The Popular Scapegoats: How Israel Is Pushing Its New ‘Bad Apples’ Hasbara Strategy
By Robert Inlakesh | Palestine Chronicle | May 28, 2026
A revived attempt to scapegoat a handful of Israeli officials for the crimes of its entire regime structure has again taken off, especially in light of the recent diplomatic fallout over Israeli Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir’s public humiliation of Gaza aid flotilla activists. The idea behind this Hasbara campaign is to normalize Israel’s actions.
When Itamar Ben-Gvir posted the video of him mocking the brutal treatment that foreign activists were being subjected to – after being kidnapped in international waters – entitling it “welcome to Israel”, it understandably triggered a diplomatic firestorm. However, the Western leaders who summoned their envoys in response haven’t dared to address the treatment of the activists, including their own citizens, since.
All of this begs the question as to how much authenticity came along with these stances. One point of note is that even Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu joined in with the chorus of condemnation, as did his Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar and others. Since that time, at least 15 activists who were part of the latest Global Sumud Flotilla have accused the Israeli military of committing different forms of sexual assault against them, including rape.
The widespread weaponization of sexual violence by the Israeli military and security forces is no new phenomenon, yet it has occurred at a markedly higher frequency over the past few years, and it is something that has solely occurred to international peace activists. Instead, the Israelis have been proven to have implemented a systematic campaign of sexual violence against Palestinians, in particular those who are held hostage in military detention centers and civilians who have been detained in Gaza.
UN and human rights reports, eye witness testimonies, victim accounts, even video and photographic evidence, have all been presented to support the conclusion that sexual violence, including rape, has been used in unprecedented ways against the Palestinian civilian population. Despite all of this, the only mainstream corporate media outlet in the West that dared report on the issue was the New York Times, in a piece that addressed the issue years too late.
These same Western governments have not followed up the summoning of their envoys with any solid action, nor have they made a deal about the testimonies of sexual assault against activists who were kidnapped in international waters. Now, a coordinated media push, within which the Israeli President, Isaac Herzog, has recently participated, seeks to play the “bad apples” public relations strategy.
Smotrich and Ben-Gvir have become popular scapegoats, used to hide a society behind them that supports almost everything they do, even if they seek to be more well hidden. The overwhelming majority of the Israeli public supported their military committing genocide.
In fact, things are so bad that the 10 Israeli soldiers who were accused of gang raping a Palestinian hostage have now become celebrities in their society. Israeli comedians make jokes about the rape of Palestinians with dogs, Israeli politicians openly defend such despicable behavior, and there were even the infamous “right to rape” protests when soldiers were temporarily detained for the acts they committed.
The gang rape incident was not just alleged; it was caught on film and leaked. In the end, all of the Israeli soldiers who committed the violent rape got off scot free. The Israeli military’s top lawyer, who had leaked the video of the incident, something that forced the arrest of the perpetrators, ended up getting arrested herself, resigning from her job, and then made at least two suicide attempts following a string of death threats.
Itamar Ben-Gvir did not sexually assault those 15 activists; it wasn’t Bezalel Smotrich who convinced Israeli society to turn gang rapists into heroes and place them on public television shows. Israel has a citizen army and is a society built around a military culture.
When others try to scapegoat Benjamin Netanyahu, something that you will hear from Western liberals and mainstream Democrats, this, too, is disingenuous. According to polling data, a plurality of Israelis dislike the current Premier, which means it isn’t him that is to blame for the vast majority of Israeli citizens supporting the genocide in Gaza, or even worse, advocating publicly for even harsher means of dealing with Palestinian civilians.
It’s also not only Netanyahu that has openly supported the notion of achieving the “Greater Israel” project, his so-called “moderate” opponent, Yair Lapid, has himself publicly advocated the exact same policy– the only difference is that the opposition leader seeks to be more strategic about stealing territory all the way up to and including Iraq.
The reality is, these Western leaders are fully complicit with the Israelis. They only withdrew their summoned diplomatic envoys because Ben-Gvir’s video embarrassed them, robbing them of the ability to lie and cover up Israel’s blatant crimes against the international activists. It took no courage and it would have been more genuine of them to have endorsed the Israeli Security Minister’s actions.
