WHO Pandemic Agreement ⏤ WHO is really in charge?
By Dr Lisa Hutchinson | Health Advisory & Recovery Team | May 6, 2025
On 15 April 2025, as we approached Easter, the not so joyous news broke that member states have now reached an agreement on the WHO Pandemic Agreement or Treaty, with negotiations expected to be formalized in May (17-26) when each member state can then decide whether or not to sign the agreement. Notably, this Treaty has gone ahead without the inclusion of countries such as Argentina and also the United States. It is now well known that President Trump signed an Executive Order to pull the USA out of the agreement owing to the ‘mishandling of the Covid-19 pandemic’ and concerns of China’s ‘inappropriate political influence’. Moreover, federal health officials are also prevented from contributing to talks with WHO, due to concerns it is a harmful organization. So what does this WHO Pandemic Agreement mean for the UK and the rest of the world?
Anne-Claire Amprou, a co-chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body, has claimed that this is a “major step forward in protecting populations, the response will be faster, more effective and more equitable” and will bolster “equity and international security.” She continues by noting that “nothing in the draft agreement shall be interpreted as providing WHO any authority to direct, order, alter or proscribe national laws or policies, or mandate States to take specific actions, such as ban or accept travelers, impose vaccination mandates or therapeutic or diagnostic measures or implement lockdowns.” However, many more skeptical followers of the Agreement, such as James Ruguski, indicate that this represents a Framework Convention to usher in a global pharmaceutical power grab dressed up as ‘health equity’ under the guise of ending ‘vaccine apartheid’. The fact that governments worldwide have bypassed normal safety protocols during ‘health emergencies’ sets a dangerous precedent for a totalitarian approach to a one world governance.
The latest agreement on the WHO Pandemic Agreement refers to pandemic-related health products in response to pandemic emergencies. Of note, these health products include “medicines, vaccines, diagnostics, medical devices, vector control products, personal protective equipment, decontamination products, assistive products, antidotes, cell- and gene-based therapies, and other health technologies”. The agreement continues to elaborate on the fact that a “coordinating financial Mechanism is hereby established to promote sustainable financing for the implementation of this Agreement”. In other words, this will expand the capacities around pandemic prevention and preparedness and response using the above mentioned coordinated financial mechanism to serve the implementation of this Agreement. James Roguski defines the acronym PHEIC (Public Health Emergency of International Concern) in reality as a Pharmaceutical Hospital Emergency Industrial Complex!
In his Substack, James Ruduski explains the main aspects of the Pandemic Treaty:
- This is really Corporate Wealth Redistribution Disguised as Health – as this represents a Framework Convention that benefits Big Pharma;
- A behind the scenes peak at the Conference of Parties (COP) reveals what the Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing (PABS) scheme does, which gives authority to a government official so they can deem if a countermeasure is required;
- Emergency Powers and the PREP Act is another way that governments take control by bypassing normal safety protocols during declared ‘emergencies’ and sets a dangerous precedent;
- Vaccines are being developed with self-amplifying mRNA technology for new emerging ‘threats’ such as bird flu, H5N1 and the role of regulatory oversight in this regard;
- This reveals biosecurity theatres in which the WHO is given authority over logistics, manufacturing and flow of money for the PREP Act.
Although the World Health Assembly has reached an agreement for the WHO Pandemic Treaty which will be put forward for adoption in mid-May, the international agreements are not legally binding. However, where it becomes problematic for UK citizens is that a section within the agreement based on the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act [1984] ⏤ an ironic date given George Orwell’s book “Nineteen Eighty Four” ⏤ empowers the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to adopt or embrace any “international agreement or arrangement relating to the spread of an infection or contamination”. While advocates of the WHO Pandemic Agreement opine that it respects national sovereignty, it is also subject to “Obligations under International Law” ⏤ an oxymoron by any standards. Disturbingly, the language of the Agreement also includes emergencies owing to climate change!
The WHO’s One Health initiative integrates human, animal and environmental health across the organization, and includes collaborations with the usual culprits, such as the United Nations (UN) that has created the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH). Censorship is also notable in this WHO Agreement document with references to the importance of “building trust and ensuring the timely sharing of information to prevent misinformation, disinformation and stigmatisation.” Most people are unaware that mandates relating to health are illegal. People should not have to comply with health mandates that are not aligned with their beliefs. Human rights educators and justice advocates have pointed out that individuals are more empowered than they realise but resilience is largely something people do not enact as they are unaware of their true legal rights.
British citizens should ignore these international agreements and treaties and focus on repealing section 45 of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act [1984]. A recent post on platform X by Weston A. Price Foundation, London Chapter, explains how repealing section 45 of the 1984 Public Health Act will ensure we can effect how we are governed, as this can only be affected by statutes. Moreover, the 1688 Bill of Rights confirms that no treaty or government proclamation can change our laws: “That the pretended Power of Suspending of Laws or the Execution of Laws by Regall Authority without Consent of Parlyament is illegall.”
These agreements are really about taking money from wealthy nations, via the WHO, to fund and further extend the powers of Big Pharma around the world. The WHO Pandemic Agreement can enable future public health emergency provisions or pandemic-related unapproved therapies to be rolled out globally in circumstances of another health threat. The Pandemic Agreement allows an increase in the supply chain (for medicines, vaccines, and hospital protocols) that may inflict untold damage. People’s individual rights should never be usurped by government ⏤ even in a health emergency situation. The pandemic and PREP Act enabled engineered emergencies to be initiated so that the 4th Industrial Complex architects could profit from such measures. A compliant population kept in a state of perpetual fear relinquishes power too readily. We need to protect ourselves from manipulation by authorities with too much power. The deadline for member nations to reject the amendments to the International Health Regulations is rapidly approaching: July 19, 2025. But our Secretary of State, Wes Streeting, is likely to agree the terms when he attends the World Health Assembly in Geneva on 19th May, well ahead of the rejection deadline.
James Roguski summarises: 10 reasons to reject the WHO’s Pandemic Agreement
1. Lack of Public Discussion/Debate ⏤ public debate and discussion has been almost non-existent;
2. Pandemic Related Products ⏤ the proposed Pandemic Agreement is not about health, rather, it is a redistribution of wealth under the guise of ‘equity’;
3. Surveillance ⏤ within the Agreement it states that: “Parties shall take steps through international collaboration, in bilateral, regional and multilateral settings, to progressively strengthen pandemic prevention and surveillance measures and capacities, consistent with the International Health Regulations (2005)”;
4. The One Health Approach ⏤ the Agreement states: “developing, implementing and reviewing relevant national policies and strategies that reflect a One Health approach”. This is a key policy instrument for dealing with global health risks but this has far-reaching implications. The WHO Pandemic Agreement gives the WHO Director-General the ability to issue orders to all nations regarding humans, animals and plant ecosystems when a public health emergency is declared, which overrides nation sovereignty;
5. Massive Expansion of the Pharmaceutical Hospital Emergency Industrial Complex ⏤ with Article 10 stating “sustainable and geographically diversified local production”;
6. The Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing System (PABS) ⏤ the Pandemic Agreement fails to adequately address the issue of gain-of-function research and the proposed PABS would effectively monetize and incentivize the search for “pathogens with pandemic potential”;
7. The Global Supply Chain and Logistics Network ⏤ put simply the WHO should NOT be given the authority to oversee and/or operate a Global Supply Chain and Logistics Network;
8. The Financial Coordinating Mechanism ⏤ this aims to bolster the funding of the WHO to actively control the money and supply chains;
9. The Conference of the Parties ⏤ the establishment of a new bureaucracy (the Conference of the Parties) consisting of unelected, unaccountable and largely unknown bureaucrats ⏤ is unlikely to prioritise the people’s best interests in helping to prevent, prepare for, or respond to future ‘pandemics’;
10. Relevant Stakeholders ⏤ includes private corporations but not we the people.
No informed consent or democratic debate has existed during all these negotiations.
