Australia’s Top Censor Warns of Surveillance While Hypocritically Expanding It
By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | December 3, 2025
At a press conference that could have been a comedy sketch idea, Australia’s “eSafety” Commissioner Julie Inman Grant and Social Services Minister Tanya Plibersek stood before the cameras and solemnly warned the nation about the perils of surveillance. Not from government programs or sweeping digital mandates, but from smart cars and connected devices.
The irony was not lost on anyone paying attention.
Both Grant and Plibersek are enthusiastic backers of the country’s new online age verification law, the so-called Social Media Minimum Age Bill 2024, a law that has done more to expand digital surveillance than any gadget in a Toyota.
The legislation bans under-16s from social media and requires users to prove their age through “assurance” systems that often involve facial scans, ID uploads, and data analysis so invasive it would make a marketing executive blush.
But on the same day she cautioned the public about the dangers of “connected” cars sharing sensitive information with third parties, Grant’s agency was publishing rules that literally require social media platforms to share sensitive data with third parties.
During the press conference, Grant complained that “it’s disappointing” YouTube and other platforms hadn’t yet released their guidance on how they’ll implement verification.
She announced that eSafety will begin issuing “gathering information notices” on December 10, demanding details from companies about how they plan to comply once her expanded powers take effect.
She also warned that some of the smaller apps users are migrating to may soon “become age-restricted social media platforms.”
The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) explains that compliance under this law can involve “age estimation” using facial analysis, “age inference” through data modeling of user activity, or “age verification” with government ID.
All three options amount to building a surveillance apparatus around everyday users. Facial recognition, voice modeling, behavioral tracking; pick your poison.
Most platforms outsource this work to private firms, which means that the same sensitive data the law claims to protect is immediately handed to a commercial intermediary.
Meta, for example, relies on Yoti, a third-party ID verification company. Others use firms like Au10tix, which famously left troves of ID scans exposed online for over a year.
The law includes what politicians like to call “strong privacy safeguards.” Platforms must only collect the data necessary for verification, must destroy it once it’s used, and must never reuse it for other purposes.
It’s the same promise every company makes before it gets hacked or “inadvertently” leaks user data.
Even small dating apps that claimed to delete verification selfies “immediately after completion” managed to leak those same selfies. In every case, the breach followed the same pattern: grand assurances, then exposure.
Julie Inman Grant calls it protecting the public. Tanya Plibersek calls it social responsibility. The rest of us might call it what it actually is: institutionalized data collection, dressed in the language of child safety.
Israel moves to extend army service to 36 months
The Cradle | December 5, 2025
Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich announced on 5 December a plan to extend mandatory military service to 36 months.
The move raises the current service terms from 30–32 months to a full 36 months and marks a significant shift in how Tel Aviv intends to staff its army at a time of deep political rupture and growing pressure on its northern front.
The ministers said the extension would add “10,000 service days per year” and could delay the discharge of soldiers scheduled to complete their service in 2026.
Katz’s office said the government will cut roughly 30,000 reserve duty positions and rely instead on longer compulsory service to fill the gaps.
The move also comes as the government promotes legislation to exempt the ultra-Orthodox, known as the Haredim, from the draft, while expecting regular soldiers to make up for the shrinking reserve force.
Opposition leader Yair Lapid condemned the arrangement as “a budget of corruption and draft-dodging.”
The adjustment is included in a significantly expanded 2026 defense budget. According to the prime minister’s office and statements issued by Katz, the budget now stands at $34.72 billion, up from an earlier draft of $27.90 billion.
Katz said the government will “reinforce the IDF and … reduce the burden on reservists,” though the plan effectively shifts that burden onto conscripts who will now serve an extra year. Smotrich said the overall increase compared with 2023 reached $14.57 billion.
The manpower strain has sharpened in recent months. Israeli Brigadier General Shai Tayeb told lawmakers that the army is currently short 12,000 recruits, including 7,000 combat soldiers, and warned that troop levels are projected to decline even further by early 2027.
Tayeb told the Knesset that Israel “needs to expand the base of those serving” and is preparing for three-year service terms and 70 days of annual reserve duty within five years.
Israel has even begun turning to foreign mercenaries to fill its ranks, with losses from campaigns in Gaza and Lebanon, rising dropout rates, and growing reluctance among reservists to return to service, the army is left to face what officials describe as a “huge shortage” of capable fighters.
EU Fines X $140 Million Amid Free Speech Clash
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | December 5, 2025
The European Union pulled the trigger on Elon Musk’s social media platform X. On Friday, Brussels fined X a massive $140 million for what it described as “transparency failures” under its censorship law, the Digital Services Act. In plain terms, the EU is angry that X is not policing speech the way it wants.
