social media passwords before getting a visa to visit here. How long will it be until the same policy is imposed on American citizens?
Judge Wise declared, “Free speech, including the freedom to criticize the government and its leaders, is not a sign of our democracy’s fragility. It is evidence of its strength.” But is that “strength” increasingly a mirage in the United States? And how many other illegal actions has the Trump administration taken to suppress dissent that Americans have not yet heard about?
Final question: Is the Trump administration seeking to vindicate every leftist stereotype about conservatives and Republicans being intolerant authoritarians?
James Bovard is an American libertarian author and lecturer whose political commentary targets examples of waste, failures, corruption, cronyism and abuses of power in government. He is a USA Today columnist and is a frequent contributor to The Hill.
YouTube’s Account Enforcement Practices Face Possible FTC Lawsuit
By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | August 31, 2026
The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is investigating YouTube’s (Google’s) controversial moderation and account-enforcement policies, a probe that is now in its final stages, according to a report from Bloomberg.
The agency is reportedly considering a potential lawsuit, but no decision has been made. YouTube has not been accused of wrongdoing, and the inquiry may end without enforcement action.
The FTC’s inquiry, which began in 2025, is said to be looking into whether the video giant’s suspension of accounts and removal of content, as well as the way it informs users about these decisions, violates consumer protection laws.
The agency is also reportedly examining whether YouTube broke its own rules when it took down content or reduced its visibility.
Another question the FTC is reportedly trying to answer is if YouTube’s publicly available community guidelines are in line with how content is actually treated on the platform.
In other words, the probe may be looking into the difference between what YouTube says it does, and what it actually does, regarding content policing and censorship.
If the FTC decides to sue Google, it would test whether YouTube’s published rules and its actual enforcement practices diverged in ways that violated consumer-protection law.
But even if the FTC were to find that YouTube had in fact violated consumer-protection laws, the case would not necessarily be about restoring content or accounts that were taken down or giving a particular group of users the right to remain on the platform.
Rather, it would be about making sure that YouTube’s public rules and the way it enforces those rules are in sync. But this could give the government leverage to influence how YouTube does its content policing.
YouTube already has complete control over who can publish on the platform, what content is allowed to stay up, what is made less visible and which creators are allowed to reach their audiences and earn money.
This would not necessarily be good news for free speech on YouTube, as the changes could go either way – the company could be forced to censor more, or less, or censor differently.
The reported YouTube probe is separate from a public inquiry the FTC launched in February 2025. That inquiry asked for information about how social media and video platforms engage in censorship.
This request for information sought public comment on how platforms deny or degrade access to content or users based on speech or affiliations, including through bans, shadow bans, and demonetization, as well as “opaque or unpredictable” procedures, limited notice, and weak appeals.
The public was also asked to comment on whether this type of conduct may violate platforms’ own policies or users’ reasonable expectations, and whether it may constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices, unfair methods of competition, or other forms of consumer harm.
Why Israel Can Brag About Murdering Western Aid Workers
Killed aid workers (top): James Henderson, James Kirby and John Chapman; (bottom): Damian Sobol, Lalzawmi Zomi Frankcom, Jacob Flickinger and Saif Issam Abu Taha
By Nate Bear | ¡Do Not Panic! | August 28, 2026
The Israeli commander who gave the order to bomb the World Central Kitchen convoy in April 2024 which killed six aid workers – three Britons, an American-Canadian, a Pole, an Australian and a Palestinian – said yesterday he’s not sorry for ordering the strike and that the aid workers were “not innocent.”
Last week Israel (which originally lied and said the bombing was a mistake) said no one would be prosecuted for the murders.
The episode is astonishing.
Israel murdered the citizens of five of its supposed allies, using weapons and intelligence supplied by those countries, has refused to prosecute anyone, and the commander who ordered the bombing is now bragging about it.
This is Zionism.
