Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

EU pushing Armenia to expel Russian Orthodox Church – intel service

RT | June 3, 2026

The European Union is pressuring Armenia to expel the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) from the country as a prerequisite to EU integration, Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) has alleged.

In a statement on Wednesday, the SVR said that EU officials had made severing religious ties with Moscow a condition for closer ties with the West, a policy it said is being pursued by Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan.

The landlocked nation maintains close economic ties with Russia and hosts one of Moscow’s few military bases abroad. It is set to elect a new parliament on Sunday. Critics of Pashinyan have warned that he is steering Armenia down a path similar to Ukraine’s after the 2014 Western-backed coup. One of Kiev’s hallmark policies has been a crackdown on the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which authorities accuse of promoting Russian interests.

Armenia’s religious landscape differs from Ukraine’s. The country’s dominant religious institution is the Armenian Apostolic Church, an ancient denomination that broke with mainstream Christianity in the 5th century, centuries before the Great Schism between the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

The ROC does not recognize the Armenian Church as canonical, but regards it as a close Christian ally with shared traditions and common goals. The ROC maintains its own diocese in Armenia, encompassing five parish churches, a monastery, and two military chapels.

In its report, the SVR referenced a May statement by two Armenia-based NGOs that accused an ROC priest of influencing the upcoming election through his sermons, including those delivered at a church on the Russian military base in Gyumri. The agency said the allegations are part of a campaign orchestrated by Brussels and that EU operatives “are currently fabricating compromising evidence” to smear other Russian clergy.

Pashinyan’s government was rocked by mass protests in 2024 and 2025, as critics, including senior figures in the Armenian Apostolic Church, accused him of betraying national interests in his handling of the conflict settlement with neighboring Azerbaijan. The prime minister, in turn, accused his opponents of plotting a coup and launched prosecutions against the alleged organizers, including several members of the clergy.

June 3, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | , , | Comments Off on EU pushing Armenia to expel Russian Orthodox Church – intel service

Capitulate or Die: The Gaza ‘peace process’ and Western propaganda

By Andi Olluri | Al Mayadeen | June 1, 2026

Andi Olluri argues that the Gaza “peace process” serves as a propaganda framework that legitimizes Israeli occupation and Western policy objectives while presenting Palestinian surrender and disarmament as prerequisites for peace. Media and political elites, he contends, have systematically reframed ongoing violence, occupation, and collective punishment as diplomacy, while marginalizing Palestinian proposals for political settlement.

In Gaza, “Israel” has effectively been working toward the goal they have had since day one, namely “not fighting a terrorist organization but against the State of Gaza”, “not provide the other side with any capability that prolongs its life” and thus effectively fight against “not only Hamas fighters with weapons”, but “the entire Gaza population”, quoting Giora Eiland, former Israeli head of the National Security Council.

This has been the consistent goal ever since, stated over and over again by the top Israeli leadership. “We are deep inside Gaza and will never leave all of Gaza – that will not happen,” in the words of War Minister Israel Katz. In short, “full conquest of the Gaza Strip, to establish Israeli control over all the territory of the Strip”, as the government explained in April.

The stage for illegal “full conquest of the Gaza strip” was set last fall, when the international community approved of the US Board of Peace (BoP) – Orwell would have loved that one. This brilliant propaganda coup was achieved after we killed at least 200,000 Palestinians, according to Western intelligence estimates, and physically eradicated the country in a war with the specific purpose of ethnic cleansing, and with sadism that would have put Pol Pot to shame.

The background happens to be quite revealing, and is of course completely forgotten now – minimal reporting as there was to begin with. Western designs and plans to control Gaza were basically declared to be tantamount to lawless aggression. In July 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that the West is “under obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory” and “not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by Israel’s illegal” occupation and attack. The ICJ also ordered to immediately halt “financial, economic, military or technological aid to the State of Israel, and punish such violations” and that Western terror states must pay “full reparation” to the Palestinians.

Naturally, then, the West immediately sent tens of billions in military aid to “Israel” – and engaged directly in military operations and occupation administration, as Western intellectuals marched further with self-adulation of our service for international law and democracy. The story was, incidentally, similar to when the International Criminal Court (ICC) declared an arrest warrant for Western-supported Israeli terrorists and war criminals. In that case, the US, Britain, and the EU simply destroyed the court (once a darling, when it went after Russia) with crushing sanctions, outright threats, and carefully orchestrated smear campaigns.

Western leaders were refreshingly honest, and noted that their official stance here is that the court “is for Africa and thugs like Putin,” according to Senator Lindsey Graham. That is entirely correct: we must pretend to care about international law when condemning official enemies, and make sure to keep quiet when we conduct global gangsterism.

This entire episode was plainly too embarrassing to be remembered, and had to be censored into total historical oblivion – an easy task for the Western doctrinal system. On full display is the utter servility and cowardice of the media and intellectual classes, as they joined their state in its rampage against international law, and defenseless people withstanding Western aggression.

Well, after all of these triumphs, the BoP could be created. Its founding documents – as confirmed by the subsequent events, too – made clear that Gaza has no right to self-defense, and that Israeli-American occupation could continue and in fact expand. Thus, the very purpose of the BoP was to enable maintaining the situation created by “Israel’s” illegal attack, in defiance of the world court – and to the deafening praise and awe of the media.

Thus, Dennis Ross, senior US Middle East diplomat and apologist for Western atrocities, celebrated that the BoP “is reason for hope,” and that the “constellation of force” consisting of “a powerful United States” with its Israeli and Arab satellites “are also cause for optimism.” Not everything is so glitzy, however, and there is a problem: “Hamas … could try to violate the cease-fire’s various terms”. If “commitment from Hamas” can be ensured, then we will be able to enforce the “peace plan”, to quote the European Council on Foreign Relations, the leading European policy forum.

Slaughtering hundreds of thousands in an illegal war of extermination, starving the population, destroying the courts that came in our way is no issue of concern and merits not one phrase in the journals of opinion or the public debate. Only “hope” and admiration of our “force” is permissible after a successful genocide.

The fact that we can even talk of a “peace plan” organized by the attackers ethnically cleansing the victim is a logical impossibility in itself. It is comparable only to, say, the Nazi press being filled with “optimism” as the Führer implements his “peace plan” after he successfully conquered Norway. The plain absurdity of it all is too spectacular even to talk about, but cannot be perceived in a society as deeply indoctrinated as ours. Stating the simple truth is simply incomprehensible, comparable to speaking a foreign language or imagining a “round square”.

