The Israeli flag just became the only national flag illegal to burn in the United States
When Criticizing Israel Becomes a Hate Crime: How One Ruling Betrayed the First Amendment
By Shaun King | The North Star | August 16, 2025
The Flag America Protects
This week in Washington, D.C., a federal judge made a ruling so shocking, so unprecedented, that it flips the First Amendment on its head. Judge Trevor N. McFadden declared that the Israeli flag — with the Star of David at its center — is not a political symbol at all, but a racial one.
He ruled that tearing it, grabbing it, desecrating it, even in the heat of protest, is not free expression but racial discrimination.
Think about that. In the United States, you can burn the American flag — the Supreme Court has said so for decades. But now, according to this ruling, burning or tearing the Israeli flag could make you guilty of racial hatred. The one national flag protected in American law today isn’t our own. It’s Israel’s.
You can burn the flags of all 50 states. You can torch the American flag all you want. You can burn the flags of the UK or France or Brazil or China.
But not Israel.
The Supreme Court’s Bedrock Principle
The highest court in the land has spoken clearly: you cannot criminalize burning the American flag. In Texas v. Johnson(1989), Justice William Brennan wrote:
“If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable.”
The following year, in United States v. Eichman (1990), the Court struck down another attempt to ban flag burning, reminding the country that:
“Punishing desecration of the flag dilutes the very freedom that makes this emblem so revered, and worth revering.”
In America, even the Stars and Stripes — the nation’s own sacred symbol — cannot be placed above criticism or protest. That is what freedom means. And yet in 2025, a federal judge just carved out an exception — for a foreign flag.
How the Israeli Flag Was Elevated
The case came from dueling protests in D.C. last fall. Kimmara Sumrall, a pro-Israel activist, draped the Israeli flag around her shoulders as a cape. A pro-Palestinian demonstrator yanked it. A police officer saw it and arrested the woman.
The criminal court acquitted her. But Sumrall filed a civil rights lawsuit, backed by the National Jewish Advocacy Center, arguing that this wasn’t just an assault — it was racial discrimination.
Judge McFadden agreed. In his ruling, he wrote:
“Purposefully yanking on an Israeli flag tied around a Jewish person’s neck… is direct evidence of racial discrimination. The Star of David — emblazoned upon the Israeli flag — symbolizes the Jewish race.”
With that, he collapsed the line between a political symbol and a people’s identity. He went so far as to compare attacking the Israeli flag to using the N-word against a Black person.
No other flag in the world has been granted this kind of protection in an American courtroom. Not Britain’s. Not Canada’s. Not Mexico’s. Not even our own. Only Israel’s.
Civil Rights Law Twisted
To reach this conclusion, McFadden invoked the Civil Rights Act of 1866, written to protect newly freed Black Americans. Later, in 1987, the Supreme Court held that Jews and Arabs were covered as “races” under this law.
But McFadden went further than any court before him. He declared that the flag of Israel itself is a racial symbol — and therefore protected. And in doing so, he turned what was supposed to be a shield for the oppressed into a shield for an oppressive foreign government.
The Global Contrast
Everywhere else in the democratic world, flag burning is understood as a political expression. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled again and again: desecrating a flag, however offensive, is free speech.
It is only authoritarian regimes that conflate their flags with their people, criminalizing dissent in the name of “unity.” Now, America has imported that same authoritarian logic — not to protect our own flag, but to protect Israel’s. It’s wild to see.
The Stakes for Protest
The implications are chilling. If this ruling stands, tearing down or burning an Israeli flag at a protest could be treated as a federal hate crime. Shouting against Zionism near someone draped in the flag could be called racial harassment.
This isn’t about protecting Jewish people from violence. It’s about shielding Israel from protest while it bombs and starves children in Gaza.
One Flag Above All
Let’s be brutally clear. The Israeli flag is now the only national flag that American courts have declared effectively immune from desecration. The Stars and Stripes itself can be burned in the name of protest. Israel’s flag cannot.
That is not constitutional law. That is political favoritism dressed up as civil rights. And it represents a betrayal of the First Amendment.
Shaun King is an American writer & activist.
Netanyahu associate, arrested in Las Vegas child sex sting, escapes without charges
Press TV – August 16, 2025
An Israeli cyber official, who works directly under Benjamin Netanyahu, escaped to the occupied territories after his arrest in a US child sex operation in Nevada, US.