Why? Because many of these nations that summoned their envoys are openly part of the so-called “Civil Military Coordination Center” (CMCC) that was set up to enforce the Gaza ceasefire and prevent violations of it. Instead, these nations have joined a center that watches Israeli war crimes – including the mass murder of over 900 Palestinians during the ceasefire – in real time, refusing to even leave the center in protest, let alone take any action. They are all directly complicit in the genocide.
What this whole ordeal has proven is just how low Western governments and their stenographers in the media will go in order to cover up the crimes of the Israeli regime. No matter what, they refuse to take a stand. If they had grown a backbone, it could have deterred many of the horrors we see playing out today.
– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine.
Defining Dissent: How the Federal Crackdown on Anti-Semitism Redefines the Boundaries of Speech
The Lancaster Patriot | May 21, 2026
A dual-track federal offensive aimed at combating anti-semitism is rapidly altering the landscape of American public discourse, civil rights enforcement, and immigration policy.
The strategy is unfolding simultaneously across both the executive and legislative branches. On May 19, 2026, the Department of Justice (DOJ) Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism officially launched a 15-city “National Awareness & Action Tour.” Concurrently, Senators Jacky Rosen (D-NV) and James Lankford (R-OK) introduced the bipartisan Jewish American Security Act, a comprehensive bill that seeks to mandate strict Title VI frameworks on college campuses, boost nonprofit security funding to $1 billion, and force social media platforms to disclose their moderation algorithms.
At the core of this sweeping nationwide push is a highly controversial legal mechanism: the codification of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) “working definition” of anti-semitism into federal civil rights investigations. By linking this specific definition to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, federal agencies are increasingly treating political criticism of the State of Israel as potential instances of unlawful discrimination.
The Executive Foundation: EOs 13899 and 14188
The DOJ’s new 15-city tour serves as the public enforcement rollout of two pivotal executive actions spanning two administrations: Executive Order 13899, signed in 2019, and Executive Order 14188, signed on January 29, 2025.
Together, these orders dictate how the federal government defines, monitors, and punishes anti-semitism. EO 13899 explicitly instructs federal departments—including the Department of Education and the DOJ—to “consider” the IHRA definition when adjudicating discrimination complaints. EO 14188 escalated these measures by ordering agencies to utilize “all available and appropriate legal tools” to prosecute violators and aggressively targeted campus protests.
Crucially, EO 14188 directs federal agencies to leverage immigration laws (specifically 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)) to investigate, block entry, or initiate deportation proceedings against foreign students and visa holders who “endorse or espouse terrorist activity” during political demonstrations. It also tasks universities with actively monitoring and reporting the activities of non-citizen students and staff to federal authorities.
The Litmus Test: What Now Counts as a Civil Rights Violation?
Because the IHRA framework is now the operational standard for federal civil rights compliance, public scrutiny has shifted heavily toward the specific “contemporary examples” of anti-semitism outlined in the text.
Under this framework, actions and statements that historically fell under protected political speech, theological debate, or historical revisionism are now systematically flagged for federal review. The specific criteria include:
1. The Nazi Comparison Ban
The IHRA framework explicitly classifies “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” as an act of anti-semitism.
- The Impact: In practice, this guideline establishes a unique legal standard for the State of Israel. While political commentators, historians, and activists routinely draw analogies between various global governments and 20th-century authoritarian regimes (such as comparing U.S., Russian, or Chinese policies to Nazi or fascist systems), doing so specifically in reference to Israeli military or domestic policy can now trigger a federal civil rights investigation, risking a university’s federal funding.
2. The “Racist Endeavor” Test
The definition labels anti-semitic any claim that “the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”
- The Impact: This standard directly intersects with academic and political discussions regarding the geopolitical founding of modern states. Under this rule, analyzing or criticizing the historical displacement of populations during the 1948 foundational period of Israel, or arguing that the state’s structural laws inherently favor one ethnic group over another, transitions from a matter of political theory into a potential violation of federal civil rights law.