This is what happens when you have swallowed the logic of an ethno-supremacist ideology that enables and forgives any action, no matter how heinous, because the action was undertaken by the most indulged and protected state in modern history. And obviously, this indulgence and protection flows directly from the fact that Israel is the so-called “Jewish state.” And Jewishness, objectively, is the most protected characteristic in the modern world. Grannies are prosecuted as terrorists not because they oppose genocide, but very specifically because they oppose the genocide committed by the Jewish state. Through cultural brainwashing, political infiltration, and using the shield of antisemitism to guard against all criticism, Israel can kill whoever it wants, whenever it wants, wherever it wants. And it can kill them in whatever quantities it desires. Because the killers are Jews, and we can’t criticise Jews because of antisemitism and the holocaust, which, through deep cultural programming has been instrumentalised to make Jews morally untouchable. Through this weaponisation of memory and elevation of unimpeachable Jewishness we end up with an inverted political morality: genocide is moral, anti-genocide is immoral.
Bring all this together and you get an ethno-supremacist apartheid state which commits genocide and kills westerners without consequence.
You get the mass murder of children for years on end. Murders which continue DAILY.
You get a state able to commit wanton acts of terror in Gaza and the West Bank without reproach.
You get Gaza and the West Bank, you get Israel, but you don’t get Palestine. You don’t get the state that the 1947 UN vote also authorised because the Jewish state was the only one that mattered to the “international community.”
You get Israel but not Palestine because the ability of Jews to commit ethnic cleansing and move to piece of land promised to them in a book matters more than the right of Palestinians to live in their ancestral homelands.
You get seventy-eight years of ethnic cleansing.
You get a state able to kill the citizens of its supposed allies, and the weapons and intelligence keep flowing, even when that intelligence kills your own citizens. The RAF has surveillance tape from a spy plane that was circling above Gaza on the day Israel bombed the aid convoy and killed three Brits, as it was almost every day during the genocide, but the British government has refused to publish or disclose what the tape shows.
It can feel like you’re going mad when analysing the role of Israel in the world, and its place within empire. You can sound like a conspiracy theorist. But then, sooner or later, the operatives of the Jewish state come out and in their own words confirm everything you know and everything you believe about Zionism.
To add to the fuckery of the World Central Kitchen murders, the boss of the organisation, Jose Andres, went on Israeli TV after the attack and repeated all the propaganda that enabled the murders in the first place, saying Israel has a right to defend itself. In the midst of a genocide, with the blood of his own employees barely dry, he tried to morally exculpate Israel by tearfully claiming the country is “better than this.” He simply couldn’t conceive that the murders were not an aberration but a perfect reflection of Israel. His organisation still cooks meals for the IDF because, like many, Andres has internalised the logic of Zionism which would mean that to not cook food for the Jewish murderers of his employees would be antisemitic.
It’s fucking disgusting, almost unbelievable.
This of course wasn’t the first time Israel has murdered citizens of western countries without consequence. It wasn’t the second, third or even the tenth time. In the last twenty-odd years Israel has killed scores of westerners in Palestine.
In November 2002, Iain Hook, a British UNRWA project manager, was shot and killed by Israeli forces in Jenin, in the West Bank. In March 2003 American Rachel Corrie was crushed to death by an Israeli military bulldozer in Rafah, Gaza, while protecting local families as IDF troops moved in to destroy their homes. Two months later, James Henry Miller, from Wales, was shot and killed by Israeli troops in Rafah while filming a documentary. In early 2004, British aid worker Tom Hurndall was shot in the head and killed by an Israeli sniper in Rafah while attempting to shield Palestinian children. In 2022, Al Jazeera journalist and US citizen Shireen Abu Akleh, was sniped in the head and killed on camera while reporting in the West Bank. In September 2024, a few months after the World Central Kitchen murders, Ayşenur Ezgi Eygi, a Turkish-American, was murdered by the IDF in the West Bank.
There were ZERO consequences for any of these murders. How many average western mainstream media consuming adults EVEN KNOW about these murders?
Palestinians, by contrast, have housed and homed westerners in Gaza and the West Bank. Hamas often welcomed western aid workers to Gaza with some, such as the Italian Vittorio Arrigoni, staying years, and after whom Hamas named a street in Gaza. The only people that kill westerners in Palestine are Jewish Israelis.
My depth of contempt for the Jewish state and for the system that sustains it knows no bounds and we should consider illegitimate any government that supports this colonial monstrosity.
Fuck Israel.
Free Palestine.
Federal GRANITE Act Targets Foreign Censorship Orders in US
Foreign censors have discovered that sending threatening emails to US platforms is cheap. Michael Rulli’s bill would make the next step considerably more expensive.