Of course, officials insist the penalty is not about censorship. It is about “accountability.” Yet every part of the fine print points to the same thing: a government demanding more control over what people say and see online.
The European Commission called X’s blue check system “deceptive” because Musk turned what used to be a verification badge into a paid feature anyone can buy. In the eyes of Brussels, that is chaos, a marketplace where speech is treated like a right, not a licensed activity.
Henna Virkkunen, the Commission’s executive vice president for tech sovereignty, summed up the mood. “Deceiving users with blue check marks, obscuring information on ads, and shutting out researchers have no place online in the E.U.,” she said. “We are holding X responsible for undermining users’ rights and evading accountability.”
European regulators also accuse X of not sharing advertising data and refusing to give researchers access to its user information. The law says platforms must open up to “independent research.” In reality, that means academics and NGOs, often with pro-censorship political affiliations, getting privileged access to social data, exactly the kind of surveillance the DSA claims to prevent.
Officials call this “transparency.” It is a transparency that flows one way, upward, toward the state. Musk’s decision not to hand over user data now counts as a punishable offense.
When asked to explain how they calculated the €120 million penalty, the Commission offered a masterpiece of vagueness about “proportionality” and “the nature of the infringements.” The only clear metric seems to be how defiant a company is about following orders.
From Washington, the outrage came fast. “The EU should be supporting free speech, not attacking American companies over garbage,” said Vice President JD Vance. Musk responded with his usual brevity: “Much appreciated.”
In the same breath that Brussels punished X, it closed an investigation into TikTok without a fine. TikTok, after all, promised to “cooperate” and adjust its design. “If you comply with our rules, you don’t get a fine,” Virkkunen told reporters.
That sentence could serve as the EU’s motto. Compliance equals peace. Free speech costs money.
The European Union has moved beyond suggesting rules for online speech and is now issuing orders. American social media platforms are facing a steady increase in censorship demands from Brussels, framed as “transparency” and “safety” obligations.
Each new regulation adds another layer of political oversight, turning what used to be private platforms into instruments of European policy.
The DSA sits at the center of this system. The law forces companies like Meta, Google, and X to remove “harmful” content, grant access to internal data, and submit regular reports on how they handle information deemed risky by regulators.
None of these terms have clear definitions, which gives officials the freedom to decide what speech is acceptable after the fact. In effect, the EU has built a structure that allows censorship by procedure rather than decree.
US companies are learning that “transparency” now means constant surveillance from European regulators and activist groups. The enforcement process rewards compliance, not innovation. Platforms that fail to align with the EU’s preferred moderation standards face public scolding and multi-million-dollar fines. Those who comply end up filtering speech to avoid further punishment.
This has turned into a quiet export of European political culture. The EU’s rhetoric about “accountability” and “responsibility” conceals a growing ambition to shape global online discourse.
Macron’s Proposed Seal of Truth Meets a Wall of Criticism
Macron’s seal of reliability may prove less about journalism and more about obedience

By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | December 4, 2025
Emmanuel Macron thinks the Republic needs a quality seal for reality. The French president recently proposed creating an official “reliability label” for news outlets, modeled on Reporters Without Borders’ Journalism Trust Initiative. He insists it is not censorship. It is a “democratic duty.”
“It is about making our young people understand, encouraging them, motivating them to turn toward press outlets, whether in physical, printed form or digital,” Macron said, as though the French youth were a flock that had wandered into the dangerous fields of the internet and needed shepherding back to Le Monde.
The proposal, presented during a discussion with readers of the Ebra press group, called for a label for outlets that follow ethical standards, validated by “peers and third-party experts.”
The government, he said, would not decide who qualifies. It would only “encourage” such standards. But in France, the words “encourage” and “government” often mean something closer to “mandatory, eventually.”
The model is RSF’s Journalism Trust Initiative, which already certifies media that meet certain requirements. Certified outlets supposedly even get algorithmic advantages on platforms like Bing.
Macron wants a French version, claiming it would bring “international recognition of the professionalism of our journalists and the rigour of our editorial teams.”
Translated from technocrat to plain French: good media will rise to the top, bad media will sink to the digital basement.
This, Macron says, will help fight “disinformation.” The country has heard that promise before. Each new attempt to fight misinformation seems to end up tightening control over information itself.
The idea landed with the subtlety of a brick through a newsroom window.
On BFMTV, Parliamentary Party Leader of the National Rally, Marine Le Pen called it “unworthy,” said the proposal was “extremely dangerous,” accusing Macron of wanting “to master information.”
Bruno Retailleau, leader of Les Républicains, said “no government has the right to filter the media or dictate the truth.”
The Mayor of Cannes, David Lisnard, said the president had “crossed a fundamental line.” Even some journalists balked at being graded by a system endorsed by the state.