Why this matters is that the WHO Pandemic Agreement has:
⏤ Hidden clauses and centralized control
⏤ Potential impacts on national sovereignty
⏤ Your rights during future health crises will be heavily restricted.
Ultimately public private partnerships do not work and we need transparency. The WHO Pandemic Treaty and vaccine experimentation should not be able to happen again and exiting the WHO or not complying with the Pandemic Agreement is one way to oppose this. Hopefully there is a better way to health ⏤ we need to take away power from government and global officials and we need to contact MPs to raise our objections.
Consider signing the petition linked here FINAL VOTE IMMINENT: REJECT the WHO Pandemic Treaty!
Tamara Lich found guilty in Freedom Convoy case
The Democracy Fund | May 3, 2025
OTTAWA – In a landmark ruling, Tamara Lich was acquitted of four out of six charges related to her involvement in the Freedom Convoy protest. A fifth charge, counselling to commit mischief, was stayed, leaving only a single conviction of mischief. Justice Perkins-McVey determined that the Crown failed to prove Ms. Lich obstructed police, intimidated others, or counselled obstruction or intimidation during the protest. However, the court found her guilty of mischief as both a principal offender and an aider and abettor, citing her encouragement of others to participate, her fundraising efforts, organizational role, and statements such as “we will hold the line,” which the judge deemed a “rallying cry” to the truckers. Having already spent 49 days in pre-trial detention, Ms. Lich now awaits sentencing after what has been called the longest mischief trial in Canadian history.
The ruling ignites fierce debate over the boundaries of peaceful protest and the growing criminalization of political dissent in Canada. The verdict, delivered after 45 days of trial proceedings concluding on September 13, 2024, marks a significant moment in the legal treatment of protest-related cases, potentially deterring Canadians from exercising their rights to free expression and assembly out of fear of severe legal repercussions.
Her defence, led by top criminal lawyer Lawrence Greenspon and supported by Eric Granger, argued that Ms. Lich’s participation was safeguarded by Charter rights to free expression and peaceful assembly. They contended there was no evidence of criminal intent, emphasizing that police and city actions—such as directing protesters to park in specific areas—contributed to the disruptions. Despite a robust defence, the court rejected these arguments, finding her organizational role and public statements, including calls to “hold the line,” amounted to culpable conduct under the Criminal Code.
The Democracy Fund, which crowdfunded over half a million dollars to cover Ms. Lich’s legal expenses, described the trial as a critical test of Canadians’ right to peaceful assembly. “This ruling is a bittersweet moment—while Tamara Lich’s acquittal on several charges affirms the centrality of free expression, the mischief conviction could be interpreted as punishing some participants for the actions of others,” said Mark Joseph, Director of Litigation for The Democracy Fund. “We remain committed to challenging any erosion of Canadians’ rights to protest.”
As the legal community and public brace for sentencing, the decision raises urgent questions about the balance between public safety and individual freedoms.
Founded in 2021, The Democracy Fund (TDF) is a Canadian charity dedicated to constitutional rights, advancing education and relieving poverty. TDF promotes constitutional rights through litigation and public education. TDF supports an access to justice initiative for Canadians whose civil liberties have been infringed by government lockdowns and other public policy responses to the pandemic.
UCLA Gaza protesters sue over police violence, rubber bullet injuries
Al Mayadeen | May 5, 2025
A new lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court accuses law enforcement of police brutality during a violent crackdown on pro-Palestine protesters at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) in spring 2024.
At the height of nationwide demonstrations against “Israel’s” war on Gaza, the UCLA encampment became a central site of student-led protest. On April 30, a pro-“Israel” mob attacked the encampment for more than four hours. Protesters say that police stood by as counter-demonstrators launched fireworks, sprayed chemical agents, and engaged in harassment and sexual assault, according to The Intercept.
The following day, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, UCLA officials, and multiple law enforcement agencies coordinated plans to dismantle the encampment. On May 1, the encampment was forcibly cleared.
On February 12, 2025, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and Graduate Students for Justice in Palestine (GSJP) were placed on interim suspension.
Police response: coordination and forceful dispersal
More than 700 police officers descended on campus, including members of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), California Highway Patrol (CHP), Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, University of California Police Department, and private security forces.
During the raid, law enforcement fired over 50 rounds of rubber bullets into the crowd, striking multiple protesters in the head. Several individuals were hospitalized, including one who sustained internal bleeding and another whose hand bones were shattered, requiring surgery and extensive rehabilitation.
Protesters are now suing both the state of California, which oversees CHP, and the city of Los Angeles, which oversees LAPD. The suit argues that the use of rubber bullets by LAPD and CHP amounted to excessive force and violated protesters’ constitutional rights.
Legal violations: restricted rubber bullets and protesters’ rights
Following mass protests in 2020 against the police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, California lawmakers passed a law limiting the use of kinetic impact projectiles, commonly known as rubber bullets. The legislation bans their use at protests unless there is an objective and immediate threat to life or serious injury.
The lawsuit states that officers’ actions at the UCLA encampment violated this law. Attorney Becca Brown, representing the plaintiffs, emphasized that the indiscriminate firing of such projectiles is both illegal and dangerous.
“They cannot be used simply because someone is non-compliant,” she explained.
Despite UCLA’s revised protocols following 2020 to minimize reliance on external police forces, CHP, typically less involved in protest response, played a prominent role in the May 1 raid.
An LAPD after-action report later attempted to justify the force used, citing incidents like a protester throwing a traffic cone or removing a police helmet. However, the report admitted communication breakdowns among agencies and recommended improved command clarity.
Chilling effect: trauma, criminalization, and fear of future protest
The lawsuit includes plaintiffs such as a UCLA Ph.D. candidate, an undergraduate student, another student from a different university, and an architectural designer. All were struck with rubber bullets, several in the head. Beyond physical injuries, the plaintiffs say the crackdown has severely impacted their willingness to participate in future demonstrations.
“The encampment clearance by means of violence, excessive force, and kinetic energy projectiles traumatized Plaintiffs,” the complaint reads. “It justifiably made them less willing to engage in any further Palestine-related protest activity.”
One plaintiff, Abdullah Puckett, now fears future retaliation if he returns to protest. The complaint states that he is “more hesitant and afraid,” and has had to reevaluate the extent of his participation in pro-Palestine demonstrations.
Broader implications: political accountability and state repression
More than 200 people were arrested during the UCLA encampment clearance. LAPD later requested over $500,000 in reimbursement for the operation, which included 2,400 overtime hours, according to the Daily Bruin. The arrests resulted in criminal records for many students.
Lawyers say those records are now being used by the Trump administration to conduct background checks on international students and potentially flag them for deportation.
“For international students that may have been arrested at any of these encampments, that got flagged and could be subject to deportation under Trump’s fascist policies,” said Ricci Sergienko, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs.