We read, without anyone raising even an eyebrow, that this is the “best chance .. in decades to create a Gaza controlled not by Hamas or Israel, but by its people” (a total lie, of course). “For the first time in a long while, there are some bright lights in Gaza”, and therefore “any sensible person should wish success for the Board of Peace”, as liberal Washington Post’s David Ignatius put it. If this can be achieved through crushing the indigenous resistance, Hamas, then “that would be a historic feat indeed” – to use the words of Cambridge’s Chair of International Law professor Marc Weller, illustrating his contempt for court orders and international law.

The “best chance” for a free Gaza, then, is not to stop the attack, occupation and then colonization, followed by reparations for this crime of this century. Or perhaps to follow the orders of the world court, which would in fact mandate all of these things. Rather, it is to carry out this “war of extermination: the indiscriminate, unrestrained, cruel, and criminal killing of civilians” as the top Israeli political echelon itself describes it, and then impose a capitulation ultimatum on the population that has not yet been killed and starved to death. Only then can we celebrate the “bright lights in Gaza”.

We witness with clarity the utter irrelevance and disregard for concepts such as illegal aggression, mass slaughter, and international law among Western intellectuals. This is required for anybody wishing to be regarded as a respected intellectual, be granted a nice law professorship at an elite university or gain access to the media; otherwise you cannot be part of the “debate”.

Well, fast forward to today. The dear Leader declared that “peace” had been achieved and that we ought to look away, and naturally loyal media dutifully followed order. Careful studies showed that Western media coverage of Gaza then immediately dropped, while daily Israeli massacres in Gaza (around 1,000 murdered and more than 2,500 wounded as of writing) continue since November 2025, virtually without a whisper of criticism.

The only issue of concern is whether Hamas will “agree” to disarm or not. Translating that from Newspeak to English: will our victim agree to give up all resistance to our invasion and occupation plans, thus alone sticking to our fraudulent version of the accords, as we violate their terms every day? That is the meaning of the entire “debate” about Hamas’ disarmament when you put the euphemisms aside.

In short: the whole purpose of the fraudulent “ceasefire” designed to lower Hamas’ guard is thus to force the Palestinians to be “implementers of the decisions of others,” leaving them “once again not at all the masters of their own fate” (UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, Martin Griffiths), and thus “prevent a Palestinian state,” according to Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu.

In a terrorist culture such as this, in which a leading doctrine is that no one has the right to defend themselves from Western attack, it is natural that we are furious and concerned at the slightest sign that the Palestinians should try to defend themselves instead of capitulating. On this issue, near 100% consensus reigns throughout the entire political spectrum.

For example, former Middle East correspondent for AP, Dan Perry, berated that “Hamas is making a mockery of … Trump’s plan” – not the US and “Israel”, of course. The Palestinians, then, “are still trapped under the boot of a jihadist mafia that destroyed their lives” – again, not the Western genocide and war of extermination – and therefore “Israel will never agree to a Palestinian state as long as Hamas remains an armed militia with any prospect of again seizing control.”

Since everybody has already internalized the understanding that no one has the right to self-defense against Western attack, it is pointless to ask why Hamas and the Palestinians must accept the existence of a Western-armed proxy state occupying it and launching constant wars of aggression against the civilian population, deemed illegal by the world court. Or, why Palestinians must accept the attacker’s murderous “plan” that they have no right to dictate. Or, why “Israel” and the West, the aggressors, should not be held to the same standard as the occupied and attacked, and be forced to disarm as they launch multiple wars of aggression in the region. These suggestions are not denied; rather they cannot be thought in the minds of Western elites – a considerable achievement in the history of brainwashing.

Consider Dennis Ross and David Makovsky – leading foreign policy “experts” and senior Obama Middle East advisors. “The success” of the “peace plan” will “depend on the disarmament of Hamas,” they said, warning that “if Hamas chooses not to disarm and Gaza does not reunify, the future looks bleak.” Similarly, New York Times’ columnist Thomas Friedman was worried: “Do I think it [disarming Hamas] would be easy? Of course not. Do I think the Palestinians have an aged, corrupt leadership that needs replacing, energizing and reforming — and have plenty to answer for themselves for their own plight? I sure do.” Therefore, “disarmament” must be forced – perhaps without Netanyahu – so that the West may “consolidate any strategic gains.”

Similarly, Elliot Abrams and his colleagues were worried that the Palestinian Resistance “has largely refused to give up its weapons … As a result, the IDF cannot pull out of Gaza.” Furthermore, “there is no easy way to keep Hamas down” since “Hamas, after all, is as unyielding and belligerent as terrorist groups come.”

Putting aside the factual falsifications, let’s consider this logic, which everyone regards as correct. By their own standard, then, Palestine – and a host of others being attacked by the West, such as Iran, Yemen, Lebanon – would have to invade “Israel”, kill (in proportion) 1 million Israelis, physically annihilate most of “Israel”, occupy it and demand that the population capitulates, as well as drop bombs on its financiers in Washington, Brussels, London and so on. “Israel, after all, is as unyielding and belligerent as terrorist” states “come”, and it has “largely refused to give up its weapons” and stop its aggression in accordance with the ICJ orders, so as a result, Hamas cannot pull out of Tel Aviv.

But none of this can be discussed – surely not in any publication that can reach a general audience – since the level of fanaticism, distortion and genocidal frenzy is much too high among Western political and cultural circles.

In other words, only tactical debate over how we best crush our victim and ensure that they will not be able to fight back is permitted to be printed. It is far beyond conceivable that there would be any tactical debate anywhere over how the Palestinians – the party being attacked and ethnically cleansed – could best defeat “Israel” and its Western masters, and that we should send them military aid to do so.

Consider, for example, the leading Middle East “specialist” Julie Norman. She explained that it “was always likely to be difficult to move from the initial ceasefire to the second phase of US President Donald Trump’s 20-point plan.” Reason? Primarily because “Hamas rejected a disarmament plan” by “the US-led ‘Board of Peace’.” Therefore, “there is no peace process on the horizon, nor is there a political pathway available to Hamas if the group lays down its arms.”

In short, “Gaza will also need to deradicalize” and have their weapons removed – only then can “sustainable peace” and the “peace process” be fulfilled (The Atlantic ).

The “peace process” is a funny word used in political discourse. It simply means whatever the West happens to be saying. If “Israel”, Washington, the EU have physically destroyed a country, killed a tenth of the population (almost all civilians), blocked the ICJ orders to stop the illegal occupation, vetoed all diplomatic resolutions at the UN Security Council (UNSC), and then demanded that those left alive in Gaza unconditionally surrender – then that is the “peace process” per definition.

Also, notice that everyone takes for granted as a matter of fact that Hamas has not been willing to accept a political resolution through diplomacy. That fairy tale – which is a total inversion of reality and nurtured in the media – is a remarkable propaganda coup when we look at the actual facts. Unfortunately, the actual historical record is almost uncorrectable thanks to the dishonesty of the Western media and intellectual classes, which have done an impressive job at distorting the plain facts, as they must.