Macron denied everything. “There is not going to be a state label, and even less a ‘ministry of truth,’” said government spokeswoman Maud Bregeon after the cabinet meeting.
Macron repeated that “it is not the state that should verify” the truth, since “otherwise it becomes a dictatorship.”
So far, the reassurance has not worked. The term “Ministry of Truth” is now glued to the project in every headline, thanks in part to a viral editorial by Pascal Praud on CNews, who accused the president of “wanting to impose a single narrative.”
In a remarkable act of irony, the Élysée responded to critics on X by posting a video labeled “warning, false information.”

The president’s communications team, while denying the existence of a Ministry of Truth, had just produced something that looked exactly like one.
The post set off another round of outrage.
Jordan Bardella, President of the National Rally, said Macron’s proposal was “the reflex of a man who has lost power and seeks to maintain it by controlling information.”
The label plan is part of Macron’s wider campaign against disinformation. He has floated legal changes to allow “false information” to be blocked online more quickly and has repeatedly called for tighter regulation of social media, describing the current state of the internet as “the Wild West.”
It is not hard to see why the issue obsesses him. Macron and his wife have been the targets of online rumors for years.
For a president who sees himself as a technocratic reformer, the swamp of digital conspiracy has become both a personal irritant and a political threat.
Macron insists that only a system of certified journalism can protect the public from manipulation. The trouble is, the public does not want the government or anyone tied to it certifying which journalists to trust.
Reporters Without Borders may be an NGO, but any system announced by the president and promoted as a matter of “democratic duty” will carry the scent of state authority.
Once the government endorses a “trust” label, those without it become, by definition, untrustworthy.
Capture, Terror, Genocide: The Systematic Annihilation of Palestine Under Netanyahu’s Leadership
By Viktor Mikhin – New Eastern Outlook – December 3, 2025
For over half a century, the bloody drama of Palestine’s occupation has dragged on, but in recent years, it has entered its darkest and most overt phase.
What was once disguised as “temporary security measures” or a “complex territorial dispute” now stands exposed for what it is: a deliberate, brutal, and systematic campaign of land seizure, the forced displacement of an entire people, and their incremental physical destruction. At the head of this process, as its chief architect and inspiration, is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. His tools are the state apparatus, the military, and the wild gangs of so-called “settlers” who do the dirty work of clearing the land of its indigenous population.
Savages with a State License: Who Unleashes the Settlers?
The rhetorical question in this headline is no mystery. The answer is screamingly obvious to anyone who dares to look at the situation without the veil of propaganda. The violence perpetrated by Israeli settlers in the West Bank is not the “work of a small group of extremists,” as Netanyahu and his Western apologists hypocritically claim. It is part of a well-oiled system of demographic engineering, strategic land capture, and the fragmentation of Palestinian society.
These attacks are not chaotic pogroms. They are well-planned and coordinated raids that serve a clear purpose: to terrorize Palestinian families into fleeing their land so that Israel can confiscate it and hand it over to Jewish settlers. When settlers burn olive groves—centuries of Palestinian history and a source of livelihood for entire families—the army declares those lands a “security buffer zone.” When armed settler thugs drive Palestinian shepherds from their pastures, the military immediately establishes a “closed military zone” there. This is a criminal symbiosis: unofficial enforcers create “facts on the ground,” and the official state machine legitimizes and consolidates them.
The political ecosystem built by Netanyahu and his ultra-right allies doesn’t just condone this violence—it cultivates, funds, and protects it. The state builds roads for illegal outposts, provides them with electricity and water, and supplies them with armed protection. Ministers in Netanyahu’s government openly call for the “erasure” of Palestinian villages, the annexation of the West Bank, and the “voluntary transfer” of Palestinians—a euphemism for a policy of ethnic cleansing. When senior officials broadcast such slogans, Israeli settlers take them as a direct order to act. The state maintains “plausible deniability,” but its fingerprints are on every burned-out home, on every dead Palestinian.
The Army of Occupation: Accomplice and Guarantor of Impunity
The role of the Israeli army (IDF) in this process is far from passive observation. It is an active accomplice and the guarantor of impunity for settler terror. Numerous reports from human rights organizations, the UN, and even testimonies from former Israeli soldiers paint the same picture: soldiers stand by while settlers assault Palestinians, burn their property, and seize land. Military checkpoints are often used as entry points for settler gangs into Palestinian villages. Arrests, in the vast majority of cases, are used against Palestinians who dare to defend their homes and families.