Las Vegas police, working with the FBI, Homeland Security, and Nevada’s Internet Crimes against Children Task Force, announced on Wednesday the arrest of 8 men, including Tom Artiom Alexandrovich.
Alexandrovich, 38, serves as Acting Head of Data & AI at Israel’s so-called National Cyber Directorate.
He is the founder of Israel’s multi-million-dollar “Cyber Dome” initiative. The program is reportedly equipped with AI to detect, neutralize, and repel cyber threats before they reach critical systems.
He has deep access to Israel’s cyber secrets and classified partnerships with foreign powers.
According to Las Vegas authorities, Alexandrovich and others were charged with luring a child with a computer for a sexual act. In Nevada, this felony carries a sentence of up to 20 years in prison.
He was in Las Vegas for a professional conference, not as a registered diplomat. He has no diplomatic immunity. Yet US authorities allowed him to board a plane and return to Israeli-occupied territories within days, without trial, bail conditions, or public explanation.
Israeli outlet Ynet reported only that Alexandrovich was “briefly detained for questioning… before his release and return to Israel,” without mentioning the felony charges or the multi-agency child predator sting led by US authorities.
On January 11, Ivor Caplin, another top Israeli official and the head of the Jewish Labor Movement (JLM), was arrested by the Sussex Police for engaging in sexual communication with a child.
He was subsequently released on bail, extended several times, with the most recent extension requiring Caplin to return to answer bail on October 8.
Trump Admin Wants DEI for Jewish Students?!
Glenn Greenwald | August 2, 2025
This is a clip from our show SYSTEM UPDATE, now airing every weeknight at 7pm ET on Rumble.
You can watch the full episode for FREE here: https://rumble.com/v6x01gs-system-upd…
Now available as a podcast! Find full episodes here: https://linktr.ee/systemupdate_
Join us LIVE on Rumble, weeknights at 7pm ET: https://rumble.com/c/GGreenwald
Is Europe pushing for Palestinian statehood or Palestinian surrender?
By Malek al-Khoury | The Cradle | July 28, 2025
Since its inception in 1948, Israel has never operated within fixed borders. Expansion has always been its doctrine – not constrained by law, but propelled by force and endorsed by unwavering western support. Israel has refused to define its boundaries for almost eight decades because its very identity is rooted in a colonial ambition that has never truly ended.
From the Nakba (Catastrophe) to the Naksa (Setback), from territorial invasions to the annexation of Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, and the West Bank, the occupation state has continued to redraw its borders according to power, not legitimacy.
This expansionist project has only grown stronger with the rise of the messianic-nationalist current inside Israel, which sees full control over “Greater Israel” as a historical right that cannot be compromised.
Today, 77 years since the Nakba, Israel has advanced to full-throttle expansion mode – dispossessing Palestinians, destroying entire towns and villages, entrenching illegal Jewish settlements, and enforcing apartheid. Yet paradoxically, European states like France and the UK are preparing to recognize a “Palestinian state” precisely when Palestinian political geography is at its most fragmented, and when the Zionist project is at its most aggressive.
So what does this recognition actually mean? Is it a strategic achievement for Palestinians, or a diplomatic ruse that rebrands surrender as success?
A state without borders, a project without restraint
The 1917 Balfour Declaration marked the formal launch of a settler-colonial project in Palestine. What followed was not immigration but calculated dispossession – from British-facilitated land seizures and massacres, to the mass expulsions of the 1948 Nakba, which ethnically cleansed over 750,000 Palestinians.
This was not mere colonialism. It was ethnic replacement: Land was seized under imperial protection, then militarily conquered. This campaign never ended. It continued with the occupation of Gaza, Jerusalem, and the West Bank, and escalated after 1967. Israel’s goal has never been coexistence. It has always been Jewish supremacy.
The 1947 UN Partition Plan (Resolution 181) granted over 55 percent of historic Palestine to the Zionist movement, despite Jews owning just six percent of the land. The Zionist movement accepted this on paper to gain international legitimacy, then immediately violated its terms, occupying 78 percent of the territory by force.
To this day, the occupation state has not adopted a formal constitution, and the reason is that basing itself on the Partition Plan would have constrained its expansionist ambitions. The Zionist doctrine never recognized final borders, instead establishing a state with no official frontiers – because its ambitions stretch beyond Palestinian geography to include parts of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt.
The internal debate in Israel over declaring a “Jewish state” is not merely a legal argument, but an attempt to solidify an exclusionary and replacement-based identity – one that legally enshrines racial discrimination and denies Palestinians their status as an indigenous people.