In the real world, the US and “Israel”, with their enthusiastic European sponsors, have rejected all proposals from Hamas, the UNSC, the Arab League, and so on, all of them in fact absurdly accommodating to “Israel” and sometimes going beyond the maximalist and rejectionist claims made even by the Israelis. For the sake of brevity, I will restrict myself to the history spanning one year prior to today, but this has been constant throughout the entire war of extermination in Gaza.

During the spring of 2025, Hamas agreed to the massive reconstruction plan offered by the Arab League, which stipulated that Hamas leave power and be replaced by a technocratic “committee” – which was immediately rejected by the US and “Israel” since it obstructed “ethnic cleansing” of Gazan Palestinians “under any pretext or justification.”

Hamas offered a separate proposal to “end the war in Gaza” with a five-year truce, as well as to “free all hostages at once.”

In September, Hamas repeated its “readiness for a comprehensive deal” releasing “all” captives and ceding all power over Gaza “immediately”, thus “ending war”, in exchange for an end to the Israeli occupation.

In December, Hamas offered “a guarantee that no weapon will be fired from Gaza against Israel, and it will do that by burying the weapons”, and a total truce “for seven to ten years between Gaza and Israel, and Hamas will not use the weapons.”

This month, May, the Palestinian factions, including Hamas, “called for negotiations over the disarmament of Hamas and other groups to be tied to the granting of political rights for the Palestinian people ‘within the national framework,’ as well as to commitments that the people of Gaza would no longer be killed.”

All of these proposals were flatly rejected by the West and “Israel” (thus automatically banning it from history and mainstream reporting too), offering in return only maximalistic demands that we know the Palestinians cannot accept. That is, disarmament and defenselessness before they are given any guarantees in return. They must trust in Washington and Tel Aviv to engage in good behavior and abide by treaties and agreements. Western propagandists cannot comprehend why the Palestinians do not happily agree to this sign of our generosity and humanism, having swallowed their own lofty and embarrassing rhetoric about “peace offers.” But victims have no difficulty in seeing right through the reality which it tries to mask, having witnessed previous “cease-fires” broken by Israel in Gaza, “diplomacy” in Iran, Lebanon and so on.

In fact, Hamas’ compliant stance in diplomatic negotiations is not only infinitely more forthcoming than “Israel’s”, but perhaps unique in modern history. Faced with a lawless aggressor and the world’s superpower waging a war with the intent of – and in practice carrying out – physical eradication of its country, Hamas is willing to guarantee its security, agree to have no means of self-defense against future attack and so on. They do not even demand that “Israel” give back the lands it illegally occupies, nor that it pays reparations, which is the minimum required action as determined by the ICJ court ruling. Most shockingly, Hamas does not even demand that the US and “Israel”, the aggressors that constantly disregard agreements and treaties and attack multiple countries in the region, disarm themselves. That would be the bare minimum any sane person observing the situation would require.

The situation is clear: Hamas’ readiness to accommodate in diplomatic negotiations is – as far as I know – unique in modern political history, agreeing to concessions more far-reaching than, say, the Versailles Treaty. And they cannot demand, and so they do not demand, even the minimal rights they would have in any honest negotiation with the US and “Israel”, since the Western states would never tolerate even the thought of it.

But these trivially obvious truths, and the vast documentation to illustrate them, cannot be mentioned in a cultural climate as ours, where the commitment to terror and lawlessness flourishes and where the population must remain carefully protected from the dangerous realm of fact.

In short, “Israel has effectively been given a licence to torture Palestinians” and continue their war of extermination, “because most of your governments, your ministers, have allowed it”, as UN rapporteur Francesca Albanese put it (the US sanctioned her).

It is through such propaganda techniques and distortions discussed here, that the media and intellectuals have presented the government’s necessary propaganda version of the “peace process.” They have thereby “allowed” for our governments to divert attention away from the basic reality of what is happening, as they exterminate Gaza under the thin facade of “diplomacy.”

June 2, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , | Comments Off on Capitulate or Die: The Gaza ‘peace process’ and Western propaganda

Australian Sumud Flotilla activists file ICC war crimes case against Israel over torture, sexual violence

The Cradle | June 1, 2026

Australian activists who took part in the Global Sumud Flotilla for Gaza filed a formal submission with the International Criminal Court (ICC) on 30 May, accusing Israel of war crimes based on documented evidence of torture and sexual violence sustained during their abduction and imprisonment.

The legal filing, submitted by 11 Australian survivors of the Flotilla and their legal team, is supported by dozens of survivor testimonies, video evidence, medical records, and sworn statements.

This evidence details severe beatings and sexual abuse following the 18 May interception of an international aid mission carrying food and medicine to the besieged Gaza Strip in an attempt to break the Israeli blockade of the enclave.

One specific account included in the submission describes an Australian humanitarian worker being forcibly injected with an unidentified substance by Israeli captors.

The submission also incorporates video evidence, including footage posted to social media by Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, who boasted of the ill treatment and showed handcuffed activists on their knees being taunted by Israeli soldiers.

The Global Sumud Flotilla reports that at least 67 participants suffered injuries during their imprisonment that required medical evaluation, with 12 individuals requiring hospitalization.

One survivor, Australian filmmaker Juliet Lamont, in an interview with Double Down News, recounted being dragged into a shipping container she called a “torture tunnel” where she was placed in a stress position, hands restrained behind her back, and ankles shackled in the dark before being “vaginally raped by one of the male soldiers,” while “other people had guns inserted inside them.”

She added that a 70-year-old woman’s ribs had been broken as “howls of torture and pain” would emit from the same chamber she had been tortured in.

This legal action follows the UN adding Israel to a 2026 blacklist for parties guilty of committing sexual violence in conflict zones. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres cited documented “patterns of sexual violence” against detainees, leading to the designation of the Israeli Prison Service on the blacklist.

While Israel’s ambassador to Australia and other Israeli officials have denied these claims, asserting that participants were treated according to established procedures, the Australian government previously sanctioned Minister Ben Gvir for his “shocking and unacceptable” treatment of the detainees.

Returning survivors have expressed outrage at the Australian federal government, noting that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has declined multiple requests to meet with them.

Flotilla participant Isla Lamont highlighted the contrast of being granted a hearing at the ICC while being ignored by domestic leadership, stating that “If Australian survivors can be heard in The Hague but not in Canberra, something has gone badly wrong”.

The flotilla organizers are now calling for independent international investigations, arms embargoes, and the enforcement of arrest warrants for the officials responsible.