3. Placing Historical Atrocities Outside Normal Inquiry
The framework flags “accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.”
- The Impact: The inclusion of the word “exaggerating” introduces an unprecedented legal boundary around historical analysis. Scholars note that every major historical event—including wars, genocides, and revolutions—is subject to ongoing demographic debates, revisions of casualty numbers, and critiques regarding how governments politically leverage historical trauma. Under the federal framework, subjecting this specific historical atrocity to standard revisionist or critical analysis can be interpreted as a civil rights offense.
4. The Codification of Theological Interpretation
The IHRA definition includes “using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.”
- The Impact: This provision brings traditional Christian theology and historical textual interpretation into the crosshairs of federal oversight. For centuries, various Christian denominations have maintained specific theological positions regarding the New Testament accounts of first-century Jewish authorities and the rejection of Jesus Christ. If a religious group or individual applies these traditional covenantal critiques or biblical interpretations to the actions of the modern, secular State of Israel, those statements can now be legally categorized as anti-semitic harassment.
5. The “Double Standard” Mandate
The definition includes “applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”
- The Impact: Legal experts have pointed out the extreme ambiguity of this clause. Because there is no objective legal metric to determine whether a protest group or political candidate is demanding “more” from Israel than they do from other nations, this clause gives federal investigators vast discretion to classify selective foreign policy criticism as a discriminatory act.
The Chilling Effect on Domestic Dissent
The combination of the DOJ’s 15-city tour and the newly introduced Jewish American Security Act marks a systemic shift in how the state monitors local communities. The stated objectives of the DOJ tour include “increasing reporting of antisemitic incidents by local officials” and embedding federal oversight directly into K-12 public schools and teacher unions.
Critics from across the ideological spectrum—ranging from civil liberties lawyers to anti-war activists—warn that these measures create a de facto speech code. By utilizing the machinery of the state to insulate a foreign government, its lobbying apparatus, and billions of dollars in annual U.S. foreign aid from severe public criticism, the federal government has effectively created a protected political class under the guise of civil rights enforcement.
Ex-Mossad chief threatened ICC prosecutor over Israel war crimes probe
Press TV – May 26, 2026
Former chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Fatou Bom Bensouda, says former head of the Israeli spy agency Mossad, Yosef Meir Cohen, had threatened her over her investigation into Israeli war crimes against Palestinians.
Bensouda, who served as the ICC’s chief prosecutor from 2012 to 2021, revealed on Tuesday that Cohen pressured her to abandon a war crimes investigation targeting leaders of the occupying regime.
She stated that between 2017 and 2021, Cohen met with her twice, once in Munich and once in New York City, where he explicitly demanded that she halt the probe.
According to Bensouda, Cohen subjected her to “threats and pressure,” which also extended to members of her family.
She added that she did not receive sufficient support from ICC member states to withstand Israel’s pressure. The situation later escalated, she said, to include indirect threats against her family, including the tracking of her husband and the collection of information about him in an attempt to influence her decisions.
Bensouda reported the Israeli threats to Dutch authorities but said she did not receive adequate protection.
She stressed that the ICC must continue its work despite pressure from the United States and Israel, insisting that justice should not be shaped by political interests.
On November 21, 2024, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former war minister Yoav Gallant over war crimes and crimes against humanity committed against Palestinians during the regime’s genocide in Gaza, which began on October 7, 2023.
On February 6, 2025, the administration of US President Donald Trump sanctioned several ICC officials over the court’s investigations into war crimes committed by US forces in Afghanistan between 2001 and 2021, as well as war crimes committed by Israel in Gaza since October 2023.
Trump advances his Arctic strategy
Washington will have many difficulties implementing its plans for the Arctic
By Lucas Leiroz | May 26, 2026
US interests in the Arctic continue to pose a significant threat to the European security architecture. Washington continues to advance its plans to expand its military and economic presence in the Arctic, despite the proven inability of the current American naval apparatus to conduct operations in the region efficiently. In practice, the irresponsibility with which the US conducts its Arctic policy could lead to a serious escalation of tensions in the near future.