Sergienko criticized Democratic leaders such as Governor Gavin Newsom and Mayor Bass, arguing that their actions laid the groundwork for broader state repression. “These attacks also happened in Democratic-run cities and blue states,” he said.
He also warned of mounting censorship in academia, pointing to a proposed bill in California that targets ethnic studies programs under the pretext of combating antisemitism. “That’s another attack on speech coming from the blue state, the liberal paradise of California,” he said.
During a recent screening of the documentary The Encampments at UCLA, police were once again called in. LAPD officers arrested three students.
Did the Israeli Embassy Order My Arrest?
Richard Medhurst | May 3, 2025
Emails show Israeli foreign influence in UK’s legal system: the Attorney General’s Office provided the Israeli Deputy Ambassador with contact information of UK prosecutors and counterterrorism police, in the same period that journalist Richard Medhurst and other British reporters and activists were arrested by CT police in a government crackdown. This raises questions about the impartiality of the Crown Prosecution Service and the degree of foreign meddling in the UK’s judiciary.
Support the show on Patreon: patreon.com/richardmedhurst
Donate on PayPal: https://paypal.me/papichulomin
Donate on GoFundMe: http://tiny.cc/GoFundMe-Richard
Bitcoin address: bc1qnelpedy2q6qu67485w4wnmcya5am873zwxxvvp
Subscribe to Richard Medhurst on other platforms here: Rumble: https://rumble.com/richardmedhurst
Rokfin: https://rokfin.com/richardmedhurst
Odysee: https://odysee.com/@richardmedhurst
Substack: https://richardmedhurst.substack.com/
Richard Thomas Medhurst (1992) is an independent journalist, political commentator, and analyst from the United Kingdom with a focus on international affairs, US politics, and the Middle East. Medhurst is known for his coverage of the Julian Assange extradition case in London, as one of the only journalists to report on the trial of the WikiLeaks founder from inside the court.
He has also covered the Iran nuclear deal talks on the ground in Vienna. Medhurst was born in Damascus, Syria.
His father is English and mother is Syrian. Both his parents served in United Nations Peacekeeping and Observer missions and were among the UN Peacekeepers awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1988. Owing to his parents’ professional mobility, he has lived in Syria, Pakistan, Switzerland, and Austria. He speaks four languages fluently: English, Arabic, French, and German.
As an independent journalist, Medhurst regularly hosts live broadcasts and video reports on his YouTube channel. Previous guests include the Foreign Minister of Venezuela, the Dep Foreign Minister of Iran; the Palestinian, Russian and Cuban ambassadors to the United Nations in Vienna; the former British Ambassador to Syria; and various UN officials, journalists, and more. Medhurst’s reports and analysis on Yemen, Ukraine, Syria, Niger, Lebanon, Iran, the Israeli occupation in Palestine and its genocide in Gaza have gone viral countless times, racking up millions of views.
Richard Medhurst has a combined following of roughly one million people online, and appears regularly on international news outlets including Al Jazeera, WikiLeaks, Black Agenda Report, Al Mayadeen, The Times, LBC, and others.
Sandu’s Pro-Western Regime Forces Students to Deny Moldovan Identity
By Svetlana Ekimenko – Sputnik – 04.05.2025
After President Maia Sandu, who adheres to a pro-European policy, came to power in the republic at the end of 2020, there followed political crackdowns, media purges, and a rewriting of history to fit the agenda.
A new history textbook for school claims Moldovans don’t exist – they’re just Romanians.
Moldovans do not exist as a separate nation at all, the authors state, leaning on century-old quotes from Teofil Ioncu, a member of the National Moldavian Party.
Back in 1917, he argued that “Moldova” and “Moldovans” were just geographic terms – not indicators of national identity.
Citing the 2024 census, the textbook claims that around 82% of Moldovans identify as either Romanians or Moldovans.
In fact, the official 2024 Population and Housing Census says otherwise – 77.2% call themselves Moldovans, and only 7.9% identify as Romanians.
It should be noted that the same textbook cited above calls the Battle of Stalingrad a “disaster,” and whitewashes the Romanian role in WWII.
Earlier, under the pro-EU regime of Maia Sandu, who has Romanian citizenship, “Moldovan” was scrubbed from official use and rebranded as “Romanian” – a cultural annexation rubber-stamped by Brussels.
Facebook Shuts Down Town Council Candidate’s Account Weeks Before Election
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | May 3, 2025
Courtney Knill, a candidate for city council in Charles Town, West Virginia, found herself abruptly cut off from her Facebook account last week, a blow that landed just weeks before voters head to the polls. Facebook accused Knill of impersonating herself and removed her page, eliminating a major outreach tool from her campaign.
The takedown came without any prior notice. When Knill attempted to access her account, she was met with a message citing violations of “community standards.” Facebook’s process for appeal offered no clarity or second chances.
“All they had me do was record a video of myself where they had me point my face in a different direction, basically just showing that you are who you say they are,” she said to the Post Millennial. But the appeal was denied.
“They reviewed it, and then just today I got the notice: We disabled your account… reviewed your account. It still doesn’t follow our community standards on account integrity. You cannot request another review of this decision, and you can download your information if you want. And that’s it,” Knill said. “Done. Campaign Facebook page shut down.”
Her accounts on Instagram and X remain live, but Facebook, a dominant force in local elections, is no longer accessible to her. The platform gave no specific explanation for what content, if any, violated its standards.
Silencing a candidate during an active election cycle, especially without justification, raises urgent questions about unchecked corporate control over public discourse. When platforms erase campaigns with no transparency or accountability, the real casualties are voters who lose access to the voices and ideas meant to represent them.
Here’s What’s Really Behind German Government’s Crackdown on AfD
Sputnik – 03.05.2025
Besides trying to stigmatize the conservative populist party among voters, the German domestic intelligence agency’s move to slap Alternative for Germany (AfD) with an “extremism” label has far more sinister motives, says renowned German lawyer, academic and former AfD MEP lawmaker Gunnar Beck.
The German intelligence service’s decision to recognize the AfD as a “right-wing extremist movement” is the latest step in a long history of attacks on the party, Beck told Sputnik, recalling that AfD “has been stigmatized and discriminated against, and as far as possible, really excluded from parliamentary processes” since it came into existence in 2013.
Political Ploy
The new “right-wing extremist movement” label will allow government agents to legally infiltrate the party, both to spy on it, and to act as agents provocateur, for example, by making extremist statements while pretending to be loyal party members.
“Political parties in Germany are generally in a very privileged position. They get a lot of public funding. The more votes the party gets, the more public funding it usually gets,” Beck explained.
“However, once a party is classified as extremist, and that’s now happened, the federal authorities can deprive it of public funding. Now, this decision would have to be confirmed by the German courts, but given that federal and regional ministers or federal political bodies, or regional ministries of justice appoint most judges in Germany, they are usually very obliging.”
This means that in future elections, the AfD potentially won’t have the same funding and resources available to campaign and spread its message.
Spreading Stigma
By classifying the AfD as right-wing extremists, the government will also be able to try to detract voters from voting for the party, and threaten civil servants who are members of the party with removal and loss of pensions, on the grounds that they ‘undermine’ the political order of the Federal Republic, Beck says.
Authorities will also gain more power to initiate bogus criminal prosecutions against AfD members. Beck noted that already, “a lot of AfD politicians have to spend a fair amount of their income on legal action, defending themselves against very questionable criminal and other allegations.”