This military logic is simple and cynical: settlers are viewed as allies, an extension of state expansionist policy, while Palestinians—even when they are the victims—are a priori considered a “security threat.” When an occupying army protects the criminals and punishes their victims, the occupation becomes something more—a system of organized persecution, a crime against humanity falling under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Human Rights Watch and other authoritative organizations directly accuse Israel of committing war crimes and pursuing a policy aimed at the forced transfer of Palestinians. The International Court in The Hague has repeatedly confirmed that Israeli settlements constitute a gross violation of international law. But for Netanyahu and his cabinet, these verdicts are empty words. They understand perfectly well that condemnation will not be followed by any real accountability.
Netanyahu: Chief Architect of a Genocidal Policy
Benjamin Netanyahu is not merely a passive observer or a manager of a complex process. He is the ideological and practical inspiration behind a policy that is becoming increasingly difficult not to call genocide. Under his leadership, settlement expansion has reached unprecedented levels, and settler violence has been institutionalized as a tool of state policy. His rhetoric about a “small group of extremists” is a brazen lie designed to lull the international community to sleep.
The Netanyahu government has legalized dozens of illegal outposts built on stolen Palestinian land. It has directed millions of shekels to their infrastructure and security. It has brought outright racists and advocates of the “transfer” of Palestinians into the highest echelons of power, mainstreaming their ideas. When National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, an open supporter of the terrorist organization Kach, distributes weapons to settlers and calls for harsher strikes on Gaza, he does so with Netanyahu’s silent approval. This is not a deviation from the norm; it *is* the norm established by the Prime Minister.
The statistics speak more eloquently than any diplomatic trick. Since the start of the latest bloody massacre in Gaza in October 2023, Israeli forces and settlers have killed over 1,000 Palestinians in the West Bank. Hundreds of them are civilians. These numbers are not “collateral damage.” They are the result of a deliberate policy aimed at crushing any resistance to the occupation and creating unlivable conditions. The destruction of agricultural land, the blockade of cities, mass arrests, and extrajudicial killings—all are elements of a single plan to dismantle Palestinian society and expel the people from their land. This meets the definition of genocide under the UN Convention: creating conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of a group.
The International Community: Complicity and Hypocrisy
The response of the so-called “international community” to this ongoing genocide is a model of hypocrisy and political cowardice. Statements of “deep concern” from European capitals and even mild condemnations of “settler violence” from the U.S. State Department are nothing more than theater, designed to create an illusion of action. In reality, they provide cover for business as usual.
If Europe truly considers the settlements illegal, why does it continue profitable trade with them? Why are companies operating in the occupied territories not sanctioned? If the U.S. truly disagrees with Netanyahu’s policy, why does the annual $3.8 billion in military aid to Israel continue to flow without any conditions? This aid is a direct financial subsidy for the machinery of occupation and killing. Every bomb dropped on Gaza, every armored personnel carrier patrolling the city of Hebron, and every bayonet arming a settler is paid for by American taxpayers.
Even the recent call from four European powers—France, Germany, Italy, and the UK—for an end to settler violence remains an empty gesture as long as it is not followed by real consequences for Israel. Diplomacy without sanctions, condemnation without accountability—this is not just useless, it is immoral, for it makes the international community complicit in the crimes.
A Crime Without Punishment
The situation in Palestine today is not a “conflict between two sides.” It is an asymmetric war waged by a powerful, nuclear-armed state against a practically defenseless civilian population, stripped of statehood, rights, and hope. Under the leadership of Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel has finally cast off the mask and revealed itself as an aggressor state, pursuing a policy of apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and genocide.
The settlers are merely the shock troops, the vanguard of this policy. The army is its shield and sword. And the Netanyahu government is its brain and black heart. The system they have created works with frightening efficiency: localized terror, legalization of seizures, military cover, legal machinations, and an information smokescreen. The goal is clear: to finally bury the possibility of a viable Palestinian state and bring the “Eretz Israel” project to its logical conclusion across the entire territory of historic Palestine, regardless of the cost in Palestinian lives.
The world faces a choice: to continue watching this bloody spectacle, hiding behind diplomatic phrasing, or to finally call things by their true names and apply all measures of responsibility provided for by international law to the rogue state and its leaders. Silence and inaction are not neutrality. They are an endorsement of genocide. As long as Netanyahu and his regime are not brought to justice, and the Palestinian people do not obtain freedom and justice, the conscience of all humanity, and above all the Western world, will be stained with a bloody mark that can never be washed away.
Viktor Mikhin, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Expert on Middle Eastern Countries
The Terrifying Case of Natalie Strecker
By Craig Murray | December 2, 2025
I am confident that over 2 million people in the UK have shared thoughts on the Genocide in Gaza that are stronger than anything Natalie Strecker has expressed.

I am quite certain that I am one of those 2 million.
Yet Natalie Strecker, an avowed pacifist and mother of young children, today faces up to ten years in prison under the Terrorism Act when the verdict in her case comes in.