By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | August 29, 2026
It’s not every day that the US Congress is moved to act by the UK’s speech regulators – but there’s a first time for everything, and that time is now. And that regulator is Ofcom.
But Ofcom – or rather, its overreach – has managed to bring about the introduction of a new bill, the first of its kind at the federal level, even if not the first attempt to produce legislation that would deal with this problem.
The bill is called GRANITE, and the full name is even more interesting: Guaranteeing Rights Against Novel International Tyranny and Extortion Act. The man behind it is Republican Rep. Michael Rulli of Ohio, who introduced it on August 27, 2026, as H.R. 10174.
We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.
Rulli explained the effort as a way to stop “foreign bureaucrats” from deciding what Americans can and can’t say. “My bill makes clear that if a foreign government tries to punish an American for speech protected by the First Amendment, that judgment is dead on arrival in our courts,” Rulli is quoted as saying.
“The constitution protects our right to speak freely. It does not bend to Brussels or London,” he added. Rulli has the support of senior White House figures.
The background to all this is the UK’s Online Safety Act, and Ofcom’s attempts to use it to go after American online services. Ofcom, for some reason, believes its censorship powers extend to the US.
Preston Byrne, who represents 4chan and helped draft the GRANITE proposals, and supports Rulli’s bill, says that between February 2025 and April 2026, Ofcom sent at least 197 notices to US companies – and only four were publicly refused, all by his clients.
4chan sued Ofcom in a federal court in Washington, invoking the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments – and Ofcom tried to get the case dismissed, citing the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
But in doing that, Ofcom also invoked British law as applicable on US soil, while at the same time claiming immunity from the US lawsuit because it is a foreign state. And Ofcom’s demands arrived in emails marked CONFIDENTIAL and threatened fines and prison.
In the best of worlds, that would be that. But there’s a good chance the foreign order will be obeyed anyway, because big platforms and internet services are generally risk-averse and may not want to pick a fight with a foreign government. That’s where the law comes in.
First, the shield: Proposed section 4106(a) says: “Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal or State law, a domestic court shall not recognize or enforce a foreign judgment, or a fine, order, or demand issued by a foreign court or a foreign state, enforcing a foreign censorship law.” The shield reaches judgments, fines, orders and demands, not merely court judgments; that matters because regulators often act administratively without judicial supervision.
Now, the sword: Proposed section 4106(b) lets a United States person served or purportedly served with a covered measure seek declaratory relief in federal district court that it is unenforceable: “A United States person against whom a foreign judgment described in subsection (a) is entered, or upon whom a judgment, fine, order, or demand described in subsection (a) is served or purportedly served, may bring an action in an appropriate district court of the United States seeking declaratory relief that such judgment, fine, order, or demand is unenforceable under subsection (a).”
The remedy is declaratory only: the federal proposal does not award damages or authorize seizure of foreign assets.
Finally, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act amendment adds an exception for cases “under section 4106;” those are the entire three words of the new paragraph. This is intended to prevent a foreign regulator from ending the suit at the outset by claiming sovereign immunity.
Byrne, Wyoming Deputy Secretary of State Colin Crossman and Wyoming Rep. Daniel Singh developed Wyoming HB 70, introduced in early 2026. The bill passed the state House 46-12 on February 23 but stalled in the Senate during the short budget session; it did not become law.
Wyoming’s proposal combined a shield with a private right of action and proposed statutory damages equal to at least $1 million or the maximum threatened fine. It also proposed blocking state enforcement and cooperation, including assistance with investigations, extradition requests and data demands tied to First Amendment-protected speech.
West Virginia introduced a sword-and-shield version in its short 2026 session, but it did not advance. On July 24, 2026, ALEC adopted shield provisions as national model policy, and a New Hampshire proposal following that model is expected for the 2027 session. Byrne says that by August 28, at least five public versions of the GRANITE blueprint existed.
Rulli’s federal bill is narrower than Wyoming HB 70 because it offers declaratory relief but no damages; on the other hand, its federal authority lets it directly amend sovereign-immunity law.
But even without the proposed bill, the First Amendment already gives strong grounds against enforcement of a foreign censorship order, Preston Byrne writes. The rules, however, are “judge-made” – and a first-instance court could misapply them.