French activists are also pursuing their own separate legal complaint on the “humiliation, rape, and acts of torture” they endured, explicitly declining to cooperate with the French Foreign Ministry’s request for a criminal probe due to their government’s continued diplomatic support for Israel throughout the genocide in Gaza.

June 1, 2026 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Solidarity and Activism, Subjugation - Torture | , , | Comments Off on Australian Sumud Flotilla activists file ICC war crimes case against Israel over torture, sexual violence

Two US political commentators banned from UK for criticizing ‘Israel’

Al Mayadeen | June 1, 2026

The UK government has blocked two prominent left-wing US political commentators, Hasan Piker and Cenk Uygur, from entering the country, reportedly over remarks concerning “Israel”.

Piker, a political streamer with 1.9 million YouTube subscribers, and Uygur, co-founder of The Young Turks, said they had been denied entry to the UK. He said in a social media post that he was prevented from boarding a flight to London to attend SXSW London and deliver a speech at Oxford.

“I’ve been banned from the UK. I tried to get on a flight to London to attend SXSW London and give a speech at Oxford. I’ve been banned for criticizing “Israel”. Are we free anymore?” he wrote, adding:  “This is oppression of Western citizens by our own governments on behalf of a different country.”

Uygur also commented publicly on the decision, saying the move reflected political pressure linked to criticism of “Israel”.

Labour government bans Hasan Piker and Cenk Uygur

The UK Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood reportedly decided to ban Uygur from entering the UK, citing concerns that his presence could “risk exacerbating antisemitism due to his rhetoric.”

Piker, who is known online as HasanAbi and previously worked with The Young Turks, said the UK had also revoked his visa “at the behest of Israel.” He wrote: “The West is betraying liberal values for a genocidal fascist foreign government. Soon we will all become Israel.”

During a video uploaded to YouTube, Piker said he had been scheduled to attend events with Jeremy Corbyn, Zack Polanski, and Yanis Varoufakis.

He also read from a letter sent by the UK government, which stated: “Your UK ETA has been cancelled. This means you cannot travel to the UK without a visa. This is because your presence in the UK is not considered to be conducive to the public good. You cannot appeal this decision.”

Western weaponization of censorship

“Israel” and its Western allies have repeatedly sought to silence journalists who expose Israeli occupation and war crimes by branding critical reporting as “terror propaganda” or anti‑Israeli incitement, rather than engaging with the documented violence on the ground.

Al Mayadeen’s experience is illustrative: Israeli authorities banned the channel’s broadcasts in occupied Palestine under emergency “security” regulations, seized its equipment, and accused its reporters of serving “enemy” interests and “pretending to be journalists”.

This aggressive censorship is reinforced in Western media ecosystems, where leaked testimonies describe unwritten rules against words like “genocide” and structural pressure on reporters and scholars to self‑censor criticism of “Israel” for fear of being smeared as “anti‑Semitic” or apologetic for “terror”, producing a climate in which speaking honestly about occupation is treated as a greater offense than the atrocities themselves.

Moreover, US and UK authorities have increasingly mirrored “Israel’s” own tactics by banning or criminalizing voices that challenge its actions, turning criticism of a foreign state into a de facto speech offense. In the UK, this has meant not only designating Palestine Action a “terrorist” organization but also arresting thousands of supporters and documenting nearly 1,000 cases where students, workers, and artists faced investigations, suspensions, or event cancellations for pro‑Palestine advocacy.

Across the Atlantic, US officials have backed or tolerated these crackdowns while pursuing their own arrests and visa actions against pro‑Palestine student leaders, signalling a transatlantic consensus that views solidarity with Palestinians and sharp scrutiny of the Israeli lobby and war crimes as a security problem to be contained rather than protected political speech

June 1, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Comments Off on Two US political commentators banned from UK for criticizing ‘Israel’

Hamas: EU hits Gaza leaders with sanctions but ‘turns blind eye’ to Israel’s atrocities

Press TV – May 30, 2026

Hamas has condemned the European Union’s sanctions, slamming the bloc for “turning a blind eye” to Israel’s violations of international law while targeting Palestinian resistance groups and leaders.

“We condemn the decision by the European Union Council to broaden sanctions against the Hamas and Islamic Jihad movements and to include a number of their political leaders on its lists,” the Gaza-based resistance group said in a statement on Saturday.

Hamas added the sanctions are unjust and entirely biased in favor of the occupation’s narrative, reflecting a policy of double standards in dealing with the Palestinian cause.

“This decision comes as [Israel] continues to commit crimes of genocide, starvation, and forced displacement against our people and violates the ceasefire agreement, while the European Union turns a blind eye to these documented violations of international law and chooses to sanction political leaders who defend their people’s legitimate rights,‌” read the statement

“The attempt to criminalize the Palestinian resistance will not change the fact that our people are under occupation, their resistance is a legitimate right guaranteed by all laws and humanitarian norms,” the group highlighted.

Hamas noted that the targeting of political leaders confirms that these sanctions come as a response to pressure from the occupation and are not based on standards of justice.

The movement called on the EU to review its biased policies, cease providing political cover for Israel, and work to hold its leaders accountable instead of prosecuting the victims.

“We affirm that these measures will not undermine the will of our Palestinian people or their commitment to their legitimate national rights, especially freedom, self-determination, ending the occupation, and establishing the Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital,” the group stated.

The EU on Friday said that it had listed ten members of Hamas’ top political leadership body as subject to a travel ban and asset freeze, prohibiting making funds or economic resources available to those named, either directly or indirectly.

Since launching its genocidal assault on Gaza on October 7, 2023, Israel has killed more than 72,000 Palestinians and wounded at least 172,000 others, the majority of them women and children.

The Israeli war has also devastated Gaza’s civilian infrastructure, destroying hospitals, schools, sports facilities, power plants, water networks and residential neighborhoods across the besieged territory.

The widespread destruction and continuing blockade have displaced much of Gaza’s population, leaving Palestinians trapped in the besieged territory and heavily dependent on humanitarian aid that enters only in limited quantities.

May 30, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Progressive Hypocrite, War Crimes | , , , , , | Comments Off on Hamas: EU hits Gaza leaders with sanctions but ‘turns blind eye’ to Israel’s atrocities

“Balancing” Act at the New York Times

Nicholas Kristof Wrote About Israel’s Sexual Torture of Prisoners, the Next Day Isabel Kershner Penned More Unverified Rape Allegations Against Hamas

By Robin Andersen | ScheerPost | May 30, 2026

The New York Times attempted to ‘balance’ Nicholas Kristof’s documentation of the systematic rape of Palestinians by Israeli forces with yet another unverified rape ‘investigation’ claiming that Hamas had weaponized sexual violence on October 7. It was written by the paper’s pro-Israel Jerusalem-based reporter, Isabel Kershner.