Strecker is charged with eliciting support for Hamas and Hezbollah, based on 8 tweets, cherry-picked by police and prosecutors from an astounding 51,000 tweets she sent, mainly from the Jersey Palestine Solidarity Committee account.
The tweets were rather rattled off in court and referred to occasionally again in whole and in part. There may be minor inaccuracies not affecting sense, but this is the best reconstruction of those tweets that I can make (they were not displayed to the public):
“People will be individually resisting: otherwise we would be asking them to submit to genocide on their knees”
“Solidarity with the people of Lebanon and Hezbollah has the right to resist in international law, I remind you the occupier does not, and are legally obligated to try to prevent Genocide.”
“Solidarity with the resistance. In the same way that the reistance fought the Nazis in Europe, we must support the fight against the Nazis of our generation”.
“Resistance is their legal right under moral and international law. If you don’t want resistance, then don’t create the circumstances which require it. Solidarity with the Resistance.”
“This nonsense our nation has descended into, where one side is committing genocide, and the other is proscribed for fighting it. I believe Hezbollah may be Palestine’s last hope”.
“Hamas the resistance did not break out of their concentration camp to attack Jews as Jews. We can debate whether armed resistance is legitimate. Of course there should be no attacks on civilians.”
“I am sick of the MSM propaganda about “Hamas-run health ministry figures”. Hamas is the government in Gaza. Every health ministry in the world is run by its government.”
“Are you awake? So it is down to ordinary people like you an me to end it. We must take our power back. Join me in solidarity with the people of Lebanon and Palestine. Solidarity with the Resistance.”
That is it. The prosecution case is that these tweets, both collectively and individually, amount to an invitation of support for Hamas and Hezbollah resulting in up to ten years in jail in Jersey, or 14 years in jail on the UK mainland.
The prosecution explicitly stated, and the judge notably intervened to make sure that everybody understood, that it is the offence of supporting terrorism to state that the Palestinians have the right to armed resistance in international law.
Judge John Saunders interrupted the prosecution to ask whether they were saying that he would be guilty of support for terrorism if, in a lecture, he told an international law class that Palestinians have the right to armed resistance in international law.
After some kerfuffle when faced with such an awkward question, the prosecution replied that yes, it could be the offence to tell law students that.
I should point out, at risk of dying in jail, that the Palestinians are beyond doubt an occupied people in international law, and equally beyond doubt an occupied people have the right of armed resistance.
To state that the Palestinians have the right of armed resistance in international law is not in the least controversial as a statement of law. A few Zionist nutters would try to differ, but 95% of international lawyers on this planet would agree.
I assume by perfectly logical extension that this means the prosecution must believe it is a terrorist crime in UK law, for example, to quote UN General Assembly Resolution 37/43, which:
2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle;
3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national unity and sovereignty without outside interference;
It is also worth stating that on Friday the prosecution stated, in these precise words, that “Resistance is synonymous with Hamas and Hezbollah” and that any support for, or justification of, Palestinian resistance is support for a proscribed organisation.
To repeat, there are millions of people in the UK who have stated stronger things than the tweets above. Including me. And, as the defence pointed out repeatedly, just eight tweets had been found after hundreds of hours of police time, and found amidst tens of thousands of other tweets on the Middle East, hundreds of which specifically urge non-violence.
So why are the police doing this to Natalie? Why did six armed police storm her apartment and rouse her young family at 7am a year ago, seizing all her electronics and papers, arresting her in front of her children and not allowing her to have a pee without leaving the bathroom door open so she could be observed?
This is where the story gets very dark indeed.
This is not a local Jersey initiative.
The prosecution is directed from London and Alison Morgan KC, senior Treasury counsel (UK government lawyer) is seated beside the local prosecuting counsel, openly puppeteering him every step of the way.
So why has the UK government chosen Jersey to prosecute a local pacifist mother whose statements provide possibly the weakest case of support for terrorism that has ever been heard in any court in the western world?
The answer is that here in Jersey there is no jury.
Facing this charge on the UK mainland Natalie would have a jury, and there is not a jury in the UK that would not throw this self-evidently vindictive nonsense out in 5 minutes.
Why is it worth the time and expense for Whitehall to send Alison Morgan KC here to direct a weak case against somebody who is obviously not a terrorist?
The plain answer is that this is a pilot for what they can get away with on the mainland when they abolish juries in such trials, as “Justice Secretary” David Lammy has announced that they will indeed do.

In Jersey the system is inherited from the Normans. The judge sits with two “jurats” or lay magistrates. They determine innocence or guilt. These come from a pool of 12 permanent jurats. In practice these are retired professionals and frequently have strong connections to the financial services industry.