It remains “an open question” whether the stigmatization strategy will work or not, Beck said, emphasizing that in the former East Germany especially, the public isn’t as likely to be influenced by the official state media and is more likely to see through government propaganda.
Steering Policy
Over time, the legal authority to infiltrate the party also means agents could eventually “naturally influence AfD policy,” either in the direction of radicalism and stoking infighting to discredit the party, or to influence it “to become more moderate and almost indistinguishable from the established parties,” the observer said.
In both cases, the goal is the same: to get people to “lose confidence in the AfD once it doesn’t really offer any real alternatives any longer.”
The power of intelligence infiltration operations cannot be overstated, Beck emphasized, pointing out that “Germany has no less than 19 secret services,” including three federal ones. “The intelligence sector in Germany is the only growth sector in the whole of the economy, together with the armaments industry now. So they have enormous public resources.”
Could AfD Just Be Banned Outright?
In theory, the government could try to outlaw the AfD, with the courts likely to rubber-stamp the process because they are appointed by the government and parliament, Beck says.
It would be “very difficult,” however, “to justify outlawing a party that currently has between 20 and 25 percent” support, “and is the second-largest party in Germany as a whole, and the largest party in east Germany.”
Therefore, Beck expects authorities to stick to the strategy of stigmatization, infiltration, and divide and rule, and ban the party later, if needed, once support drops to 10 or 15%.
Europe Losing Its Democracies
“Germany is not alone in cracking down on political criticism against the establishment,” Beck said, pointing to similar processes in Romania and France against leading non-systemic opposition.
“I think we are seeing Europe move into a much more authoritarian period. The so-called democratic states are [not] democratic because they do not respect democratic outcomes and undesirable (from their point of view) outcomes of elections, and they don’t follow the rule of law,” Beck lamented.
“We are already seeing widespread political repression in Europe. And what’s happening in Germany… is simply the tip of the iceberg. But as you know, an iceberg is usually about seven times larger than the tip of it above the surface. And I would expect it’s roughly the same with political repression in Germany and Europe. There’s much more going on than is reported in the papers and we ever get to know about it. Everything I’ve said so far shows how heavily stacked the political game in Europe is against those who do not accept the status quo, against the so-called populist or extremist parties,” the observer summed up.
Maine Lawmaker Asks Supreme Court to Reverse Speech Ban
By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | May 3, 2025
A Maine legislator has turned to the US Supreme Court after being effectively stripped of her ability to represent her constituents over a controversial social media post. Republican Rep. Laurel Libby, who serves District 90, submitted an emergency request to the high court this week, seeking to overturn a disciplinary action imposed by her fellow lawmakers that has barred her from voting or speaking on the House floor since February.
The dispute stems from a Facebook post Libby made criticizing the inclusion of a transgender athlete in a statewide girls’ pole vault competition.
The post included a mention of a Maine student and questioned the fairness of allowing biological males to compete in girls’ sports categories, a stance that ignited outrage among Democratic legislators. In response, the House voted to censure Libby and conditioned her return to full legislative participation on an apology she had refused to give.
Rather than comply, Libby launched a legal fight to restore her role, arguing the punishment amounted to unconstitutional retaliation. After lower courts refused to intervene, she is now asking the Supreme Court to address what she sees as a blatant violation of the First Amendment and a denial of her constituents’ right to representation.
We obtained a copy of the application for you here.
“For over 60 days my constituents have had no say in any actions taken by their government, actions that directly impact their lives,” she wrote in a post on X. “Every vote taken on the floor of the legislature is a vote my constituents cannot get back. The good people of our district have been silenced and disenfranchised.”
Libby emphasized that the case raises serious concerns about the limits of legislative authority when it comes to penalizing elected officials for their speech.
“For more than 50 years, the Supreme Court has recognized that it violates the First Amendment to retaliate against a representative for exercising their right to free speech — and has firmly rejected immunity claims in nearly identical circumstances,” she continued. “Yet today, Maine stands alone, insisting it can silence me and deprive my constituents of representation for the remainder of my term simply because I told the truth on social media.”
US House to vote on bill criminalizing boycott of Israel
Press TV – May 3, 2025
The US House of Representatives is set to vote on a controversial bill that proposes fines or prison terms for Americans participating in boycotts of Israel or Israeli settlements, promoted by international governmental organizations such as the UN or EU.
The House is scheduled to vote Monday on the contentious anti-boycott act, which seeks to penalize American citizens with fines up to $1 million or prison terms as long as 20 years for boycotting the Israeli regime.
Sponsored by pro-Israel congressmen Mike Lawler and Josh Gottheimer, the bill will broaden the US anti-boycott law by targeting voluntary, values-based political actions undertaken by American citizens.
The underlying objective is to shield the Israeli regime from non-violent international pressure campaigns, notably the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement (BDS).
Rights groups warned that the legislation will criminalize constitutionally protected political expression.
The move, according to rights groups, is part of a broader push by the US government to suppress opposition to Israeli genocide, apartheid, and illegal settlement expansion, under the guise of fighting anti-Semitism.
The original act was introduced in 2024. Back then the Republican-controlled Congress passed this bill with broad bipartisan support, but the Senate Democrats blocked the legislation.
Now that Republicans control the Senate as well, there is a significant chance that the act will pass both Congress and Senate.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the most powerful Israeli lobby group in the US, said it “strongly supports” the act.
The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) Action has already supported the legislation and broader congressional campaigns to push back against anti-Israeli boycotts.
The majority of anti-Israeli boycotts aim to force the regime to end its genocidal war on Gaza that has taken the lives of more than 52,500 Palestinians and injured at least 118,000, most of whom are children and women.
The Israeli regime has put Gaza on a total blockade for 2 months and barred the entry of all humanitarian aid, including food, which according to the UN’s Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), has driven the territory’s 2.3 million population toward famine.
More Exciting News from the White House
Donald Trump has appointed a Jewish community liaison officer
By Philip Giraldi • Unz Review • May 2, 2025
I know that those who read my articles will be interested to learn that President Donald Trump has appointed Martin Marks to be his administration’s liaison to the American Jewish community with the title Special Assistant to the President and Director of Jewish Engagement in the White House Faith Office. Marks, whose mother handbag designer Lana Marks served as US ambassador to South Africa in Trump’s first term, appears to be well qualified for the position as “Before turning to politics, [he] was a writer and owned a yoga studio in Palm Beach.”
To be perfectly honest I was a bit confused by the appointment as the US government already has an Office of the Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combating Antisemitism and a Office of the Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues actively promoting the Jewish/Israeli line at the State Department and even worldwide. And one might observe Trump’s entire cabinet is unrelentingly Zionist in its inclinations while Congress is discussing the so-called Antisemitism Accountability Act which will turn any criticism of Israel into a crime even more so than it is regarded as such right now, ask any one of the college students who are being deported! How much “liaison” protecting the most wealthy and educated 3% of the population against the curse of perceived perpetual Jewish victimhood is still warranted? And how will such “liaison” differ from the orders delivered directly from Benjamin Netanyahu, the “Chosen” leader, of the Jewish state of Israel to provide Trump and the rest of the US government with their marching orders, just as was the case with Genocide Joe Biden and his merry band of largely Jewish/Zionist cabinet members?