Nicholas Kristof’s New York Times Op-ed piece titled The Silence That Meets the Rape of Palestinians, published on May 11, was based on documentation and grueling victim testimonies of rapes that Palestinians have experienced at the hands of Israeli security forces. Brutal and sadistic acts of sexual torture are described in a piece that triggered enormous attention even though human rights organizations have been documenting these same crimes for years now.

The Israeli human rights group B’Tselem has documented Israel’s sexual torture of Palestinian men, women and children calling the “Israeli prison system a network of torture camps.” Save the Children reported in July 2024 that Palestinian children in Israeli detention were facing “disease, increasing starvation, [and] abuse including sexual violence.” A Palestinian women’s rights organization warned that their documented 75 cases of rape and sexual violence against Palestinian women amounted to about 1% of what was actually happening in Israeli detention. Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor’s extensive report published on April 13, 2026, emphasized that the sexual torture was so bad it amounted to “another genocide behind walls.” They identified its purpose as a “systematic destruction of the body and identity.” The report emphasized the scope of “criminal responsibility,” by the collusion of state institutions that were creating impunity.

In a discussion about Kristof’s piece, Francesca Albanese, who has also documented brutal Israeli torture sites, told Al Jazeera’s UpFront that she had given a long interview about sexual torture to the New York Times as early as February 2024, but nothing came of it. Albanese went on to say she didn’t understand why the Times piece should have been “more important” than the extensive documentation of human rights monitors. But when Kristof finally acknowledged that Palestinians were being tortured and raped by trained dogs, (corroborated by a soldier) in Israeli prisons, it made headlines in the US and sent shock waves through Israel’s hasbara apparatus.

The agenda setting New York Times is a “paper of record,” with a journalism staff of 3000, about 7 percent of all journalists working in the US. The paper has also been a reliable source of pro-Israel messaging for years, especially after October 7, so when a well-respected human rights journalist wrote such an op-ed in its pages it was a public relations disaster for Israel and its propaganda machine went into high gear to counter the bad press. Zionists and genocide supporters protested in front of the Times building. Netanyahu was so outraged that he threatened to bring a defamation lawsuit against the paper. The Israel Foreign Ministry called the piece “blood liable” and accused Nicholas Kristof of writing “an endless stream of baseless lies and propaganda” that turned the “victims into the accused.”

It should come then, as no surprise that the paper attempted to “balance” Kristof’s essay by publishing a piece the very next day, on May 12, about another “two-year investigation” by Israel, that “concluded” that sexual violence by Hamas was widespread on October 7. Isabel Kirshner’s piece attempted to breathe new life into the thoroughly discredited and debunked original Times’ front-page ‘investigation’ titled Screams Without WordsScreams was first published on December 28, 2023, just as the South African legal case against Israel’s genocide was being presented to the International Court of Justice, and it served as a significant denial and justification for Israel’s genocidal violence at the time. Screams without Words can be described accurately (and has been) with the same words used by Israel’s Foreign Ministry to falsely describe Kristof’s piece; “an endless stream of baseless lies and propaganda.”

The timing of the now infamous rape story of 2023, along with its extravagant claims to evidence not found in the front-page article, had much to do with why, almost immediately, the piece drew critical attention from media analysts, independent investigative reporters, and human rights organizations. Withering criticisms of the story included an essay in Medium, calling it “crappy journalism,” saying it offered a “lesson on selection, slanting, and charged language, and why using words in these ways constitutes a poor substitute for solid evidence and reasoning.” An Egyptian feminist non-governmental organization (NGO) Speak Up, called the article a “disgraceful investigation,” and shamed the Times for claiming to provide readers with definitive evidence, while actually offering no evidence at all. Independent US investigators such as Electronic Intifada, The Grayzone, The Intercept, Mondoweiss and others, roundly debunked the fictionesque inventions continued within it. Sixty journalism professors wrote to the New York Times calling on the paper to commission an independent review of the article. It was “troubling to professors of journalism to see such a shoddy article be published without a retraction or an investigation,” Professor Deepa Kumar told Democracy Now!

The timing, the definitive assertions without evidence, the reliance on already discredited sources, the sensational writing replete with lurid content, the omissions, half-truths, misdirections, and the way the paper manipulated the family of a young Israeli female victim killed at the rave, all point to a case of journalism malpractice at the New York Times. “Screams Without Words” is an example, not of journalism, but of the power of persuasive myths and war propaganda.

The Complicit Lens: US Media Coverage of Israel’s Genocide in Gaza

The paper’s 2026 version of the Hamas rape story was penned by one of the Times’ most reliably pro-Israeli reporters, Isabel Kershner, and this new ‘investigation’ once again takes seriously, discredited Israeli sources that Kershner claims to be independent and reliable. At the center of the piece is Cochav Elkayam-Levy, a key Israeli source after October 7. Elkayam-Levy and her organization were central to Western media coverage after October 7, when she repeatedly presented the rape allegations against Hamas. However, as MintPress News reported, Israeli media later reported that “Elkayam-Levy and her commission had misled donors, exaggerated evidence collection efforts, and spread misinformation related to October 7 claims. The controversy surfaced shortly after she received the prestigious Israel Prize.” In Kersner’s new piece, extravagant claims are made about the thorough nature of the investigation, describing all the visual evidence now assembled. But Kershner isn’t allowed to publish the evidence. She writes; “The commission’s archive is closed to the public because of the graphic nature of much of the material, it said, and to protect the privacy of victims and their families.” The Times is asking its readers to trust the Israelis, Isabel Kershner, and the paper itself with its abysmal track record on this topic. Kershner does not mention the fact that early last year, Israel blocked a UN probe into possible Hamas sexual crimes of October 7, because according to Haaretz, they wanted to avoid an inquiry into the abuse of Palestinians in Israeli prisons.

Isabell Kershner at the New York Times

Kershner has been providing positive reporting for Israeli Security Force for years now. With Kirshner, polishing the image of the IDF is a family affair. The Jerusalem-based correspondent whose husband worked with the Israeli military complex says on her Times’ profile page, that says she “strives to be accurate, honest and fair.” Yet she failed to mention that her husband Hirsh Goodman, was working as a senior research associate at a national security think-tank, the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS). INSS’s website boasted about the group’s “strong association with the political and military establishment.” Goodman’s job, at least in part, entailed “shaping a positive image of Israel in the media.” An examination of articles that Kershner wrote or contributed to from 2009 to 2012 by FAIR revealed that she overwhelmingly relied “on the INSS for think tank analysis about events in the region.” The Times has not disclosed Kershner’s connections to INSS.