According to recent reports, the US and Denmark are finally reaching an understanding on the Greenland issue. The Danish government has allegedly given permission for the US to proceed with a plan to build two military bases on Greenlandic territory. This will allow Washington to control specific territorial zones in the region, expanding its influence in the Arctic without having the burden of a formal annexation of Greenland.
The measure, if confirmed by Danish authorities, will certainly face strong opposition from the local population. The current situation of Greenland is unpopular among native Greenlanders, who do not want their homeland administered by a European country – nor by the US. Without the political power necessary to fight for independence, the locals end up having their future defined in negotiations between Europeans and Americans, in which they do not participate.
However, despite the disapproval of the local people, it is likely that the US will be able to impose its presence in the region in a reasonably peaceful manner. Local citizens do not have sufficient political power to prevent these moves, leaving them only with formal disapproval. Furthermore, regardless of how this process unfolds in practice, the final result will be the expansion of the American military presence in the Arctic zones, which will bring an atmosphere of tension and insecurity to the Greenlandic people.
Still, Greenland is just one of the regions where the US plans to enter in order to increase its Arctic presence. Washington is also reportedly planning to occupy the Norwegian island of Svalbard, which would have even more significant impacts on regional security. Despite Norwegian sovereignty, the island is regulated by an international treaty that guarantees Russia the right to economic exploration of the region, which is why, even today – despite sanctions – Moscow maintains activities in Svalbard.
Militarizing Svalbard would be a terrible move, as well as a violation of international law. The treaty regulating the island prohibits its militarization, and there is a historical Russian presence that cannot be ignored. Furthermore, even if the US does not use the island for public military purposes, the mere expansion of the American presence in a European Arctic region – so close to Russia – would be enough to substantially escalate regional tensions.
However, in both Greenland and Svalbard, the US will face the same problem: its logistical weakness in Arctic environment. Washington has historically ignored the Arctic, focusing on other regions of the world for its military and economic expansion. The result has been a significant lag in US Arctic technologies. The country does not have a significant icebreaker fleet, which severely diminishes its ability to operate in the Arctic. For decades, the Arctic has been seen by American experts as an inhospitable region of low strategic value, leading the country to not give due attention to its military and economic potential.
In recent military exercises in the Arctic, the US has proven incapable of conducting complex operations due to the low quantity and quality of its icebreakers. While the country is attempting to rehabilitate its Arctic strategy and produce high-quality equipment for the region, it is practically impossible for the US to achieve any status as an “Arctic superpower” in the near future. In practice, Washington is only beginning to take an interest in the region, but its possibilities for action are extremely limited.
In fact, instead of seeking to expand its Arctic presence aggressively and unilaterally, the US should simply engage in joint peaceful cooperation projects in the Arctic – especially with Russia, which is the country that currently possesses the most advanced Arctic technology in the world. Unfortunately, warmongering and pro-hegemonic sectors have gained considerable influence in the Trump administration in recent months, which explains his irresponsible decisions on several recent issues.
If Trump manages to regain control of his own government and contain the pressure from pro-war sectors, the US may in the future engage in fruitful international cooperation in the Arctic. Without this, however, the Americans will remain unable to explore the economic and strategic potential of the region for a long time.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.
You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.
Over 50 countries continued to arm Israel during genocide of Palestinians in Gaza: Report
The Cradle | May 23, 2026
An Al-Jazeera investigation published on 23 May revealed that military-grade products from at least 51 countries and self-governing territories kept entering Israel even after the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a provisional ruling over the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza.
In January 2024, the UN’s top court ordered Israel to take all measures to prevent genocidal acts in Gaza. By then, Israel’s brutal bombing of Gaza had killed more than 26,000 Palestinians, most of them women and children.
However, countries across the globe continued to provide weapons and military assistance to the Israeli military, the Al-Jazeera report found.
Using Israeli Tax Authority (ITA) import data, customs records, and freedom of information requests, the Al-Jazeera investigation found the military-related goods were shipped to Israel from countries across Europe, Asia, North America, and South America, including from many that have signed the genocide convention.