Professor Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University has described the current Donald Trump regime as an “Israel First Administration” packed with Zionists at all levels. The State Department Press Secretary Tammy Bruce has declared that “Anyone who tries to touch Israel will wind up in hell.” But there are some who are still brave enough to go against the tide. The Institute for Historical Review, which is one of the few online publishers and free speech associations that still survive in the good old USA, has been confronting the Israel Lobby for forty-seven years. In an email that appeared last week they discuss another new Jewish appointment and laid out the problem in plain English that even Donald Trump might understand:
“Power, Priorities, and Puppeteers: Who Really Governs America?”: The nomination of Yehuda Kaploun — a Chabad-Lubavitch rabbi, Trump loyalist, and confidant of Republican megadonor Miriam Adelson — as US Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism underscores an uncomfortable reality: Zionist interests wield disproportionate influence over American politics, even as the nation fractures under economic despair. Kaploun’s appointment, framed as a defense against antisemitism, instead reveals a political dynamic that prioritizes the interests of world Jewry over the needs of ordinary Americans. Consider the timing. Household debt has soared to $18.04 trillion, credit card delinquencies hit 14-year highs, and inflation continues to erode wages. Yet policymakers focus on policing campus activism, cracking down on criticism of Israel, while ignoring the collapse of social mobility. Kaploun’s own rhetoric comparing US universities to “1930s Germany” diverts attention from the rising cost of living and the United States’ fraying social fabric. Meanwhile, pro-Israel groups like AIPAC have funneled $100+ million into elections, ensuring bipartisan fealty to policies that prioritize Israeli interests at the expense of America. This is not governance. It’s an occupation by foreign interests.”
The IHR point is well made and applies to Biden, Trump and Congress as well as to the 38 states that require citizens to sign documents or swear oaths pledging themselves not to support any boycotts of Israel if they wish to receive benefits or jobs. To even suggest that Israel and American Jews are some kind of victims who must be protected at a time when they are actively engaged in genocide and complete ethnic cleansing of literally millions of Palestinians.
My principal complaint with the government Jewish agenda is that it creates two classes of people before the rule of law, i.e. those who are Jews and must be protected and the rest of us who, on the contrary, will face the consequences if we so much as criticize Israeli or Jewish behavior. Ironically, we can criticize our own country or any other country in the world, but not Israel. If we are a legal resident or a student on an educational visa who crosses the line we can have that status erased and be deported without any due process. It also means that any encounter with law enforcement or government that has any taint of being critical of Jews can lead to two level justice, as many foreign students in the US are currently discovering.
A story last week out of Crown Heights Brooklyn illustrates precisely what I mean. Israel’s monstrous Security Chief Itamar Ben-Gvir, who believes in killing all Palestinians if it becomes necessary to remove them, was in town being cheered on by a large crowd of the indigenous Ultra Orthodox Jews. A local resident, a woman in her thirties, wondered what all of the noise was about and went out to take a look. She was immediately set upon by a large crowd of roughly one hundred, which screamed at her that she was a “Palestinian demonstrator,” which was not true. She “feared for her life as she was chased, kicked, spit at and pelted with objects by [the] mob of Orthodox Jewish men. She recalled how ‘They were shouting at me, threatening to rape me, chanting death to Arabs. I thought the police would protect me from the mob, but they did nothing to intervene.’ As the chants grew in intensity, a lone police officer who had joined her sought to escort her to safety back towards her apartment. They were followed for blocks by hundreds of men and boys jeering in Hebrew and English. Video shows two of the men kicking her in the back, another hurling a traffic cone into her head and a fourth pushing a trash can into her. She was beaten and kicked and even had a large garbage can thrown on top of her.” The woman later recalled how “I felt sheer terror. I realized at that point that I couldn’t lead this mob of men to my home. I had nowhere to go. I didn’t know what to do. I was just terrified.” After several blocks, the officer moved the woman into a police vehicle which prompted one assailant to yell, “Get her!” but the crowd erupted then in cheers as she was driven away. Interestingly, there were many police officers in the immediate area, presumably to protect all the rioting Jews from attacks by antisemites, but they had not intervened while the woman was being pursued apart from the one officer who came to her assistance.
The entire episode was filmed by bystanders and one would think that the Jews who had beaten the woman would face some consequences, but as is always the case when it is Jews/Israelis who are committing crimes there is the presumption of antisemitism at play and nothing happens. I could find nothing in the subsequent press coverage that suggests that anyone was arrested or even detained. I have previously suggested that this has also been the pattern connected to the past year’s demonstrations over the slaughter in Gaza. The universities and local police are quick to detain those normally peaceful demonstrators regarded as pro-Palestinians but when those individuals are in turn physically attacked by Jewish organized groups the Jews are not subjected to the same standard of law enforcement. To put it mildly, there is absolutely no mandate to protect Palestinians or ordinary Americans who become victims in the violent counterattacks on peace encampments staged by local Jews and, reportedly, including some Israeli army veterans in incidents at both Columbia University and the University of California at Los Angeles. Have any violent Israelis been arrested or deported? No? Apparently, the US “justice system” is focused on serving Israel at the expense of the US Constitution’s protection of free speech and free association.
The “Jewish Exemption” that is in practice at all levels of US and local government is readily discernible nearly everywhere to include the media coverage of Israeli atrocities. Israel, has, for example, its own completely illegal nuclear arsenal obtained through theft and deception from the United States, but nobody in the US government is allowed to mention that and it rarely comes up in the press. And no one is permitted to enforce American laws if they impact on Israel, like the Leahy Law which forbids military assistance to any country that violates human rights “with impunity.” Israel clearly is qualified to be sanctioned by that standard, but no US Administration has dared to enforce the law for fear that the powerful Israel Lobby will retaliate.
My point is that every time one turns around currently the government is doing something to exempt Jews or Israel from the consequences of their own behavior while at the same time the folks who criticize that behavior are being punished with denial of free speech and crippling penalties that will in some cases diminish their prospects for the rest of their lives. This has got to stop and all Americans must be treated the same under law. Jews are the most protected and coddled tribe that goes to make up what we Americans call a “country” but they are not the only ones here. It is time that the corrupted political class in this nation begin to realize that.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.
From loans to crypto, the US financial siege of Hezbollah
The Cradle | May 2, 2025
In its relentless campaign to weaken the Lebanese resistance, Washington has launched a comprehensive financial and economic offensive against Hezbollah, aimed at isolating the group and eroding its post-war influence.
This effort is part of a wider US regional agenda to neutralize Israel’s enemies and ensure that Hezbollah plays no role in Lebanon’s recovery, in order to weaken its standing among both supporters and the broader population.
The US playbook draws from its standard regime-change toolkit – blockades, sanctions, institutional sabotage – but now with furious intensity, bolstered by the regional fallout of Syria’s unraveling and Washington’s increasing grip on Lebanese institutions.
A major component of this pressure campaign is the US’s direct and increased involvement in the day-to-day operations of Lebanese state agencies, particularly around ports, airports, and financial networks.
Despite this, Hezbollah has managed to mobilize close to $1 billion in aid since the ineffective ceasefire agreement five months ago – supporting displaced civilians and initiating early-phase reconstruction in the country’s south, Bekaa region, and southern suburbs of Beirut.
Sealing off Lebanon: Borders, skies, and ports
The late, martyred Hezbollah secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah never shied away from publicly acknowledging Iran as the group’s primary financial backer. In response, the US and Israel have worked aggressively to sever that link – most notably by targeting direct flights between Beirut and Tehran.
Following direct Israeli threats against Beirut-Rafic Hariri International Airport and intense US diplomatic and security pressure, Lebanon’s government under western-backed President Joseph Aoun moved to block Iranian aircraft from landing or taking off in Beirut. The goal: severing physical currency flows and cutting off high-value transfers via air.