Reporting on INSS, Haaretz cited published papers that backed the “Dahiyah Doctrine,” an Israeli military doctrine that called for disproportionate force to be used on civilian infrastructure in Gaza and Lebanon during operations against Hamas and Hezbollah. Since Ovtober 7, this doctrine has been extensively followed. Writing for FAIR, Alex Kane reported that the Dahiyah Doctrine was applied in 2008–09 during Israel’s invasion of Gaza, and goes on to explain that “Goodman’s job within that context was spin.” Because disproportionate violence resulting in many civilian casualties could lead to charges of war crimes, Goodman understood that “Israel must devise a strategy to impact positively on international and Arab public opinion and overall disseminate its message more effectively.” INSS messaging was certainly disseminated effectively in the New York Times, “From 2009–12, Kershner wrote or contributed to 17 articles that quoted officials from the INSS, far more than other comparable think tanks.

Though Kershner never used her husband as a direct source, as a Society for Professional Journalism (SPJ) ethics expert Kevin Smith, told FAIR, this is basic ethics 101, these relationships are not healthy for unbiased news coverage. “You cannot expect trust or to maintain credibility from the public when, before they read a word of your copy, you have engaged in an act of deception by not disclosing your potential conflicts.”

In her post-October 7 coverage, Kershner’s hand in promoting the Israeli military can be easily detected in her writing. In an article from January 2024, well into Israel’s genocidal violence in Gaza, Kersner wrote; “Israeli Women Fight on Front Line in Gaza, a First.” Kershner continued, “After a long struggle for acceptance, Israel’s female combat soldiers are pushing new boundaries after rushing into battle on Oct. 7.” We learn that a woman now “commands a company of 83 soldiers, nearly half of them men. It is one of several mixed-gender units fighting in Gaza, where female combat soldiers and officers are serving on the front line for the first time since the war surrounding the establishment of Israel in 1948.” There are also two all-women tank crews on the ground in Gaza. Kershner calls women’s new role in the military, a progressive victory over “ultraconservative rabbis and religiously observant soldiers” by “feminists, secularists and critics of the country’s traditionally macho culture.”

Even as she writes the story, she seems to acknowledge that it serves a PR role for the military, by bolstering the new positive image of the IDF. She asserts that women “combat soldiers have become symbols of progress and equality, appearing on magazine covers and featured in television news profiles.”

Writing from a feminist peace perspective, Joyce Chediac notes that Palestinian women’s groups have called the genocide a feminist issue and are urging all those who value women’s rights to support a ceasefire. As Kershner lauded women in Israel’s army, Joyce Chediac questioned their role in the violence:

Are the two tanks operated by women among those involved in the storming of Al-Khair hospital in Khan Yunis, arresting their staff, and preventing ambulances from rescuing the wounded? Are the women in combat for the first time among the snipers shooting Palestinians dead as they search for food or water for their families? Are they guarding the bulldozers now flattening huge swarths of Khan Yunis, forcing pregnant women to give birth in freezing tents because their homes were destroyed and they are blocked from hospitals?

Chediac concludes that, “equal gender opportunity to commit genocide is a cruel and obscene mockery of women’s rights.” Providing cover for Israel’s military does not advance the rights of women, it sets them back. The concept that female military power is progressive has helped sugarcoat the genocidal violence and atrocities carried out by the Israeli military.

Testimony gathered by B’Tselem in 2024, confirms that female soldiers have been involved in mistreating detained prisoners in Israel’s system of torture camps. A 39-year-old mother of five from Gaza City told B’Tselem, “On December 31st we were taken out of the cage and dragged to a bus, like animals. The bus started driving and the whole way, the female soldiers guarding us wouldn’t let us lift our heads. They swore at us, hit us on our hands, and took pictures of us. After some time, the bus stopped. We were taken off of it… A female soldier grabbed us by the head and ordered us to kiss the Israeli flag. Another female soldier bashed my head against the side of the bus.”

Balancing legitimate reporting that includes reliable witness testimony confirmed by multiple human rights investigations over a period of years cannot be not done by publishing unverified allegations from discredited sources. Alan MacLeod noted a recuring media pattern here that applies to the New York Times’ reporting on Israel; “whenever scrutiny intensifies around Israeli abuses against Palestinians, major Western outlets redirect attention toward unverified claims against Hamas to justify Israel’s genocide in Gaza.”

Balancing Kristof’s rare acknowledgment of Israeli war crimes with reporting by a pro-Israel, biased journalist citing discredited sources repeating unverifiable allegations was a shameful, and failed, attempt to appease the state of Israeli as it expands its crimes of war and occupation into Lebanon for a Greater Isreal. The Times would do better to simply report the truth and stop catering to hasbara and the false narratives that facilitate Israel’s on-going genocidal violence.


Material in this piece was drawn from Chapter 4, “A Compromised Media Landscape,” and from Chapter 8, “The New York Times Rape Story: War Propaganda and Trauma Porn,” in The Complect Lens: US Media Coverage of Israel’s Genocide in Gaza, by Robin Andersen

Robin Andersen is professor emerita of media studies at Fordham University and an award-winning author of a dozen single- and co-authored books. Her work examines film, television, and media coverage of war, the environment, politics, and elections. She edits the Routledge Focus Book Series on Media and Humanitarian Action, serves as a Project Censored Judge, and contributes to the annual State of the Free Press. Andersen is on the Board of Directors of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), where she also writes regularly, and is an Izzy Award Judge for the Park Center for Independent Media. Her writing has appeared in CounterPunch, LA Progressive, The Progressive, Salon, Common Dreams, and ScheerPost, among others.

May 30, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , , | Comments Off on “Balancing” Act at the New York Times

German politician blasts ‘totalitarian madness’ of sanctions on pro-Palestinian journalist

RT | May 29, 2026

Germany’s implementation of EU sanctions against a pro-Palestinian journalist whom Brussels has accused of fueling discord on Russia’s behalf has descended into “totalitarian madness,” German opposition politician Sahra Wagenknecht has said.

Wagenknecht has called for financial restrictions imposed on Huseyin Dogru and his Berlin-based family to be lifted. On Tuesday, Dogru said Comdirect bank had frozen the assets of his elderly mother, citing what it described as a “control relationship over the funds by [her] son.” His wife’s bank account was targeted in March, while his father is reportedly under investigation by the authorities.

“This is how dictatorships treat opposition figures,” the left-wing BSW party founder told Berliner Zeitung on Thursday.

“The EU’s scandalous overreach against a German journalist and the German government’s complicity in breaking the law and collective punishment must finally stop,” she added. “If the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution were doing its job, this totalitarian government extremism would actually be a case for them.”

EU portrays pro-Palestinian advocacy as serving Russia

Dogru is a Turkish-German journalist who previously worked with the media outlet Redfish, which received funding from Ruptly, a video agency Western governments have labeled as being part of Russia’s “propaganda” infrastructure.