Resistance realignment: 7 October and the Two-State shift
The earthquake triggered by Operation Al-Aqsa Flood shook not only Israel but also the political discourse of the Palestinian movement. Strikingly, Palestinian factions – including Hamas – have begun explicitly voicing support for the “Two-State Solution” after years of insisting on liberating historic Palestine in its entirety.
In an unprecedented statement, senior Hamas official Khalil al-Hayya said in May 2024:
“We are ready to engage positively with any serious initiative for a two-state solution, provided it entails a real Palestinian state on the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital and without settlements.”
This tactical adaptation signals a significant shift. Key Palestinian actors are now openly considering a truncated state. Is this a reflection of changing power dynamics? Or an imposed realignment under regional and international duress?
Recognition as Leverage: France, Saudi Arabia, and normalization
Last week, in a post on X, French President Emmanuel Macron said:
“Consistent with its historic commitment to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, I have decided that France will recognize the State of Palestine. I will make this solemn announcement before the United Nations General Assembly this coming September … We need an immediate ceasefire, the release of all hostages, and massive humanitarian aid for the people of Gaza. We must also ensure the demilitarization of Hamas, secure and rebuild Gaza. And finally, we must build the State of Palestine, guarantee its viability, and ensure that by accepting its demilitarization and fully recognizing Israel, it contributes to the security of all in the region. There is no alternative.”
France’s anticipated recognition of a Palestinian state in September is not driven by principle, but is a hard, cold geopolitical maneuver. It would appear that Paris is seeking closer ties with Riyadh, which has tethered normalization with Tel Aviv to progress on the Palestinian file. French recognition is thus a calculated signal to Saudi Arabia – not a gesture of solidarity with Palestinians.
In this equation, Palestine becomes currency. Its statehood is not affirmed as a right, but dangled as a precondition in normalization deals between Arab monarchies and the occupation state.
Strategic alignments: The Ankara–London Axis
With a third of MPs calling on British Prime Minister Keir Starmer to recognize Palestine, pressure is also piling on London.
In a statement, Starmer said:
“Alongside our closest allies, I am working on a pathway to peace in the region, focused on the practical solutions that will make a real difference to the lives of those that are suffering in this war. That pathway will set out the concrete steps needed to turn the ceasefire so desperately needed, into a lasting peace. Recognition of a Palestinian state has to be one of those steps. I am unequivocal about that.”
Britain, too, is not moving toward recognition out of moral clarity, but to reinforce its post-Brexit strategic axis with Turkiye. Ankara, a key trading partner of Israel and political backer of Hamas, views the recognition of Palestine as a tool to elevate its regional stature and energy leverage. For London, deepening ties with Turkiye promises economic and geopolitical dividends. The result is a converging Paris–Riyadh and Ankara–London recognition track.
Thus, two informal axes are forming: Paris–Riyadh and Ankara–London, both converging on the recognition of a Palestinian state. Yet neither axis approaches it from a principled belief in Palestinian rights, but rather through the lens of power, influence, and realpolitik.
The Palestinian state: Recognition without sovereignty
Even if every European country were to recognize Palestine, it would amount to little more than symbolism without enforcement. There would be no defined borders for the state, no control over its own territory, and no halt to the settlement expansion or annexation policies pursued by the occupation state.
Tel Aviv rejects the premise entirely. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has insisted that any future Palestinian state would be “a platform to destroy Israel,” and that sovereign security control must remain with Israel. He has repeatedly ruled out a return to the conditions that existed prior to 7 October.
The reality is that 68 percent of the West Bank, classified as Area C, remains under full Israeli control. More than 750,000 settlers are embedded across that territory, under the full protection of the occupation army. How can a state exist on occupied, fragmented land, under constant siege, and without sovereignty?
“I’ve just returned from a lecture tour around the world, and I can confidently say Israel’s global image and position are at their lowest point in history,” writes Israeli journalist Ben-Dror Yemini.
Yet despite this, Netanyahu’s far-right government is doubling down – pushing for full annexation of the occupied West Bank, eyeing new territorial footholds in Sinai, southern Syria, even Jordan, while maintaining military positions in south Lebanon.
Israel’s global brand may be eroding, but its strategic project is advancing.
If Israel is expanding and entrenching, while the Palestinian movement scales back demands and regional states normalize ties, what exactly has been achieved?