In some cases, the military supplies originated from countries that had publicly imposed arms embargoes on Israel or had at least partially suspended arms supplies to the country.
According to the ITA data, Israeli arms imports increased after the ICJ ruling, in particular munitions imports.
The five biggest military suppliers to Israel—namely the US, India, Romania, Taiwan, and the Czech Republic—all boosted their shipments of military equipment to Tel Aviv following the ruling.
ITA data showed that 2,603 consignments of military-related goods valued at $885 million were sent to Israel between October 2023 and October 2025. Of those, $805 million worth came after the January 2024 ruling.
The consignments included ammunition, explosive munitions, weapons parts, and armored vehicle components.
According to Stephen Humphreys, professor of international law at the London School of Economics, there was “ample evidence that countries arming Israel may be complicit in international crimes, including war crimes and crimes against humanity.”
“The most recent ‘ceasefire’ did not change this,” stated Gerhard Kemp, a professor of criminal law at the University of the West of England.
Since the ceasefire reached in October 2025, Israel has continued killing Palestinian civilians in Gaza and creating conditions of life that could destroy the group in whole or in part, Kemp said.
This indicates that states still have an obligation to stop supporting Israel’s war on Palestinians in Gaza, which has now killed at least 72,000 people. Tens of thousands more remain buried under the rubble of buildings Israel has bombed.
“Some states have a very narrow understanding of the duty to prevent genocide and are waiting for a judicial determination that there is a genocide in Gaza,” Kemp said. “But the ICJ will likely take several years to make such a determination. The better view is to look at domestic legal obligations … and international legal obligations and legal tools triggered by available evidence.”
Though the ICJ has not issued its final ruling, the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory published a report in September 2025 concluding that Israel “committed a genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza.”
The UN report asserts that “states are obliged to take steps to ensure the prevention of conduct that may amount to an act of genocide … including the transfer of weapons that are used or likely to be used by Israel to commit genocidal acts.”
France criminalizing pro‑Palestine speech for ‘antisemitism’: Op-Ed
Al Mayadeen | May 22, 2026
French authorities have systematically silenced and criminalised pro-Palestinian solidarity under the guise of combating antisemitism, columnist Rokhaya Diallo writes in The Guardian, warning that a now‑shelved government bill aimed at punishing “indirect incitement” and “denial of a state” would have made it impossible to criticise “Israel” without risking legal sanctions.
Diallo notes that tensions in France over how to respond to a rise in antisemitism have been running high. A government‑backed bill introduced in 2024 by Caroline Yadan, a member of the National Assembly, was intended to counter “new forms of antisemitism.” However, its wording quickly veered toward a different objective: curbing the ability to criticise “Israel.”
“It must be possible to denounce the many crimes – extensively documented – committed by Israel, and to do so repeatedly without risking sanctions,” Diallo writes. “Freedom of expression in France allows individuals to voice any form of sentiment towards any country as long as there is no incitement to violence.”
Bill would have criminalised ‘indirect incitement’ and ‘denial of a state’
The Yadan bill proposed widening the existing offence of “glorifying terrorism” so that “indirect incitement” could be punished. It also introduced a new offence penalising the act of “inciting the destruction or denial of a state.”
Diallo argues that such a prohibition would run counter to the fundamental right to decolonization.
“Under the proposed legal framework, what would become of the right to question France’s own borders?” she asks, noting that France’s overseas departments are former colonies where independence movements have not disappeared.
A petition opposing the bill gathered a record 700,000 signatures. Rights bodies warned of the dangerously illiberal trajectory of the proposal. Five UN special rapporteurs issued an open letter expressing concern that the bill threatened “the exercise of protected rights, in particular the right to freedom of expression and opinion, including media freedom.”
Rima Hassan arrested, charged with ‘glorifying terrorism’
Diallo points to the case of French‑Palestinian MEP Rima Hassan of the left‑wing France Unbowed party, a prominent voice for Palestinian liberation. Hassan was arrested last month, taken into police custody and questioned for “glorifying terrorism.” Her alleged offence was a post on X quoting Kozo Okamoto, a member of a Japanese group that carried out a 1972 attack at Tel Aviv’s Ben‑Gurion airport.