What the jurats emphatically are not is Natalie Strecker’s working class peers of a kind who would be represented on a jury. I strongly recommend this brief article on the corruption of Jersey society by a man who was for 11 years the Government of Jersey’s economic adviser.
The judge, Sir John Saunders, seems a decent old stick in a headmasterly sort of way. He has told the court that “Mrs Strecker’s good character is not in doubt”. On Friday he stated that this was “A very difficult and in many ways a very sad case for the court to deal with. But I have to construe it according to strict legal principles”.
In the Palestine Action proscription case, as I reported, counsel for the UK government openly stated “We do not deny that the law is draconian. It is supposed to be”. In the mass arrests of decent people over Palestine Action, people have understood what a dreadfully authoritarian law the proscription regime is.
An intelligent observer cannot sit in Judge Saunders’ courtroom without realising that he thinks this is a dreadful law, but accepts that it is his job to enforce it. He reminds me of the caricature of the lugubrious headmaster stating “This is going to hurt me more than it is going to hurt you”.
In effect, Alison Morgan and the UK government are attempting through this prosecution to make even the most basic expression of support for Palestine a serious criminal offence. Remember that a terrorism conviction destroys your life – it almost certainly brings loss of employment, debanking and severe travel restrictions.
The International Court of Justice has decided that Israel has a real case to answer on Genocide, and most experts believe that Israel is committing Genocide. In Natalie’s correct image, the UK government is trying to make it a terrorist offence to say anything other than that the Palestinians should quietly submit to Genocide on their knees.
The danger is that the hubris of lay magistrates will lead the jurats to try cleverly to construe Natalie’s comments as support for terrorism in line with the government’s wishes. Natalie has, however, one defence in Jersey not available in mainland UK – here in Jersey the prosecution has to show intent: that she intended to cause support for terrorist organisations.
The prosecution has also relied on the extremely wide definition of support adopted in UK terrorist cases, that “support of” merely means “expression of agreement with”.
In defending the tweet about Hamas-run health ministry figures, Natalie Strecker’s counsel Luke Sette countered this rather well when he said: “there is no offence of causing people to think less badly of Hamas”
I confess however I am slightly puzzled that I have not heard the defence argue that the prosecution positions are grossly disproportionate violations of freedom of expression in terms of Article X of the European Convention of Human Rights.
I would have thought, for example, that was the natural thing to say in response to the prosecution’s contention that it would be a crime for a law lecturer to tell his class that the Palestinian people had the right of armed resistance in international law.
The verdict was decided yesterday afternoon between the judge and jurats. It will be presented in full written judgment in an hour’s time.
This is a truly horrifying case for Natalie, who cannot afford to lose her job with a Jersey government agency and most certainly does not wish to be jailed away from her children. I pinch myself to be sure that this is all really happening.
It is a truly horrifying case in terms of what the Starmer government intends to do on the mainland in further criminalising support for Palestine.
I do not support Hamas nor Hezbollah, being opposed to theocracy. But for it to be illegal to discuss the Genocide in Gaza and the role of these two organisations, unless you do it absolutely without either context or nuance, is Orwellian.
Western dissent is also a victim of the Zionist Genocide.
US tech giants to expand role in post-war Gaza strategy: Report
Press TV – December 2, 2025
A new report has revealed that US-based artificial intelligence firms Palantir and Dataminr are positioning themselves to take on a pivotal role in shaping the post-war security framework proposed for the Gaza Strip.
According to a report by the Israeli-Palestinian publication +972 Magazine on Tuesday, the companies have been integrated into the newly established Civil-Military Coordination Center (CMCC), a US-run operational hub in the southern part of the occupied territories where Washington and Israeli officials are coordinating the implementation of President Donald Trump’s 20-point plan for Gaza.
An official seating chart reviewed by +972 indicates that a “Maven Field Service Representative” from Palantir, referencing their battlefield analytics platform Project Maven, is assigned to the CMCC.
The hub, situated approximately 20 kilometers from the northern Gaza boundary, was opened in mid-October and currently accommodates around 200 US military personnel.
Project Maven, for which Palantir recently secured a $10 billion Pentagon contract to upgrade, gathers intelligence from various sources such as satellites, drones, spy planes, intercepted communications, and online platforms, reorganizing it into an “AI-powered battlefield platform” aimed at expediting military decision-making, including lethal airstrikes.
Palantir executives have described the system as “optimizing the kill chain,” and it has been previously utilized in US operations in Yemen, Syria, and Iraq.
Palantir has also strengthened its partnerships with Israeli forces during the current war, following a strategic agreement signed in January 2024 to support “war-related missions,” and has expanded its recruiting in Tel Aviv, doubling the size of its office over the past two years.
CEO Alex Karp has defended the collaboration amid international concerns over war crimes, saying that the company was the first to be “completely anti-woke.”