Resistance factions that once rejected Tel Aviv’s existence now propose statehood on its terms. European recognition comes with no teeth. Settlements grow. Displacement continues. This is not liberation. It is the burial of the dream under the guise of diplomacy.
The interim solution will become the final arrangement. The Palestinian “state” becomes a diplomatic euphemism – an empty structure praised in speeches, but denied on the ground.
Behind Closed Doors: Bilderberg’s Secret Summits Are a Threat to Democracy
By Paul Anthony Taylor | Dr. Rath Health Foundation | July 11, 2025
Accompanied by only the bare minimum of publicity, a group of powerful politicians, corporate titans, tech billionaires, and military chiefs recently retreated behind a tight wall of secrecy for the 71st Bilderberg Meeting. Held in Stockholm’s luxurious Grand Hotel, some of the most influential decision-makers on Earth had four days of discussions in a forum that prides itself on being unaccountable to the billions of citizens whose lives are shaped by its decisions. As the Dr. Rath Health Foundation has long warned, when unelected elites meet in the shadows to set the world’s direction, it is democracy and the rights of ordinary people that are sacrificed first.
A glance at this year’s Bilderberg participant list is enough to quickly expose the lie that this was just a harmless “networking event.” NATO’s new Secretary General Mark Rutte sat down with the heads of the US Indo-Pacific Command and Europe’s top military brass, while defense contractors like Saab, Palantir and Thales stood by ready to profit from conflict. CEOs from Big Tech and the pharma industry – Microsoft, Spotify and Pfizer – were there too, rubbing shoulders with former Google chief and Bilderberg board member Eric Schmidt, a man who has openly warned that whoever wins the race for super-intelligent AI will hold “the keys to control the entire world.”
How can such a gathering, convened with no oversight and no minutes published, claim to serve the common good? The organizers hide behind the excuse that secrecy allows “free discussion,” but it is the freedom of the global public that is undermined when vital decisions about war, energy, technology, and economic policy are hashed out in private by an unelected few.
Consider some of this year’s discussion topics: the Ukraine conflict, nuclear proliferation, AI weapons, the “authoritarian axis” of China and Russia, the geopolitics of energy and critical minerals, and even depopulation and migration. These are not idle cocktail gossip subjects; they are major issues that touch the lives and livelihoods of billions of people across the entire world. Yet there is supposedly no record of what is said behind Bilderberg’s closed doors – only the vague reassurance that there is “no desired outcome.”
Profiting from the crises they help perpetuate
AI and military conflict were closely related themes at this year’s meeting. While some at Bilderberg paint AI as the next industrial revolution, others describe it as the “cavalry” that will save civilization from itself. But save whom, exactly? Powerful insiders like Peter Thiel and Eric Schmidt have invested heavily in AI-driven drone warfare and mass data collection – technologies that promise ever-greater profits for the few and unprecedented surveillance and control for the rest of us.
Meanwhile, those pushing this agenda are the same people who stand to profit most from the very conflicts they claim to manage. As the Dr. Rath Health Foundation has repeatedly exposed over the years, the interlocking interests of multinational corporations and their senior executives frequently feed off the very crises they help perpetuate.
And what about health? While the public is told to trust in official narratives, those who sit around the Bilderberg table include the heads of pharmaceutical giants like Pfizer and major financial houses like Goldman Sachs and Citigroup – institutions that have thrived under a global economic model that prioritizes profits and costly chronic disease management over preventive and science-based natural health approaches. With AI now poised to become the next trillion-dollar bonanza, these same interests gather to protect their future dominance – while the public remains uninformed and voiceless.
The point here is that for decades, the Bilderbergers have presented themselves as guardians of the so-called “rules-based order.” But the truth is that secrecy and accountability cannot coexist. Real democracy demands informed consent, not enforced compliance. When power is concentrated in hidden networks that answer to no one, trust evaporates and corruption thrives. Worse, secrecy fuels public disillusionment and suspicion – precisely because the participants make transparency impossible. If the Bilderbergers have nothing to hide, why do they hide at all?
The world needs transparency not secrecy
There is no place for this outdated cloak-and-dagger elitism in the 21st century. Humanity faces profound challenges: war and peace, food and energy security, the survival of natural health freedom, and the need to put people before corporate profits. These are not decisions to be made by billionaires and generals behind police barricades. They belong to us all. And the only way to ensure they serve humanity is to drag them out of the shadows and into the daylight.