Congress enacted the SPEECH Act in 2010 to block enforcement of foreign defamation judgments that are inconsistent with American free speech standards. The proposed GRANITE language would sit beside it in chapter 181 of title 28.
But the threat works even before enforcement. A service can comply, restrict content globally, add age assurance and data collection, leave a market, or fund a fight. A large platform with staff, assets or infrastructure abroad still faces action there even if an American court refuses to help.
Byrne estimates that Ofcom spent about 2,800 staff-hours on the 4chan matter, and obtained zero compliance, one federal lawsuit, and four emails featuring hamsters from 4chan’s counsel.
“An e-mailed demand costs a foreign regulator nothing to send today and is frequently cloaked in secrecy,” he wrote. The bill would make a covered demand capable of triggering public, expensive litigation in America. It has only been introduced.
And so the email sent by a regulator abroad that was once essentially free to send, and was ignored, or replied to with pictures of hamsters – might in the future return to them in the form of a US court date.
New York Social Media Law Survives X Lawsuit
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | August 29, 2026
A New York law that opponents say was designed to strong-arm social media companies into censoring speech (under the guise of “transparency”) has survived a First Amendment challenge.
US District Judge John Cronan on Aug 26, 2026, dismissed X’s lawsuit against the “Stop Hiding Hate Act.”
We obtained a copy of the order for you here.
The law, which applies to companies operating in New York with more than $100 million in annual gross revenue, requires them to submit reports to the New York Attorney General twice a year.
Those reports must include the company’s current terms of service, changes since the previous report, and whether the terms define “hate speech or racism,” “extremism or radicalization,” “disinformation or misinformation,” “harassment,” and “foreign political interference.”
In addition, the reports must describe how these categories are enforced, including through automated systems and human review, responses to user reports, and actions taken against content or users, including removal, banning, demonetization, and deprioritization.
New York can seek up to $15,000 per violation per day for a missing, incomplete, or misleading report, after giving the company 30 days to “cure” the problem.
The Attorney General’s office will also be able to share the information it receives with other state, local, or federal agencies “for the purpose of enforcing any law,” and use it in legal proceedings. Those filing the reports must certify that they are true and accurate, and false statements may be punishable under state law.
X argued that forcing platforms to discuss the state’s contested speech categories and explain their moderation practices burdens protected speech. But Judge Cronan ruled that the First Amendment does not prevent New York from requiring companies to disclose whether and how their terms of service define the listed categories or how those policies are enforced.
The law does not directly command the removal of a particular post, the judge said, treating the act as a disclosure requirement rather than a direct moderation mandate.
New York State describes the act as “promoting transparency in social media” and says that companies must report how they handle “hate speech, racism, misinformation, and other types of content.”
But X and other critics object that the categories are often politically charged and sometimes include constitutionally protected speech, and that the Attorney General is using this to exert pressure on companies to censor speech.
The consequence of the ruling is that New York can continue to collect and audit information about how major platforms classify speech and enforce those classifications. The state can’t directly order X to remove a specific post, but it can penalize the company for missing, incomplete, or misleading accounts of its moderation system.
US designates Palestinian refugee in Germany ‘terrorist’ over human rights activism
Zaid Abdulnasser, a Palestinian refugee and human rights activist stands in front of German police during a pro-Palestine demonstration in Berlin, October 2023.
Press TV -August 29, 2026
The US has designated Zaid Abdulnasser, a 30-year-old stateless Palestinian refugee based in Berlin, as a terrorist and imposed sanctions on him over his advocacy for Palestinians imprisoned by the Israeli regime, a report says.
The US Treasury Department placed Abdulnasser on its sanctions list on Wednesday, meaning financial institutions dealing with him could face pressure from Washington and potentially cut ties with his accounts, according to a report by Drop Site.
Because international payment networks rely heavily on US banks and dollar transactions, Abdulnasser said the measures could “completely paralyze” him financially.
“I was frightened. The authorities did not contact me beforehand; they just put me on the list,” Abdulnasser told Drop Site in an interview.
Abdulnasser, who has a six-month-old child, said he believes the move is part of a wider effort to restrict Palestinian human rights advocacy.