These measures were followed by a sweeping overhaul of airport security. Electronic surveillance initiated under the Najib Mikati government and Transportation Minister Ali Hamieh – viewed as close to Hezbollah – was expanded.
Inspections were tightened, and dozens of staff were removed or reassigned based on religious, familial, or political affiliations. Control over airport security was consolidated under Brigadier General Kfoury, with American officials closely monitoring implementation.
The aim is clear: Eliminate cash transfers through travelers. In one case back in February, authorities seized $2.5 million from a passenger arriving from Turkiye, which the Higher Islamic Shia Council claimed as its own – though opponents alleged the funds belonged to Hezbollah.
Surveillance now targets passengers arriving from Turkiye, the UAE, Iraq, and African states, especially frequent fliers with little or no luggage, suspected of being couriers.
The US has also ramped up pressure on Turkiye, Iraq, and Qatar to monitor Lebanon-bound financial flows, leveraging their ties with the Islamic Republic. Border inspections across West Asian airports have intensified dramatically.
At Beirut Port, similar efforts are underway. Inspection protocols have been revamped, and staff purged to prevent Hezbollah from using shipping containers for cash smuggling. Israeli officials and Lebanese political adversaries have spotlighted the port – still reeling from the devastating 2020 blast – as a supposed smuggling hub, pushing for stricter measures.
On Lebanon’s eastern border with Syria, pressure is being reinforced militarily. Syrian army operations near the Qusayr region – adjacent to Lebanon’s Hermel – appear coordinated with US and Israeli demands to close off land routes Hezbollah once used to move funds and arms.
Syria’s President and former Al-Qaeda leader, Ahmad al-Sharaa, has reportedly informed US and European interlocutors that his government is actively disrupting Hezbollah supply channels. Meanwhile, Israeli drones conduct routine surveillance of the border, striking suspected transfers at will.
Financial asphyxiation through the banks
With smuggling routes under siege, Washington is escalating efforts to choke Hezbollah via the banking and commercial sectors. All financial activity – from remittances to basic commerce – is now under microscopic scrutiny to ensure the group is cut off at every node.
The recent appointment of Lebanon’s Central Bank Governor Karim Saeed has further solidified US influence over Lebanon’s financial system. While his predecessor Wassim Mansouri (aligned with the Amal Movement) took initial steps that constrained Hezbollah’s financial networks, Saeed has expanded on this approach further, taking an increasingly hostile stance toward Hezbollah – helping enforce Washington’s dictates within Lebanon’s banking institutions.
Measures include arbitrary account closures, frozen transfers, and heightened scrutiny of routine transactions suspected of even peripheral links to Hezbollah. While designed to stifle the group, these policies have ensnared countless ordinary Lebanese – especially Shia populations and those from opposition-aligned backgrounds – trapping them in a banking system that now functions as a US-enforced surveillance and punishment mechanism.
Currency exchange offices are also under fire. Hefty fines have been levied under both Mansouri and Saeed for dealing with individuals flagged by Washington – often baselessly – as Hezbollah affiliates. Ostensibly part of a campaign to dry up Lebanon’s cash-based economy, the deeper objective is political: Make Hezbollah’s support base pay the price of resistance, and sow dissent among Shia communities.
Even cryptocurrency has not escaped notice. Though harder to track inside blockchain systems, US authorities are targeting the fiat-to-crypto entry point, focusing on how individuals acquire digital currency before it moves beyond the reach of formal oversight.
The assault on Al-Qard al-Hassan
In addition to economic warfare, Israel has militarily targeted Hezbollah-linked institutions – chief among them, the Al-Qard al-Hassan Association. During the war, several of the loan institution’s branches were bombed. But the campaign against this financial cooperative extends far beyond airstrikes.
Washington and Tel Aviv are determined to dismantle Al-Qard al-Hassan, viewing it as a pillar of Hezbollah’s socioeconomic infrastructure and a symbol of grassroots resistance. The US is pressuring Lebanon’s central bank to shut the institution down altogether. Although Governor Saeed has publicly denied plans to do so, political insiders widely believe dismantling the cooperative is one of his key tasks.
Unlike traditional banks, Al-Qard al-Hassan operates as a solidarity-based financial institution. Its mission is to provide accessible services to underserved communities – many of whom have lost trust in Lebanon’s scandal-ridden private banking sector. This alternative model undermines the profit-driven logic of western financial institutions, making it a strategic target for elimination.
The campaign to vilify the cooperative has gained momentum in recent years. Claims have surfaced of a past hacking incident that allegedly exposed highly sensitive client data – names, transactions, and account details.
If true, it would hand Washington a sanctions hit list and serve as a deterrent to anyone considering using the institution. The goal is to isolate Al-Qard al-Hassan, destroy public trust in it, and neutralize its utility to the resistance.
Strategic sabotage by another name
Washington is banking on these combined tactics – air, land, financial, and digital – to bear fruit ahead of Lebanon’s next parliamentary elections.
The underlying calculation is blunt: Cut off Hezbollah’s resources, weaken its institutions, and its base will either abstain or swing toward rival factions. Such an outcome could shift the balance of power in the Lebanese parliament, eroding both Hezbollah’s share and that of its primary ally, the Amal Movement.
It is a strategy not of persuasion, but of attrition – waged not on the battlefield, but through bureaucracies, banks, and surveillance networks. The US hopes that a starved resistance will become a subdued resistance – and, eventually, no resistance at all.
From the United States to Europe, criticizing Israel is becoming a crime
By Kit KLARENBERG | MintPress News | April 29, 2025
Across the United States and much of the West, criticism of Israel and solidarity with Palestine are increasingly being criminalized—a project long championed by Israel’s government and its powerful lobbying networks.
In February 2020, Israeli leader and internationally wanted war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu proudly declared that Tel Aviv had “promoted laws in most U.S. states” to punish those who boycott Israel, offering a rare glimpse into the foreign forces eroding free speech in the American heartland.
Since then, anti-boycott laws have quietly spread to dozens of states, forcing public institutions, businesses, and even individual contractors to pledge loyalty to Israel—or risk losing jobs, contracts, and funding. What began as a niche effort to shield Tel Aviv from grassroots criticism has rapidly escalated into a sweeping assault on free speech across the Western world.
The overwhelming majority of states now boast laws making it illegal for local entities, including hospitals and schools, to work with individuals or companies that boycott Israel. For example, in 2016, Indiana’s Senate unanimously passed a law calling for mandatory divestment by state agencies, commercial enterprises, and nonprofit organizations—including universities—from any firm involved in “the promotion of activities to boycott, divest from, or sanction Israel.”
The legislation branded boycotts against Israel as “antithetical and deeply damaging to the cause of peace, justice, equality, democracy and human rights for all people in the Middle East.”
Several states have adopted comparable laws via governors signing administrative and executive orders. In some cases, state contractors—be they individuals or organizations—are legally obligated to demonstrate their anti-BDS credentials by signing contractual affirmations of non-support for BDS, which critics argue is essentially a loyalty oath to Israel.
State employees, including teachers, have lost their jobs for refusing to do so. In May 2021, a federal judge ruled such legislation in Georgia to be “unconstitutional compelled speech.” Undeterred, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp reintroduced the requirement just months later with slight amendments.