The Dr. Rath Health Foundation has always supported the right of people to shape their own destinies through knowledge and empowerment. We strongly reject the notion that the future of our health, our economies, and our freedoms should be decided by unaccountable elites. Whether it is the Pharma Cartel’s stranglehold on healthcare or the global race to develop super-intelligent AI, our message remains the same: people must come before profit, and transparency must triumph over secrecy.
Bilderberg is not a harmless talking shop. It is a symbol of how far the unelected few will go to keep us shut out of decisions that affect every aspect of our lives. This secrecy is not a harmless tradition; it is a threat to democracy itself. The world does not need more secret summits – it needs open, democratic debate, rooted in human rights and the health and well-being of all.
If the Bilderberg participants truly believe they are acting in our best interest, they should have nothing to fear from transparency. Until they throw open their doors, allow cameras into their meetings, publish transcripts, and let the people they claim to serve see exactly what they are planning, the rest of us have every right – indeed, every duty – to question what they are doing.
In the fight for a healthier, freer, and fairer world, secrecy is our enemy. The time has therefore come to shine a bright light on the hidden corridors of power and insist that our future is not something to be traded behind closed doors, but built in the open, by and for the people.
Executive Director of the Dr. Rath Health Foundation and one of the coauthors of our explosive book, “The Nazi Roots of the ‘Brussels EU’”, Paul Anthony Taylor is also our expert on the Codex Alimentarius Commission and has had eye-witness experience, as an official observer delegate, at its meetings. You can find Paul on Twitter at @paulanthtaylor
How Israeli propaganda mills recycled fabricated claims of intercepting Iranian missiles
By Ivan Kesic | Press TV – July 5, 2025
For the third time, the Israeli regime has declared an implausible success rate in intercepting Iranian ballistic missiles, this time touting a fanciful figure of 86 percent, a claim parroted with little scrutiny by much of the Western mainstream media.
This week, Israeli media outlets relayed statements from the regime’s war ministry claiming that 86 percent of Iranian missiles and 99 percent of drones were intercepted during the June 2025 Israeli war against Iran.
The figures, they said, were drawn from 12 days of the war, during which Iran launched 532 ballistic missiles in approximately 42 barrages targeting the occupied Palestinian territories. According to the same sources, about 300 missiles landed in “open areas,” while 200 were allegedly intercepted by Israeli and American air defense systems.
The interception systems credited include Israel’s David’s Sling, Arrow 2 and 3, along with the US-supplied THAAD and Aegis systems, altogether costing around 5 billion shekels, or nearly $1.5 billion.
In a triumphant assessment, the Israeli war ministry claimed their interception prevented over $15 billion in potential property damage and “saved countless lives.”
Some Zionist officials went even further, asserting that only 25 to 31 Iranian ballistic missiles actually struck targets within the occupied territories.
Despite the glaring inconsistencies in these numbers, and their defiance of both available evidence and basic mathematics, Western media repeated the claims almost reverently, offering little in the way of critical examination.
A pattern of fabricated success
This is not a one-off occurrence. It marks the third time the Israeli regime has released clearly falsified data on interception success rates, only to see these narratives absorbed uncritically into Western discourse.
After Iran’s Operation True Promise 1 and 2 in April and October last year, Israeli regime officials boasted a now-familiar “99 percent” interception rate. In the second operation alone, they claimed 200 Iranian ballistic missiles were launched, implying that only two managed to bypass Israeli defenses.
Yet satellite imagery tells a vastly different story. At Nevatim Airbase, one of the three key Iranian targets (alongside Tel Nof Airbase and Mossad headquarters), 33 Iranian missiles made direct contact, 26 of which caused severe structural damage, including to five hangars.
These figures alone debunk Israel’s exaggerated claims, as does independent footage from civilian sources, which recorded dozens of strikes, far more than the “three” the regime was willing to admit.
Tel Nof Airbase saw direct hits that triggered secondary explosions among stored munitions. At least two missiles impacted areas near Mossad’s headquarters. In total, over 40 Iranian missiles successfully penetrated much-hyped Israeli defenses during Operation True Promise 2, twenty times more than Israeli officials conceded.
Their missile launch count was also exaggerated. Visual evidence confirms that 53 missiles were launched in three waves: 25 from Kermanshah, 18 from Tabriz, and 10 from Shiraz. This suggests that over 75 percent of Iranian missiles struck their intended targets, an accuracy rate far closer to Iranian estimates of 90 percent than the Israeli claim of 1 percent success.
