The global Zionist organ trafficking conspiracy
By Kit Klarenberg | Al Mayadeen | November 15, 2025
In early October, Israeli-Ukrainian Boris Wolfman was arrested in Russia. He is charged with masterminding a criminal organ trafficking scheme. His capture, wholly ignored by the Western media, raises the prospect that at long last, some justice will be served in a number of major organ trafficking scandals, dating back many years. Wolfman’s apprehension also highlights Tel Aviv’s little-scrutinised role as the world’s centre of illegal organ harvesting and trafficking. Grimly, the Gaza genocide may have greatly facilitated this perverse commerce.
Ever since October 7th, credible allegations have widely circulated that Zionist Occupation Forces are illegally harvesting the organs of slain Palestinians. In November 2023, the Euro-Med Monitor published a report documenting how Israeli soldiers confiscated dozens of corpses from major hospitals in Gaza, to the extent of digging up and raiding mass graves built in their grounds to accommodate the never-ending influx of slaughtered civilians. While some bodies were subsequently handed over to the Red Cross, many were and remain withheld.
Euro-Med Monitor records how many corpses exhibited clear indications of organ harvesting, including missing cochleas and corneas, as well as hearts, kidneys, and livers. Since then, the Zionist entity has released token numbers of murdered Palestinians at intermittent intervals to their surviving relatives. Frequently, the bodies are decomposed beyond recognition, making conducting professional autopsies – and identifying whether organs have been stolen – difficult if not impossible. Sometimes, the corpses are frozen solid, again greatly complicating medical examinations, and potentially obscuring organ theft.
The 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention mandates respect for the dignity of dead civilians, and explicitly prohibits the looting or mutilation of their bodies during wartime. However, the Zionist entity has not only failed to ratify the treaty, but expressly rejects its applicability to Gaza and the illegally-occupied West Bank. Moreover, repulsive local laws and legal precedents unique to Tel Aviv grant authorities the power to refuse to release dead Palestinians to their families.
Their bodies can be used as grisly bargaining chips – or their organs looted with impunity. For decades, the Zionist entity has been the illicit organ trade’s international nucleus. While Palestinians have long-raised alarm over Tel Aviv’s theft of their fallen comrades’ organs, it was not until the early 2000s that the practice was officially admitted. Yehuda Hiss, head of “Israel’s” Abu Kabir Institute, openly boasted of harvesting skin, bones, and other human materials during autopsies. He was never punished, suggesting his macabre activities were state-sanctioned.
This interpretation is amply reinforced by former Institute employee Meira Weiss’ 2014 work Over Their Dead Bodies. She reveals how, during the First Intifada 1987 – 1993, ZOF officials directed the centre “to harvest organs from Palestinians using a military regulation that an autopsy must be conducted on every killed Palestinian.” This gave them free rein to seize whatever they wished from bodies in their care. Institute apparatchiks nostalgically referred to these years as the “good days”, as they could pilfer organs “consistently and freely”.
Disturbingly, the Gaza genocide’s catastrophic death toll may represent the dawning of a new era of “good days” for the Zionist entity’s organ trade. Wolfman’s arrest, and the collapse of the conspiracies he oversaw, are unlikely to dent Tel Aviv’s operations in the field. He was but one player in a world-spanning nexus of Israeli traffickers. In the manner of a hydra, Wolfman’s removal will simply lead to others taking his place. After all, the returns are high, and risks mysteriously low.
‘Organ Broker’
In July 2015, the European Parliament issued a landmark report on organ trafficking. Its introduction notes, “before 2000, the problem of trafficking in human organs…was primarily limited to the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia.” However, the report noted that following the turn of the millennium, “trafficking in organs has seemingly started to spread globally, to a large extent driven by Israeli doctors.” The document went on to detail a number of high-profile organ trafficking cases.
In all but one, the evidentiary trail led directly back to the Zionist entity. An accompanying map of international organ trade routes places Tel Aviv at the very core, with its citizens both being leading customers, and heading the gangs that supply organs to overseas buyers. One cited case was the exposure in 2003 of a leading South African hospital performing over 100 illegal transplants on overseas patients – “the majority” from “Israel”.
Local law enforcement uncovered how a criminal syndicate led by well-connected Israeli Ilan Perry recruited poor, desperate individuals from Brazil, Romania, and elsewhere who were willing to sell their organs for a token sum, then transported them to South Africa. Customers would pay vast amounts for the transplants – Perry, the “organ broker”, and his associates would pocket the bulk, with the rest paid to ‘donors’ and hospital staff to perform the illegal procedures, then keep quiet about the connivance.