“On this list are Palestine Action, International Criminal Court judges, and Palestinian resistance factions,” he said, adding, “My listing is part of a broader attempt to crush the Palestinian liberation struggle and protect the Israeli occupation from prosecution.”
A Palestinian refugee born in Syria, Abdulnasser has lived in Berlin since 2017 and has worked on campaigns concerning Palestinian prisoners and Palestinian rights.
His lawyer, Alexander Gorski, said they are now carefully examining legal options to challenge the US measures.
“Mr. Abdulnasser has not committed a criminal offense. And nobody is accusing him of that … This is about legal political activity, mainly for Palestinian prisoners,” Gorski told Drop Site.
The sanctions come as Washington expands economic measures against people and organizations involved in pro-Palestinian activism, according to the report.
US Secretary of Treasury Scott Bessent said Washington would use its economic powers against groups it considers “security threats,” while Gorski described the action against his client as part of a broader US crackdown on Palestinian rights activism.
According to the Palestinian Prisoners’ Society, since October 7, 2023, when Israel launched its genocidal war on Gaza, the regime has abducted nearly 25,000 Palestinians from the occupied West Bank and the besieged enclave.
Featured Video
Trita Parsi: Middle East Unraveling — Are We on the Path to World War?
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Why Saudi Ties to 9/11 Mean U.S. Ties to 9/11
By Kevin Ryan | Dig Within | September 27, 2015
Media interest in Saudi Arabian connections to the crimes of 9/11 has centered on calls for the release of the 28 missing pages from the Joint Congressional Inquiry’s report. However, those calls focus on the question of hijacker financing and omit the most interesting links between the 9/11 attacks and Saudi Arabia—links that implicate powerful people in the United States. Here are twenty examples. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Neria Leiter Was A Legitimate Military Target
- Integrity Initiative: UK-funded network framed dissent as Russian disinformation for years
- ‘We don’t seek permission to defend our country’: Snippets from President Pezeshkian’s UNGA address
- NATO chief wants Europeans to fight American wars [for Israel]
- German chemicals giant reveals details of downsizing
- Refaat Al-Areer Was The Canary In The Coal Mine In Israel’s War On The Truth
- Israeli election committee bars candidate from Knesset race over Gaza war opposition
- French-Lebanese man files war crimes complaint over Israeli attacks
- Mahan Air Flight Lands in China Despite US Threat against Iranian Airlines
- US eyes $10bn fund to rebuild war-battered Gulf infrastructure
- If Americans Knew
- Caught on Tape: AIPAC CEO Boasted of Controlling Trump’s National Security Officials
- Why Hamas Attacked Israel in October 2023 – Israeli professor Ilan Pappé
- They see them, then kill them: Israeli quadcopters track, deliberately target civilians in Gaza
- Winter could turn Gaza’s treacherous, war-damaged buildings into deathtraps
- Majority of Democratic Voters Want to Prosecute Both Biden and Trump Administration Officials Over Gaza
- As Gaza languishes, world leaders gather at the UN – Daily Update
- Sanctions are collective punishment: immoral and self-defeating
- Phosphorus Munitions Fired by Israel Burn Groves, Orchards in Southern Lebanon
- Israel Carries Out New Ceasefire Violations Across Gaza
- AI – Emphasis on the ‘I’: Israel Is Funding AI Chatbot Propaganda
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Earth And Venus Surface Warmth Largely Explained By Convection And Lapse Rate, Not CO2 Or Radiation
- 2025 Nature Paper Claiming Worsening Global Drought Gets RETRACTED …Heavily Flawed
- New Study: ‘Global Drought Shows No Detectable Recent Acceleration Under Climate Warming’
- Economic Masterminds: German Socialists Suggest Taxing Productivity Gains Stemming From Using AI
- The South China Sea Has Not Been Cooperating With The Climate Change Narrative
- Energy Crisis: Germany Enters Heating Season With Historically Low Gas Reserve Fill Levels
- New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation
- Study: Ocean Heating Rates From Thousands Of Years Ago ‘Dwarf’ Modern Ocean Heating Rates
- Climate Extremists Target, Attack Large-Scale Power Grid Infrastructure In Germany!
- New Study: Antarctic Ice Melt Has Contributed Less Than 1 Centimeter To Sea Level Rise In The Last 30 Years