Israel’s extraordinary and ever-growing influence over domestic U.S. laws in recent years, and the devastating consequences for Palestinian solidarity at home and abroad, have passed without much critical mainstream acknowledgement, let alone censure.
Since October 7, the push to criminalize pro-Palestinian sentiment Stateside and the media’s mass omertà (code of silence) on this disturbing crusade have both intensified significantly. However, such disquieting developments aren’t restricted to the U.S., but eagerly embraced by an ever-growing number of countries intimately complicit in the Gaza genocide.
‘Drastic Rise’
In a grave testament to the speed with which U.S.-based pro-Israel organizations, including several prominent Jewish advocacy groups, sought to capitalize on October 7 for their own purposes, two-and-a-half weeks after Palestinian fighters breached Gaza’s infamous apartheid walls, Republican lawmaker Mike Lawler proposed H.R. 6090, also known as the Antisemitism Awareness Act.
Lawler is a major recipient of Israeli lobby funds, with the influential lobbying group AIPAC gifting him $392,669 in 2023 and 2024 alone, his largest donor by some margin. His bill would require the Department of Education to consider the highly controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism (which critics argue conflates criticism of Israel with antisemitism) when determining if cases of harassment are motivated by antisemitism, raising concerns that it would violate the intent of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
This, its proponents argue, “prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance,” including colleges and universities. H.R. 6090 is openly supported by nearly all influential pro-Israel organizations, including the ADL.
The IHRA definition has been condemned by many, including attorney Kenneth Stern, who helped draft it, for falsely conflating legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism. The ACLU warns that H.R. 6090 raises the clear risk that U.S. educational facilities will “restrict student and faculty speech critical of the Israeli government and its military operations,” for fear of “losing federal funding.”
Longstanding U.S. law already prohibits antisemitic discrimination and harassment by federally funded entities, making the proposed legislation completely unnecessary.
Despite the obvious and dire threats to fundamental freedoms posed by the bill, and even harsh criticisms from major Jewish groups (such as J Street and Jewish Voice for Peace), it received barely any mention by major news outlets. Still, Congress supported it by an overwhelming majority, voting 320 to 91 in its favor.
Senators nonetheless failed to consider the legislation, prompting Congressman Josh Gottheimer, who received $797,189 from AIPAC in 2023 and 2024, to reintroduce the bill in February. In the meantime, U.S. lawmakers again took a deeply worrying step in Israel’s clear favor.
On November 28, 2023, Congressman David Kustoff—another AIPAC beneficiary—introduced a House Resolution “strongly condemning and denouncing the drastic rise of antisemitism” in the U.S. and “around the world” following October 7. Citing the IHRA’s antisemitism definition, it declared that popular Palestine solidarity chants—protected by the First Amendment—“From the River to the Sea,” “Palestine Will Be Free,” and “Gaza Will Win” to be genocidal, and claimed that a candlelit vigil at the Democratic National Committee that month had endangered lives.
It concluded by calling on Congress to “clearly and firmly [state] that anti-Zionism is antisemitism,” which they did inordinately. In all, 311 lawmakers voted for the Resolution, with just 14 against.
Niko House, a media personality and activist specializing in civil rights and anti-imperialist issues, believes that these efforts are desperate attempts to justify legal measures that threaten civil liberties and would be unthinkable if any other country were in the crosshairs—including the U.S. itself.
“If enacted, these laws will give authorities broad license to persecute anyone and everyone who calls attention to the unprecedented levels of discrimination Palestinians experience today, and have done for over 75 years,” House tells MintPress. He reserves particular contempt for H.R. 6090:
“As a Black man, I find it deeply insulting [that] Congress would exploit the Civil Rights Act to silence, if not criminalize, pro-Palestine sentiment. Whether it be segregation, freedom to attend whatever educational institution or pursue whatever career you choose, or equal and indiscriminate access to facilities and basic sustenance like food and water, Palestinians have been suffering from the very forms of discrimination the Act was created to protect against ever since Israel’s creation. And the Gaza genocide has made all of this even worse.”
‘Targeting Critics’
Such brazen pro-Israeli lawfare is a longstanding tradition in modern American politics. In 1977, two amendments to the Export Administration Act and the U.S. Tax Code were passed. In theory, they prohibited U.S. citizens and companies from complying with foreign boycotts against any country considered “friendly” to Washington. In reality, it was specifically intended to counteract the long-running embargo of Israel by the Arab League. Most U.S. allies adopted the prohibition, in some cases ironically damaging their relations with Israel.
Then in 1987, Ronald Reagan designated the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)—at the time recognized almost universally as the Palestinian people’s legitimate representatives—a terrorist entity, but enacted a waiver the next year permitting “contact” between White House officials and the group.
This fudge meant the Organization was forced to shut down its D.C. office and cease most of its formal international diplomatic and fundraising initiatives, but allowed U.S. authorities to continue to engage with its leadership without legal repercussions.
There are sinister historical echoes, too, in yet another post-October 7 Congressional move in the U.S. On December 12, 2023, Mariannette Miller-Meeks, a fervently pro-Israel lawmaker who has received vast sums from the Israeli lobby while cosponsoring and voting in favor of multiple pro-Israel measures that critics argue suppress Palestinian rights and run afoul of the First Amendment, proposed H.R. 6578. It calls for the creation of an official “Commission to Study Acts of Antisemitism” in the U.S.
The legislation’s clauses exclusively refer to “antisemitism” in the context of criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza after October 7. Its accompanying press release clearly shows that Palestine solidarity activists are its intended targets, particularly college and university students. Under its auspices, a formal Congressional investigation into opposition to Israel among U.S. citizens and organizations would be instigated, and any witness subpoenaed to give evidence would be barred from invoking their constitutional right to remain silent under questioning.
Lara Friedman, Middle East Forum for Peace President, slammed the proposal as a malign attempt to construct a modern equivalent to the infamous House Un-American Activities Committee (which investigated suspected supporters of communism during the Cold War). Established by Senator Joe McCarthy in 1938, the Committee probed the political leanings of private citizens, state employees, and public and government organizations. In the process, countless careers and lives were destroyed. Friedman charges H. R. 6578 will, by design, do the same—“but this time targeting critics of Israel.”
‘Disruptive Policies’
It would be wrongheaded to view this wave of repressive laws as unique or isolated to the U.S., or exclusively a product of the Gaza genocide. In the wake of October 7, authorities in Germany, which quietly supported Israel’s illicit nuclear weapons program for years, unleashed an unprecedented crackdown against Palestine solidarity activists and groups. The repression came in the form of brutal assaults on protest attendees of all ages and genders, city and state courts convicting people for leading pro-Palestinian chants, and restrictions on speaking foreign languages at public demonstrations.
German city and state governments have banned or are considering banning displays of red triangles (a symbol adopted by some Palestinian resistance fighters). As of June 2024, applicants for German citizenship are now tested on their knowledge of Judaism and Jewish life. They must declare their belief in Israel’s right to exist to prove their commitment to “German values.” Legal experts and rights advocates have widely questioned the constitutionality of requiring political support for a foreign state as a condition for citizenship.
This wave of legal repression is not confined to Germany. Across the English Channel, British authorities have similarly intensified their crackdown on dissent. In February 2024, three individuals were convicted of terror offenses in Britain after displaying images of paragliders at a Palestine solidarity protest on the controversial grounds that it amounted to “glorification of the actions” of Hamas. Since then, multiple British pro-Palestinian activists and journalists have been arrested, raided, and prosecuted over allegations of “supporting” Hamas. In December 2024, the UN sounded an alarm over London’s “vague and over-broad” counter-terror legislation.