News of her detention leaked as she was being questioned, accompanied by false claims that synthetic drugs had been found among her personal effects. The drug probe was later dropped, but only after days of negative media coverage.
It then emerged that Hassan’s phone had been under police surveillance from the beginning of the year without her knowledge. She will be tried in July and says she intends to refer the matter to an independent UN rapporteur and to the European Parliament.
Pattern of structural criminalisation of pro‑Palestinian activism
Diallo argues that the Yadan proposals should be seen as part of a broader pattern of structural criminalisation of pro‑Palestinian activism. After October 7, 2023, the French interior minister attempted to ban Palestinian solidarity demonstrations. University students who mobilised against the Yadan bill faced violent police repression. Prosecutions for alleged glorifying terrorism have multiplied since 2023, targeting influencers, athletes, trade union activists, and even members of parliament.
“The disproportionate response to pro‑Palestinian activism over what human rights groups have called a genocide raises questions about the lengths deployed, apparently to restrict a form of expression that is essential in a democracy,” Diallo writes.
While the Yadan bill is dead, she concludes, its provisions should be seen within a broader dynamic: one that seeks systematically to conflate anti‑Zionism with antisemitism and narrow the space for any pro‑Palestinian discourse.
IDF Militants Mass Raped And Tortured Global Sumud Flotilla Activists
The Dissident | May 22, 2026
Israel has mass raped and tortured detained activists with the Sumud Flotilla, who were attempting to bring aid to Palestinians in Gaza, multiple victims have revealed.
On Tuesday, Israel kidnapped “430 people onboard 50 ships in international waters”.
Israel’s National Security Minister Ben Gvir released a video showcasing Israeli abuse of the detainees, including by forcing them to kneel while the Israeli national anthem played.
Democracy Now noted , “The video shows dozens of men and women kneeling in rows, with their foreheads to the ground and their hands zip-tied behind their backs at the port in Ashdod”.
Now, released activists from around the world have detailed mass rape, sexual abuse, and torture that Israeli forces unleashed on them while in detention.
A Press release from the Global Sumud Flotilla documented that, “Participants from the Global Sumud Flotilla, now in Istanbul, have begun providing harrowing testimony about widespread abuse, assault and torture: rubber bullets fired at close range, tasers to the face and upper body, stun grenades thrown into groups of detainees, stress positions held for hours under permanent bright light, hijabs (Muslim religious headcovers) forcibly removed, as well as various forms of sexual violence including: humiliating strip searches, sexual taunting, groping and pulling of genitals, and multiple accounts of rape.”
It added, “Some of the most horrifying accounts centre on a single vessel that participants call the ‘torture boat.’ This specific israeli naval vessel with a makeshift prison constructed of barbed wire and metal shipping containers became the primary site of intense violence following the interception; this reflects a small fraction of the patterns of systemic violence and sexual abuse against the Palestinian people at the hands of the israeli regime for decades.”
The activist organization has documented “At least 15 cases of sexual assaults, including rape” along with activists “shot with rubber bullets at close range” and “tens of people’s bones broken”.
Adrien Jouan, one activist with Global Sumud Flotilla, showed evidence of brutal torture, with severe bruising all over his body.
Another activist on Instagram live showcased severe bruising on his leg.

Released Brazilian activist Thiago Ávila revealed that , “there is no easy way to say it, but I have to say it, people got raped at the Global Sumud Flotilla. These monstrous soldiers raped our participants. It was not one, not two, not three, it’s many cases of sexual violence against our participants on the prison boat on the way to the port of Ashdod, where they got once again beaten up, many people with broken ribs, many people with broken bones in the arms, the collar bone, the ribs”.
Independent journalist Alex Colston, who was part of the Sumud Flotilla, revealed , “I just got out of Israeli prison … I saw people shot point blank with rubber bullets, I myself, I can’t feel my hands because they are all scarred up because they would take the cuffs and they would yank my hand over and over again. When I would be tied or cuffed, they would step on my cuffs. They kicked me in the ribs more times than I can count. I passed out at least one time. … even if you plead for them to stop … Israeli guards were getting obvious pleasure from hurting us as much as they could”.