The EU imposed personal sanctions on Dogru in May 2025, accusing him of “systematically spreading false information about politically controversial topics, with the intention of sowing ethnic, political and religious discord” in Germany and claiming that his work aligned with Russian objectives.

Dogru says Brussels and Berlin are targeting him over his pro-Palestinian activism. Even Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner Michael O’Flaherty criticized Germany over the issue, warning in April that “freedom of expression has been restricted disproportionately, regarding debates on Palestinian rights or legitimate criticism of the Israeli government.”

‘Civil death’ without charges

The German financial restrictions severely limit what Dogru, a father of three young children, can legally do to support his family. He is barred from carrying out donation-funded journalism or accepting solidarity aid, as the government considers such payments an attempt to circumvent sanctions. His assets have been frozen, with only around €500 ($590) per month permitted for expenses. His travel has also been restricted.

Dogru’s supporters say he has effectively been subjected to a “civil death” despite no formal charges being filed against him. A campaign urging the EU to lift the sanctions was launched last week on the anniversary of their introduction.

Wagenknecht is among the signatories of the petition, which argues that Dogru is facing state censorship in violation of the German constitution and EU laws.

After Western governments made combating what they call “Russian disinformation” a major policy priority, Moscow argued that the campaign reflected an attempt to preserve narrative control amid the rise of alternative online media.

May 29, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | , , | Comments Off on German politician blasts ‘totalitarian madness’ of sanctions on pro-Palestinian journalist

A Nation of Suspects

By Andrew P. Napolitano | Ron Paul Institute | May 28, 2026

Some of the recent legal challenges to the use of surveillance by the Department of Homeland Security upon Americans have resulted in the revelation of truly terrifying behavior by the government, in direct defiance of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. We now know that the federal government spies on innocent Americans without suspicion and without warrants.

The spying seems to fall into several categories. The National Security Agency, which is in the Department of Defense, employs about 60,000 domestic spies. These are the folks who want us to believe that they go through the trouble of making applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for warrants to spy on foreigners.

Actually, from time to time they do go to this court, but their travels there — where judges are frisked upon entering and leaving the courthouse by the NSA agents who appear before them — serve as fig leaves for their massive warrantless spying on Americans. The FISA Court is unconstitutional because it issues warrants based on probable cause of communicating with a foreign person, rather than on probable cause of crime as the Fourth Amendment requires.

The courts have ruled consistently since the 1960s that spying — surveillance, as the feds call it — is a search, and the capture of data from a surveillance is a seizure.

The Fourth Amendment protects all persons in America — not just Americans — from warrantless searches and seizures of their “persons, houses, papers, and effects.” There are some well-recognized exceptions to this constitutional baseline, such as evidence that will quickly vanish or be seriously degraded, but those exceptions do not apply here as the NSA captures in real time all keystrokes on all digital devices and all fiber optic data transmitted into, out of and within the United States.

The judges of the FISA Court surely know that the Department of Justice lawyers and NSA agents who appear before them are going through a charade, and the court has been made a part of it. The charade is the pretense that all spying is done pursuant to the warrants that FISA Court judges issue. Former NSA agents have revealed publicly that this is hardly the case.

Nevertheless, the lowered standard from probable cause of crime to probable cause of communicating to a foreign person was crafted by Congress — in another of its many moments heedless of the Constitution. After a few years of this, the FISA Court began to issue warrants for spying on the Americans who communicate with foreigners, out to the sixth degree. A sixth grader can do the math, as this leads to hundreds of millions of Americans whose communications are captured.

A second category of spying is employed by the DHS. The DHS — now a 250,000-person strong federal police department nowhere countenanced by the Constitution — has sophisticated software that can read fingerprints at 15 feet and irises at 15 inches. So, if you wave goodbye or good riddance to an ICE agent, and he holds up his mobile phone, and you are in the federal system for any benign reason, he has captured your bank, health, legal and commercial records on the spot. If he talks to you in your car and is within 15 inches of your face, he can capture the same data.

As if all this were not enough, the feds and local police use a device called a Stingray, which mimics the signal sent to all mobile devices as if the device were being used to communicate. But the communication is just one way, as the Stingray will tell the government where the person possessing the mobile device is at any given moment. This, too, is a seizure of private personal information — the contents of the computer chip in your mobile device — which the Fourth Amendment characterizes as an “effect.”

And then there is the FBI, which now uses zero-click software. This permits agents without warrants or even approval of their superiors to engage in computer hacking without having to trick the hacked victim into clicking on a link. Computer hacking is a felony.

All of this surveillance is unconstitutional, dangerous and commonplace. It consists in the use of surveillance and law enforcement tools without articulable suspicion.

For 600 years, articulable suspicion — the lowest evidentiary standard we have — has been the baseline for all government behavior that targets an individual. Articulable suspicion is the fact-based ability to state why a person — not a group — should be targeted and for what crime. This is the same standard that must be met when police stop someone in public.

Anything less than articulable suspicion is a fishing expedition; stated differently, a general warrant. General warrants — which were used by British agents on American colonists — permitted the agents to stop anyone, to search anywhere and to seize anything without articulable suspicion. The Fourth Amendment outlawed them.

How did we get from a Constitution that assumes that the individual is sovereign, our rights are natural and inalienable, and the government may only legally do what the governed have affirmatively authorized it to do to where we are today? The answer is fear. Fear is the great tool for authoritarians — fear of foreigners, fear of war, fear of crime, fear of drugs, fear of terror. When people are afraid, they will allow the government to take liberty in return for a promise of safety.

Of course, liberty once surrendered is never returned. But liberty is individual, not collective. You can surrender your liberty and your neighbors can surrender theirs, but none of you can surrender mine. These values are what animated Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration and James Madison in the Bill of Rights. Those animations seem like ancient history today. On the eve of America’s 250th anniversary, the Founders would not recognize this country of no values where everyone is a suspect.


To learn more about Judge Andrew Napolitano, visit https://JudgeNap.com.
COPYRIGHT 2026 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

May 28, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Comments Off on A Nation of Suspects

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.

May 28, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Progressive Hypocrite, Subjugation - Torture, War Crimes | , , , , | Comments Off on The Popular Scapegoats: How Israel Is Pushing Its New ‘Bad Apples’ Hasbara Strategy

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.

May 27, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Comments Off on Defining Dissent: How the Federal Crackdown on Anti-Semitism Redefines the Boundaries of Speech

The extremely harsh life of those who tried to stand up to the United States at the UN

By Eduardo Vasco | Strategic Culture Foundation | May 27, 2026

From Guantánamo to Palestine, Washington has a long, brutal history of silencing, blacklisting, and deporting rapporteurs who dared tell the truth.