Documents reviewed by +972 also reveal the involvement of Dataminr, a US surveillance company, in internal CMCC presentations.
Dataminr, which utilizes AI to scan and analyze global social-media streams in real time, promotes its platform as providing “event, threat, and risk intelligence,” and has established partnerships with X to provide governments and law-enforcement agencies, including the FBI, with extensive access to public social-media data.
Both companies are expected to shape the “Alternative Safe Communities” model proposed under the Trump plan, which suggests relocating Palestinian civilians into fenced, heavily monitored compounds controlled by US and Israeli forces.
Within these zones, systems enabled by Palantir and Dataminr would be used to track mobile phones, monitor online activity, analyze movement, and flag individuals classified by AI as security risks.
Critics and analysts argue that this arrangement mirrors the predictive surveillance already deployed in Gaza over the past two years, including the AI-driven Lavender system used by Israel to create kill lists of suspected Hamas affiliates, which included public-sector employees such as police and medical workers.
Human-rights observers caution that such technologies have contributed to the extensive targeting of Palestinian families during an ongoing genocide.
The integration of US tech companies into the CMCC underscores a privatized model of occupation, one that sidelines Palestinian participation while expanding the role of AI-enabled policing, according to analysts.
For technology firms, the war presents an opportunity to access vast datasets and conduct real-world testing for new military systems.
Additionally, for Israel, it offers a way to outsource parts of the occupation while maintaining extensive control over Gaza’s population.
Four foreign activists injured by illegal Israeli settlers’ attack in occupied West Bank

Illegal settlers attack Palestinian farmers, journalists and foreign activists in Beita town of Nablus, West Bank on November 8, 2025. [Nedal Eshtayah – Anadolu Agency]
MEMO | November 30, 2025
The Israeli army launched a large-scale arrest campaign in the occupied West Bank as illegal settlers attacked foreign activists and Palestinians on Sunday, according to local sources, Anadolu reports.
Three Italian and one Canadian activists were injured by illegal Israeli settlers in Ein ad-Duyuk village of Jericho in the central West Bank, local sources told Anadolu.
The activists were hospitalized, as three of them sustained moderate injuries and the fourth was critically wounded.
Illegal settlers stormed a house in a Bedouin community where the foreign activists have been residing in solidarity with Palestinian residents for a few days, and assaulted them.
The attackers also attempted to steal the activists’ passports, phones, and belongings, in addition to property from the house, the sources said.
According to the official news agency Wafa, illegal Israeli settlers destroyed four vehicles belonging to Palestinians in eastern Salfit in the central West Bank.
A group of illegal Israeli settlers also raided the al-Masoudieh area in Nablus, vandalizing Palestinians’ properties.
According to the Colonization and Wall Resistance Commission, an official body, illegal Israeli settlers have carried out 766 attacks against Palestinians and their property in the occupied West Bank in October only.
Meanwhile, Israeli army forces detained four people in two Nablus villages on Sunday. One of the detainees was injured, the official news agency Wafa said, without providing more details on his condition.
Israeli army forces fired tear gas canisters towards locals in the al-Lubban al-Sharqiya town of Nablus, causing several people to suffer from suffocation.
Three people were detained in Ramallah during an Israeli army raid, while a young Palestinian was detained after being beaten by the soldiers in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of the occupied East Jerusalem.
Five others, including two ex-prisoners, were arrested in Bethlehem, in the southern West Bank, after their houses were searched by the Israeli forces. According to Palestinian figures, at least 55 Palestinians were detained by Israeli forces in military raids in the West Bank since Saturday.
In a landmark opinion last July, the International Court of Justice declared Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory illegal and called for the evacuation of all settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
Israeli occupation aided looters attacking Gaza aid convoys: Report
Al Mayadeen | November 29, 2025
A French historian who spent more than a month in the Gaza Strip says he witnessed “utterly convincing” evidence that the Israeli occupation played a role in attacks on aid convoys during the height of the war.
Jean-Pierre Filiu, a professor of Middle East studies at Sciences Po in Paris, entered Gaza in December and was hosted by an international humanitarian organization in the coastal area of al-Mawasi. While foreign media and independent observers were barred from the enclave by the Israeli occupation, Filiu managed to avoid strict vetting procedures and documented what he described as orchestrated chaos around lifesaving aid deliveries.
His eyewitness account, A Historian in Gaza, was published in French in May and released in English this month.
According to Filiu, Israeli occupation forces repeatedly struck security units guarding humanitarian convoys. The attacks, he writes, enabled looters to seize large quantities of food and supplies intended for Palestinians facing famine conditions.
UN agencies at the time warned that law and order in Gaza had collapsed after occupation forces deliberately targeted police officers who escorted aid convoys. The Israeli occupation labels Gaza’s police as part of Hamas, which has run the territory since 2007.