The same distortions appeared after Operation True Promise 1, with Israel again insisting it intercepted “99 percent of 300 missiles and drones”—a figure clearly contradicted by publicly available footage capturing numerous impacts.
Latest round of deception
As with the previous two retaliatory operations, the latest Israeli claims, of an 86 percent interception rate, 300 harmless impacts in open areas, and only 30 successful Iranian strikes, lack any verifiable evidence.
Most Iranian retaliatory strikes and Israeli interception attempts occurred at night and were recorded in numerous public videos. These show luminous streaks of incoming missiles, and often, impact explosions, across the occupied territories.
All Israeli systems engaged, David’s Sling, Arrow 2/3, and THAAD use hit-to-kill technology, designed to intercept missiles at long ranges and high altitudes. When successful, these intercepts generate massive hypersonic collisions that produce blinding explosions visible across the region.
If Israel had indeed intercepted 200 ballistic missiles, as claimed, there would be a flood of corroborating footage from personal and security cameras, all time- and date-stamped.
But such evidence is conspicuously absent. Even the Israeli military, known for showcasing its “successes,” has failed to release convincing proof.
Nor is there any physical evidence of widespread missile debris in Iraq or Jordan, which should exist if large numbers of missiles had been intercepted in those areas.
Conversely, hundreds of videos document Iranian missiles piercing Israeli defenses and detonating across the occupied territories. If most Iranian missiles were truly falling into uninhabited open zones, as claimed, the regime would be eager to release images proving it. Instead, photo and video censorship has been rigorously enforced.
In fact, the scale of destruction suggests widespread strikes on Israeli military infrastructure, not craters in farmland. Israeli media themselves have pegged total damage at $12 billion, with projections reaching $20 billion when indirect costs are counted.
These staggering figures are inconsistent with the claim that only 25–31 missiles hit, unless one believes each missile inflicted $500, 800 million in damage, an implausible notion.
The official 86 percent success rate also contradicts a statement by a senior Israeli intelligence officer to American media, who admitted that by the seventh day of fighting, only 65 percent of Iranian missiles were being intercepted.
He attributed this drop in effectiveness to Iran’s deployment of faster, more maneuverable, and more sophisticated missiles.
Initially, Iran had used older liquid-fueled ballistic missiles, such as Shahab-3, known for their slow speed and predictable trajectories, making them easier to intercept. However, these outdated models were paired with decoys, confusing air defense systems and draining interceptor stockpiles.
Despite the extensive documentation of missile attacks, no comprehensive analysis has yet detailed how many Iranian missiles and Israeli interceptors were deployed, or what the true interception rate was.
Open-source analysts have attempted estimates using nighttime footage from Jordanian photographer Zaid M. al-Abbadi, but his recordings cover only a fraction of the conflict, nighttime only, with limited geographical and vertical scope.
Nonetheless, they point to a clear trend: Iranian missiles breached Israeli air defenses far more often than official figures admit, and did so with a frequency higher than the number of interceptors deployed.
Diversions and disinformation
In addition to exaggerating interception figures, the Israeli regime employs a range of propaganda tactics to conceal its failures and downplay Iranian achievements.
During Operation True Promise 1, iconic images of glowing Iranian missiles above Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock in occupied Jerusalem al-Quds stunned the world, symbolizing Iran’s reach and resolve.
In response, Israeli regime officials, most notably UN ambassador Gilad Erdan, offered the bizarre narrative that Israel was “protecting Al-Aqsa from Iranian missiles,” attempting to sow discord between Iran and the wider Muslim world.
In truth, those missiles were aimed at Nevatim Airbase, located 65 kilometers south of occupied Jerusalem al-Quds.
Similarly, during Operation True Promise 3, Israeli propagandists claimed Iran had deliberately struck the Al-Jarina Mosque in Haifa. In reality, a missile hit the Sail Tower regime building complex 50 meters southeast, with the mosque sustaining only minor facade damage from shockwaves.
Israel also falsely alleged Iranian attacks on schools and homes. But released images show damage consistent not with Iranian warheads, but with malfunctioning Israeli interceptors.
Perhaps the most egregious example was the claim that Iran targeted Soroka Hospital. In fact, the damage was from a strike on a nearby C4I military intelligence HQ. The regime routinely positions military infrastructure adjacent to civilian areas, then manipulates resulting collateral damage as evidence of Iranian wrongdoing.