When the United States government decided to impose sanctions against the UN Special Rapporteur for the occupied Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese, honest defenders of human rights were astonished. The measure, announced in July 2025 by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, was presented as a response to what the U.S. government called the expert’s “illegitimate and shameful efforts” to promote actions by the International Criminal Court (ICC) against Israeli and American officials.

In practice, the sanctions meant much more than a diplomatic gesture. Albanese was included in restriction mechanisms linked to the U.S. financial system, which, in theory, may imply the freezing of assets under American jurisdiction, banking restrictions, and travel limitations. The decision is the most blatant attempt to intimidate a United Nations Special Rapporteur.

The importance of the Italian jurist’s work helps explain why she became one of the main targets of Israel and its Western allies. Since assuming office in 2022, Albanese has produced forceful reports on the Israeli occupation system, describing it as a structure of permanent colonization, segregation, and apartheid. After the beginning of the extermination in Gaza in October 2023, she began arguing that there were plausible elements of genocide in Israel’s military campaign.

Behind diplomatic closed doors, her work came to be seen by Israeli authorities as especially dangerous because it combined denunciations of humanitarian violations with a strategy of international legal accountability.

Despite the exceptional nature of the sanctions, the Albanese case did not emerge out of nowhere. Over the last several decades, the United States developed different methods of pressure against UN Special Rapporteurs considered excessively critical of its foreign policies, its allies, or its domestic human rights situation. Before reaching the point of imposing financial sanctions, Washington had already resorted to diplomatic campaigns, public attacks, attempts at delegitimization, restrictions on access, and political pressure within the Human Rights Council.

The most visible precedents of this pattern lie precisely within the mandate dedicated to the occupied Palestinian territories.

Before Albanese, two Special Rapporteurs became frequent targets of discrediting campaigns: John Dugard and Richard Falk.

A South African jurist and expert in international law, Dugard held the position between 2001 and 2008 and became known for drawing comparisons between the Israeli occupation and the apartheid regime that existed in South Africa. In reports presented to the UN, he argued that the combination of territorial segregation, checkpoints, settlement expansion, and severe restrictions on Palestinian mobility produced a system of domination incompatible with international law.

His positions provoked a strong reaction from Israel and growing discomfort in Washington. American diplomats, although often in a less strident manner than Tel Aviv, demonstrated systematic opposition to the rapporteur’s conclusions within the Human Rights Council, orchestrating pressure campaigns on allies and countries that could influence key votes and decisions.

If John Dugard faced diplomatic resistance and attempts at political disqualification, his successor in the Palestinian mandate, Richard Falk, became the target of a far more aggressive and personalized campaign.

An emeritus professor of international law at Princeton, Falk took office in 2008 and quickly entered into open conflict with Israel and the United States. His criticism of the Israeli occupation, the blockade of Gaza, and the country’s military offensives began generating frequent diplomatic confrontations.

Israel went so far as to bar his entry into the country in December 2008, when Falk attempted to carry out an official UN mission in the occupied territories. Detained at Ben Gurion Airport, he was kept in custody and later deported. The episode triggered protests at the United Nations, since independent experts are, in principle, entitled to access in order to carry out their mandates.

Throughout his period as rapporteur, Falk came to argue that Israeli policies displayed characteristics of colonialism and apartheid, exposing the nature of Zionist oppression over Palestinians. At various moments, American diplomats accused the rapporteur of bias and unfitness for office simply because he did not fully follow the dictates of Tel Aviv and Washington, unlike what they had become accustomed to.

One of the most intense episodes occurred after Falk published comments on the national oppression of Palestinians and American foreign policy. Then-U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice publicly called for his removal from office, stating that he was “unfit to serve” as Special Rapporteur. Organizations from the Zionist lobby, such as UN Watch, also conducted permanent campaigns for his dismissal, accusing him of antisemitism and conspiracism.

Falk responded by saying he was the target of a systematic attempt at silencing. In interviews and public statements, he described the pressure he faced as a campaign of “personal attacks” intended to divert attention from the Israeli violations documented under his mandate.

Guantánamo and the War Against Anti-Torture Rapporteurs

The pattern of pressure seen in mandates on Palestine — public discrediting, diplomatic pressure, and attempts at institutional marginalization — would reappear on other fronts, especially when UN experts began investigating the consequences of the so-called “war on terror” launched by the United States after the September 11, 2001 attacks.

The issue of torture became one of the main points of friction between Washington and international human rights mechanisms.

One of the most emblematic episodes involved Austrian jurist Manfred Nowak, UN Special Rapporteur on torture between 2004 and 2010. During his mandate, Nowak repeatedly sought unrestricted access to the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, where hundreds of detainees remained without formal trial under accusations of terrorism.

The Bush administration partially accepted a visit but refused conditions considered essential by the United Nations. Among them was the possibility of conducting private interviews with prisoners — a standard procedure in international investigations into torture and mistreatment. Without such guarantees, Nowak refused what would have been a merely symbolic visit.

In public statements, the rapporteur argued that inspections without confidentiality would amount to a “guided tour,” incapable of producing any serious assessment of detention conditions. Even so, after analyzing documents, testimonies from former prisoners, and medical reports, he concluded that certain practices used at Guantánamo could be classified as torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

In the following years, other UN specialists would face similar reactions when addressing the issue.

Juan Méndez, Special Rapporteur on torture between 2010 and 2016, criticized the prolonged use of solitary confinement, classifying certain periods of extreme isolation as a form of psychological torture. American authorities challenged his conclusions and resisted allowing unrestricted access to prisoners.

Another relevant case was that of British expert Ben Emmerson, Special Rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights. Emmerson called for criminal investigations into the CIA’s secret torture programs, including clandestine prisons (“black sites”) and interrogation techniques used after 9/11.

In a particularly strong position, he argued that it was a “legal obligation” of states to investigate and prosecute those responsible for acts of torture authorized in the name of combating terrorism. The American reaction was predominantly defensive, with officials maintaining that internal investigations had already taken place and rejecting international interference.

More recently, Swiss jurist Nils Melzer, also a rapporteur on torture, faced strong political resistance after denouncing abuses linked to U.S. security policy and the treatment of prisoners in contexts of war and international extradition. Although his case is more closely associated with the treatment of Julian Assange, Melzer also criticized the persistent impunity surrounding post-9/11 abuses.

May 27, 2026 Posted by | Subjugation - Torture, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | Comments Off on The extremely harsh life of those who tried to stand up to the United States at the UN

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.

May 26, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , , | Comments Off on Ex-Mossad chief threatened ICC prosecutor over Israel war crimes probe