‘Quadcopters supporting the looters’
Filiu recounts an incident near where he was staying in the so-called “humanitarian zone” of al-Mawasi. After weeks of attacks on convoys by desperate civilians, local gangs, and militias, humanitarian officials tested a new route to try to prevent looting.
Sixty-six trucks carrying flour and hygiene kits set out from Karem Abu Salem, before turning north up the main coastal road. Hamas arranged protective escorts with armed members of powerful local families. The convoy then came under attack.
“It was one night, and I was… a few hundred metres away. And it was very clear that Israeli quadcopters were supporting the looters in attacking the local security [teams],” Filiu writes.
He says occupation forces killed “two local notables as they sat in their car, armed and ready to protect the convoy,” and that twenty trucks were subsequently robbed. Aid officials considered the loss of one-third of the convoy a grim improvement compared with earlier raids that looted nearly everything.
Filiu says the occupation’s strategy was to undermine both Hamas and the UN, while enabling allied looters to either redistribute aid to expand their influence or sell it for profit.
Israeli officials rejected his account. A military spokesperson claimed the targeted vehicle carried “armed terrorists” planning to steal aid for Hamas. The spokesperson said the occupation “will continue to act in accordance with international law to enable and facilitate the transfer of humanitarian aid.”
Filiu’s reporting echoes internal UN concerns. A confidential memo from the time described the occupation’s “passive, if not active benevolence” toward gangs involved in looting.
He also alleges that Israeli forces bombed a newly established aid route promoted by the World Food Programme which was attempting to stop looting hotspots. He told The Guardian it was a “deliberate attempt to put it out of action.”
Despite denials, Netanyahu has acknowledged that “Israel” supported the Popular Forces, an anti-Hamas militia that, according to aid officials, included many of the looters.
Gaza “erased, annihilated’
Filiu, who has visited Gaza for decades, said he was stunned at the scale of destruction left by the Israeli occupation’s offensive, launched after Operation Al-Aqsa Flood on October 7, 2023. That attack killed about 1,200 people and saw 250 taken hostage.
The Israeli regime’s assault killed nearly 70,000 Palestinians and reduced much of Gaza to ruins. “Anything that stood before … has been ‘erased, annihilated, ’” he said.
Filiu warned that the war has set a precedent for a future “post-UN world” devoid of legal and humanitarian limits. “It’s a laboratory of a post-Geneva convention world, of a post-declaration of human rights world … and this world is very scary because it’s not even rational. It’s just ferocious.”
Ukraine’s UOC Metropolitan Poisoned, Presumably With Heavy Metals – Orthodox Journalists
Sputnik – 29.11.2025
Hospitalized Metropolitan Theodosius of Cherkasy and Kanev of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC), who is under investigation for treason in Ukraine, has been poisoned, presumably with heavy metals, the Union of Orthodox Journalists said on Saturday.
On Friday, the union said that the metropolitan had been hospitalized in a critical condition.
“Details regarding the health of Metropolitan Theodosius of Cherkasy and Kanev and possible reasons for his critical condition have become known. There is reason to believe that the religious leader was poisoned … Doctors say that during the diagnosis and treatment, they will test his body for a wide range of toxic substances. The metropolitan has been poisoned, presumably, with heavy metals,” the union said.
Orthodox journalists also said, citing the Cherkasy Diocese, that just over a month ago, the metropolitan had begun to show signs of an unusual illness, which was neither hypertension nor heart disease, which had plagued him for years. His body temperature rose frequently, and sharp jumps in blood pressure, from very high readings to critically low ones, were observed, the journalists said.
This week, the metropolitan’s health declined sharply, and his physician suggested immediate hospitalization, the union said.
“He still has severe intoxication. His condition is relatively stable, but the metropolitan remains hospitalized. Toxicology testing may take about a month,” a source in the hospital told journalists on the condition of anonymity.
In the spring of 2023, a court in Cherkasy placed Metropolitan Theodosius under house arrest provided that he wear an electronic bracelet. In December 2023, the court lifted his round-the-clock detention, leaving him under nightly house arrest. The metropolitan is charged with inciting religious hatred. In June 2024, another Ukrainian court imposed a 60-day, round-the-clock house arrest on Metropolitan Theodosius. In late October, the Union of Orthodox Journalists said that his pretrial detention had once again been extended for two months.
Since 2022, the Ukrainian authorities have been waging the largest wave of persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which is recognized as canonical by the Russian Orthodox Church, in the country’s modern history — the authorities are imposing state sanctions against members of the clergy, organizing searches in churches, arresting clergy, initiating criminal cases, banning the activities of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in various regions of the country, seizing monasteries and parishes.