Facilities like the Kirya military base in Tel Aviv and the military-linked Weizmann Institute are presented as “civilian” in official narratives. Moreover, videos of Iranian missile strikes on these sites are heavily censored, and sharing such footage risks severe legal punishment.
Finally, Israeli propaganda claims that missile victims are mostly “non-Israelis”—while failing to mention that non-Jewish residents are often banned from entering bomb shelters.
During the recent war, Palestinians, Chinese workers, and Turkish journalists all testified to being denied shelter access, highlighting both systemic discrimination and the hypocrisy of Israeli victimhood narratives.
Michigan AG Pins Blame for Failed Prosecutions of Student Protesters on Rep. Debbie Dingell
The Michigan attorney general provided no evidence for her claim, which Dingell rejected
By Ryan Grim and Tom Perkins | Drop Site | May 11, 2025
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel continues to do damage control in the wake of her failed prosecution of student protesters at the University of Michigan. Nessel was forced to drop charges against students who had been arrested at a pro-Palestinian encampment last year after the judge overseeing the case indicated he was sympathetic to the defense’s argument that Nessel had been improperly biased against the defendants.
This week, in public remarks on the prosecution, she claimed without evidence that Democratic Rep. Debbie Dingell of Michigan had been the one who urged her to charge students involved in protests over Gaza. Pinning the pressure for the prosecutions on Dingell was Nessel’s way of arguing that the bias claims made against her were inaccurate—that she was not in fact pushed to take the cases by donors to her campaign who serve as senior officials at the university, but rather by the local congresswoman, Dingell.
“I heard it was from the Jewish Regents,”—that is, the Jewish members of the University of Michigan Board of Regents—“they forced me to take these cases,” Nessel said at an event this week called a “Town Hall on Hate Crimes & Extremism” in West Bloomfield Township. “I heard it was from the [Michigan Legislative] Jewish Caucus because of the money I get from them. I heard it was from Jewish donors. You know how those cases came to my office? Debbie Dingell. Debbie Dingell, I don’t know if you know this: Not Jewish. But it had to be some sort of Jewish influence.”
In a statement to Drop Site, Dingell spokesperson Michaela Johnson suggested the congresswoman was not behind the investigations, pointing to a May 2024 letter from Nessel’s office to the university in which Nessel offered to take over any investigations. The letter, which has not previously been reported, makes no reference to Dingell, but instead suggests that protests outside the homes of Board of Regents members triggered Nessel to launch an effort targeting student protesters.
“Nessel did not write the letter at our request, and Rep. Dingell had not seen that letter until today,” Johnson said. Dingell represents Ann Arbor, but previously represented Dearborn until redistricting in 2014, and she still has strong ties to the Arab-American community there. But she has remained largely silent with regard to the protests.
Amir Makled, an attorney for some of the students, said he called Dingell’s office on Friday to ask about Nessel’s allegations. He said a Dingell staffer denied the congresswoman had pushed for the investigation.
Makled said he didn’t think it was done at Dingell’s behest, but he said Dingell has been involved with the discussions because the incident occurred in her district, and she “has been giving lip service to all sides.”
But, he added, “Nessel is trying to do anything to deflect blame for her office’s misdeeds – that much seems clear to me.”
Nessel’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment over the weekend.
The university, its regents and Nessel have denied that the school recruited the attorney general.
This was not the first time Nessel had pointed the finger at Dingell. She told a local reporter several weeks ago that “the congresswoman from the 6th Congressional District” – Dingell – had put her up to it. “I stand behind the evidence and I stand behind the charges, and I appreciate the fact that this matter was referred by the congresswoman from the 6th Congressional District, who asked the state to intervene because they were concerned about what was happening on campus,” she said. “I believe what we did was the right thing, and that will be borne out in court.”
Following that report, supporters of the students who’d been charged approached Dingell at an event on March 3 to ask if Nessel’s allegation was true. According to an audio recording provided to Drop Site, it was not. “She’s told a lot of people a lot of stuff,” Dingell told the students. She was then asked directly by Jared Eno, a grad student at Michigan, if that was true: “No!” Dingell said. “She called the university and offered.” The letter supports that claim.
Nessel, in her remarks at the town hall, again claimed Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan had accused her of bias linked to her Jewish background, but Tlaib’s public statements have never referenced this. “I think people at the University of Michigan put pressure on her to do this, and she fell for it,” Tlaib had said. “I think President Ono and Board of Regent members were very much heavy-handed in this.” UMich President Santa Ono, the only person Tlaib named as having applied pressure to Nessel, is not Jewish.