These laws do not define the term ‘support,’ which the UN believes raises the risk of dissenting individuals who cannot plausibly be accused of endorsing “violent terrorist acts” by proscribed groups, including their political wings, being caught up in the legislation’s sweeping dragnet. Undeterred, authorities have only intensified their harassment of Palestine solidarity voices since.
Naila Kauser, an activist currently wanted for questioning by counter-terror police in London for pro-Palestinian statements she purportedly made on social media, tells MintPress News :
“Attacks against activists and journalists who speak out against the genocide in Palestine can only be described as an abuse of law, in service of fascism. It is the British state that is violating multiple world laws, including the Genocide Convention, by continuing to support Israel through intelligence-sharing, arms trade, and diplomatic protection of Israeli war criminals, as we saw recently with the Israeli Foreign Minister’s not-so-secret visit to London. Britain proscribing those who fight occupation also undermines their internationally recognised legal right to resist.”
Electronic Intifada editor Asa Winstanley, whose London home was raided and digital devices seized by counter-terror police at dawn in October 2024, suggests to MintPress News that the British government’s December 2016 adoption of the IHRA’s misdefinition of antisemitism may have played a role in the wave of repression targeting “legitimate dissent, protest, and political action” against crimes committed by the Israeli state. He says that the controversial definition, reportedly influenced by Israeli intelligence, “does nothing to protect Jews or anyone else — its primary aim is to criminalize Palestinians and their supporters.”
Winstanley cites the striking example of a London council in 2019 using the IHRA’s definition of antisemitism to ban a local pro-Palestinian bike ride seeking to raise money for sports equipment for Gazan children from traveling through its parks. “This wasn’t a direct action, it wasn’t anything to do with Jewish people, it wasn’t discrimination, it was pure solidarity of the fluffiest kind, and even this was officially found to fall foul of the IHRA definition,” Winstanley warned.
‘Moral Authority’
In June 2023, the ponderously titled Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill began making its way through British Parliament. Its purpose is to ban any public bodies conducting their investments and procurement “in a way that indicates political or moral disapproval of a foreign state.”
An accompanying press release made clear the legislation’s explicit purpose was protecting “businesses and organizations” affiliated with Israel. Michael Gove, the then-government minister who introduced the law, said of BDS efforts:
“These campaigns not only undermine the UK’s foreign policy but lead to appalling antisemitic rhetoric and abuse. That is why we have taken this decisive action to stop these disruptive policies once and for all.”
The array of organizations affected is gargantuan, ranging from local councils to universities, and the implications are grave in every way. Institutions can be investigated solely at the personal discretion of government officials and face voluminous fines for breaches. During the 1980s, when the British government refused to sanction or condemn South Africa, the very entities targeted by this legislation boycotted the Apartheid state. If the new law were in effect at the time, such activities would have been entirely illegal.
Exacerbating matters further, the anti-BDS Act violates multiple UN rulings and contradicts the British government’s own stated positions. London’s official stance for decades has been that Israeli settlements “are illegal under international law, constitute an obstacle to peace and threaten a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” As such, Britain’s private sector is actively discouraged by authorities from conducting business there. Yet, public bodies may now be legally prohibited from following this very precept.
Still, there remains one potential legal avenue of resistance. As MintPress News has previously reported, multiple legal findings and precedents indicate countries party to the Genocide Convention, as Britain is, must “employ all means reasonably available” to prevent genocide. What’s more, failing to stop providing aid or assistance to a state engaged in genocide could violate Article I of the Convention. This could provide legal protection from London’s new anti-BDS law. As activist Naila Kauser, herself a target of London’s latest measures, concludes:
“Laws that defend genocide have no legitimacy, and states enforcing them and enabling the genocide have no moral authority. They want us to shut up, but we must continue to resist these attacks, as well as the ongoing genocide, in any way we can until Palestine is liberated.”
Featured Video
The Sordid History of the CIA – Part 2
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu: Leave No Palestinian or Arab Alive
By Jonas E. Alexis | Veterans Today | July 23, 2017
Israeli Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu seems to have picked up where the late Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef left off. The Israeli army, Eliyahu said, must slaughter the Palestinians “and leave no one alive.” The Palestinians, the good rabbi continued, must be “destroyed and crushed in order to end violence.” Here is Eliyahu’s algorithm:
“If they don’t stop after we kill 100, then we must kill 1,000. And if they do not stop after 1,000, then we must kill 10,000. If they still don’t stop we must kill 100,000, even a million.”
There is more to this “logic” than meets the eye and ear. Eliyahu even postulated that the Israeli army ought not to get involved in arresting Palestinians because “If you leave him alive, there is a fear that he will be released and kill other people. We must eradicate this evil from within our midst.”
You may say that this is just an isolated case. No Israeli official believes that, right? … continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
Aletho News- The Sordid History of the CIA – Part 2
- French FM under fire over ‘false’ claims about UN rapporteur
- Israel Wants ISIS-Linked Militias To Control Rafah Crossing — The New Order in Gaza
- ISIS never left Syria, it just changed uniforms
- Why ARE the US and Israel Obsessed With Eliminating Iran’s Ballistic Missiles?
- Kremlin comments on EU ‘myopia’ over dialogue with Russia
- Russia more adapted to contemporary military technology than NATO
- Germany puts caveat on more missiles for Ukraine
- UK High Court rules Palestine Action ban unlawful
- Populations in key NATO nations balk at sacrifices for military spending – poll
- If Americans Knew
- Noor’s short life of unimaginable suffering
- Israel Destroyed Gaza’s Hospitals. Now It’s Banning Doctors Without Borders.
- Is Spite of What Zionists Say, It’s a Good Thing to Criticize Governments
- Palestinian mother, daughter recount strip searches, harsh conditions in Israeli detention
- Israel used weapons in Gaza that made thousands of Palestinians evaporate
- ADL’s Stats Twist Israel’s Critics Into Antisemites
- Why Is the World Silent When the Gaza Genocide Is Not Over?
- In Gaza: 8,000 bodies under rubble, 3,000 missing – Not a ceasefire Day 126
- AZAPAC, the new PAC opposing Israeli domination of U.S policies
- Haim Saban: Billionaire for Israel
- No Tricks Zone
- German Gas Crisis…Chancellor Merz Allegedly Bans Gas Debate Ahead of Elections!
- Pollen Reconstructions Show The Last Glacial’s Warming Events Were Global, 10x Greater Than Modern
- Germany’s Natural Gas Storage Level Dwindles To Just 28%… Increasingly Critical
- New Study Rebuts The Assumption That Anthropogenic CO2 Molecules Have ‘Special’ Properties
- Climate Scientist Who Predicted End Of “Heavy Frost And Snow” Now Refuses Media Inquiries
- Polar Bear Numbers Rising And Health Improving In Areas With The Most Rapid Sea Ice Decline
- One Reason Only For Germany’s Heating Gas Crisis: Its Hardcore-Dumbass Energy Policy
- 130 Years Later: The CO2 Greenhouse Effect Is Still Only An Imaginary-World Thought Experiment
- New Study Affirms Rising CO2’s Greening Impact Across India – A Region With No Net Warming In 75 Years
- Germany’s Natural Gas Crisis Escalates … One Storage Site Near Empty …Government Silent
Aletho News 