Another participant in the flotilla , testifying to the torture she went through, said:
Handcuffs on my hands and feet. Dragged me. When I couldn’t walk, they dragged me on the ground.
They hit us. Hurt all of us a lot. Handcuffs so tight my hands lost feeling
They laughed all the time. Super sadistic.
Took off my shirt. Took pictures. Mistreated us all night long
Another activist testified that , “I had my hands zip-tied behind my back for so long and it was so tight I almost started vomiting, they slammed my head into a table several times and degraded me as I was strip-searched. They had me in handcuffs for 19 hours to the point my skin had begun to swell around them.”
Australian activist Juliet Lamont revealed , “We had people who were tasered in the face. People were syringed with unknown sedatives. I was put down, cable tied. They put so much water under me for an hour that I thought I was going to drown. I was sexually assaulted in this kind of torture chamber. And five men were bashing me and smashing my face”.
Italian economist, Luca Poggi, who was with the Flotilla activists revealed that “We were stripped, thrown to the ground, kicked. Many of us were Tasered, some were sexually assaulted, and some were denied access to a lawyer”.
Another German activist with serious injuries revealed that , “Israel beat her daily”.
The barbaric torture of the Sumud Flotilla activists is just another example of the brutal torture, sexual violence, and rape that Israeli forces unleash on Palestinian detainees daily.
Merkel Urges EU to Keep Regulating Social Media Speech

By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | May 21, 2026
Angela Merkel used her first major European platform since leaving office to tell the EU exactly what it wanted to hear: keep regulating speech online, and don’t worry too much about getting it wrong.
The former German chancellor, speaking Tuesday at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, urged the bloc to “continue regulating the social media” and artificial intelligence. “To believe that responsibility for spreading information is no longer necessary, that accountability – there should be no accountability for lies, then that would undermine democracy,” she told the chamber.
Lies. Who decides what counts as a lie? In the EU’s model, that question gets answered by the European Commission, by government-appointed regulators, by “trusted flaggers” that platforms are legally required to obey. Not by courts. Not through anything resembling due process.
Merkel knows this system well. Her government built the prototype. Germany’s NetzDG law, passed under her chancellorship in 2017, required platforms to delete “clearly illegal” content within 24 hours or face fines up to €50 million.
The people whose speech got censored under it included a satirical magazine, a political street artist, and an opposition party leader. NetzDG became an export product, copied by governments in Russia, Turkey, and across Southeast Asia, each adapting it to their own definition of “illegal.”
The EU took the concept continent-wide with the Digital Services Act, which requires major platforms to assess and reduce “systemic risks,” a category broad enough to cover “civic discourse,” “electoral processes,” and “public security.”
The Commission writes the rules, decides whether platforms comply, and levies fines of up to 6% of global revenue when they don’t. No independent prosecutor. X is currently challenging the first DSA fine ever imposed, a €120 million penalty from December 2025, arguing the process involved “grave procedural errors” and “systematic breaches of rights of defence and basic due process.”
More than 50 European NGOs have warned that the DSA’s vague terms could violate the EU Charter’s own free expression protections. The Commission’s response was to declare the law “content-agnostic” and move on.
Merkel acknowledged none of this. She told parliamentarians that “perhaps mistakes will be made, but we learn through mistakes.” That’s cold comfort when the mistakes involve censoring legal speech and silencing political opposition through systems with no judicial oversight and no meaningful appeal.
Her remarks came at the inaugural ceremony for the European Order of Merit, where she was honored alongside 19 other laureates, including Lech Wałęsa, Moldovan President Maia Sandu, and Volodymyr Zelenskyy. She framed regulation as essential to democracy. “We’ve had 75 years of European thought,” she said. “Peace, prosperity, and democracy.”
Democracy requires that citizens can speak, argue, and be wrong without a regulator deciding which claims are permissible. The EU’s apparatus does the opposite. Merkel said mistakes would be made. She didn’t say who would pay for them. The answer, as always, is the people who get silenced.