The AG letter was sent to Timothy G. Lynch, vice president and general counsel at the University of Michigan, and signed by Danielle Hagaman-Clark, a prosecutor in Nessel’s office. “I write today to offer the DAG’s assistance with investigating and prosecuting any cases that arise from the recent demonstrations on UM’s campus,” she wrote. “It has been widely reported that the demonstrators have not limited their protests to the campus but have also appeared at the homes of the Board of Regents. My understanding is that the Regents are not required to live in Washtenaw County, the location of UM, but that they reside in several different counties. Because the DAG has state-wide criminal authority to bring charges, we are ideally situated to review any potential cases.”
The reference to the protests outside the homes of Regents matches reporting that suggested those demonstrations, even more than the encampments, enraged the board members, who urged Nessel to prosecute.
Nessel’s prosecutor added her office was well suited to determine whether any of the speech from the protesters was illegal. “I would also note that our Department has specialized expertise in the intersection of First Amendment free speech rights in the context of a criminal prosecution. We are fluent in the law around what speech is protected and what speech is not protected,” said Hagaman-Clark, making the pitch to Michigan. The letter was sent shortly after local prosecutor Eli Savit (who is also Jewish) declined to prosecute 36 of 40 protesters arrested in connection with the occupation of an administration building, and recommended four others for diversion. “General Nessel has discussed the potential jurisdictional issues that might arise with Washtenaw County Prosecutor Eli Savit. Prosecutor Savit recognizes that his authority is confined to Washtenaw County. He is comfortable with the DAG overseeing these cases based on his jurisdiction being limited to only Washtenaw County.”
In her effort at damage control this week, Nessel claimed Dingell’s supposed request was common. “Now it’s not unusual for a congressional representative to call up the department of the attorney general and to call the attorney general herself and say ‘I’m really worried about what I see to be criminal activity occurring and either the local prosecutor is not doing anything about it,’ or ‘they’re not equipped to do anything about it. But I am scared about what I am seeing. And I think the AG’s office has to take action.’”
Nessel also told the town hall audience that she dropped the charges because the judge had ordered an evidentiary hearing into the defense’s charge that Nessel was biased against the defendants. Defense attorneys, in their recent motion to disqualify Nessel’s office over bias, pointed to a previous analysis that found she had prosecuted protesters at a much higher rate than other prosecutors in the state.
They also pointed to Nessel recusing herself from an investigation into alleged election fraud by Muslim-American city council members in nearby Hamtramck. Nessel said she wanted to avoid the appearance of bias because she was Jewish and the suspects were of Arab descent. She also noted that she had previously been critical of the Hamtramck City Council. In their motion to disqualify Nessel’s office, defense attorneys questioned how she could consider herself biased in Hamtramck but unbiased in Ann Arbor under similar circumstances.
A letter sent by the Jewish Federation of Ann Arbor to the judge urging him to allow her to remain on the case, she said, put improper pressure on the judge and should not have been sent. And the cases against the students were becoming a distraction to staff, she added, who couldn’t even attend a job fair without being “shut down by protesters.”
“We elected that rather than me being put on trial for being a Jewish prosecutor, and rather than having the federation be put on trial for an email they should not have sent—but the kind that gets sent all the time—that we would dismiss the charges against those particular defendants,” she said. An evidentiary hearing would have opened her office to discovery and made public communications about how the cases came together. Defense attorneys say she wanted to avoid that.
Liz Jacob, an attorney from the Sugar Law Center, said the claim from Nessel was another effort to deflect responsibility. “It’s alarming to see the ways that Nessel is trying to avoid accountability for her repression of free speech and brutal targeting of protesters at all costs,” Jacob said. “Both in that video and over the last several months AG Nessel has tried to blame anyone—from Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib to Debbie Dingell to the Jewish Federation of Greater Ann Arbor—to deflect criticism regarding her own deplorable treatment of pro-Palestine protesters.”
Nessel’s decision was a serious one, and Nessel should treat it seriously, Jacob said. “As the Attorney General who is directing the FBI to raid protesters homes and bringing baseless and retaliatory criminal charges against protesters, it is Nessel who must bear responsibility for targeting young people who bravely speak out against war and genocide. Nessel’s actions speak for themselves — she has aligned herself with the Trump administration’s criminalization and repression of pro-Palestine speech,” she said.






As if all that