Another cited case is the Medicus Clinic scandal in Pristina, Kosovo. It erupted in October 2008, when a young Turkish man collapsed at the city’s airport. After a fresh surgical scar was found on his abdomen, he explained his kidney had been removed at the clinic, leading to a police raid. Medicus was already on local law enforcement’s radar due to the profusion of foreigners arriving in Pristina with letters of invitation to the clinic for heart treatment, which Medicus was not known to provide.
Subsequent investigations revealed Israeli Moshe Harel and Turkish doctor Yusuf Sonmez – known as “the world’s most renowned organ trafficker” – were responsible for sourcing clientele, who paid in excess of $100,000 for transplants. The surgeries were primarily conducted by local Kosovo Albanian medical professionals. Patients spent a short period in recovery before being discharged, provided with “information on their treatment to present to doctors in their home countries.” Donors did not enjoy such charity.
As the EU report notes, suppliers were forced to sign documents attesting they were donating their organs “voluntarily to a relative or altruistically to a stranger.” These documents were written in Albanian, and not translated to them. While in some cases they were promised fees of up to $30,000, “a number of them received only part of the money and some nothing at all.” Those given a portion were told they’d get the remainder “on condition that they themselves would recruit other ‘donors’.”
‘Notable Price’
Boris Wolfman was also centrally embroiled in Medicus. While a wanted man in multiple jurisdictions and subject to an Interpol red notice, he remained at large in Turkey for years until his recent deportation to Russia. Incredibly, he kickstarted another organ trafficking venture in the meantime, exploiting vulnerable Kenyans for small sums, selling their kidneys et al. to wealthy buyers from Germany and “Israel” for up to $200,000. As in Kosovo, donors were not given the money promised, or provided with appropriate medical care post-procedure.
It remains to be seen what, if any light, his prosecution will shed on the wider criminal network in which he operated, or whether the Zionist entity might be directly implicated in Wolfman’s venture. Still, that he is facing trial at all is somewhat miraculous. His confederates in the Medicus horror have proven suspiciously impervious to legal repercussions for their monstrous activities. Sonmez likewise lived freely and openly in Turkey for some years after the conspiracy’s unravelling, despite facing criminal charges in multiple countries.
Turkish prosecutors sought to jail him for 171 years, but Sonmez never served a day in prison, and appears to have vanished without a trace. Meanwhile, Harel was arrested by Israeli police in 2012, only to be released. He was nabbed again in Cyprus six years later on an Interpol warrant, but demands from Kosovo authorities he be extradited inexplicably appear to have not been acted upon. Whether the pair’s continuing liberty is indicative of state protection is an open, obvious question.
The Zionist entity’s 21st-century Holocaust in Gaza, and disastrously failed wars against Hezbollah and Iran, have “exacted a notable price” on its finances, Focus Economics has recorded. For example, tourism – once a core component of “Israel’s” income – has shrunk from millions of visitors annually to almost literally zero. “A full recovery could take multiple years and is likely dependent on a permanent end to hostilities with Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran,” the outlet forecasts – fantastically, given the Resistance cannot peacefully coexist with Tel Aviv.
Meanwhile, the Zionist entity continues to suffer mass brain drain, foreign investor flight, diplomatic isolation, and a huge drop in confidence among its largest overseas trading partners. Grotesquely, organ trafficking might represent one of Tel Aviv’s few dependable profit sources at this stage. With thousands of Palestinians both dead and alive in its custody, “Israel” certainly has ample resources to fuel the trade. Mainstream blackout on Wolfman’s long-overdue arrest may indicate the entity’s overseas puppet masters are relaxed about the prospect.
US plan for a divided Gaza cements long-term occupation, trapping 2 million Palestinians in ruins: Report
Press TV – November 15, 2025
The US is drafting a plan to entrench Gaza’s division, creating a fortified “green zone” under “joint Israeli–international control,” while relegating most Palestinians to a devastated “red zone” left in ruins and neglect, a report says.
According to internal documents obtained by The Guardian and sources briefed on US deliberations, Washington is working towards institutionalizing a partition of Gaza along the Israeli-imposed “yellow line.”
Under the blueprint, foreign troops would be deployed alongside Israeli forces in the east, while nearly the entire Palestinian population remains displaced west of it, the daily reported on Friday.
One senior American official, acknowledging the depth of Washington’s ambitions, admitted, “Ideally, you would want to make it all whole, right? But that’s aspirational. It’s going to take some time. It’s not going to be easy.”
The revelation sharply contradicted earlier American pledges, including President Donald Trump’s own assurances, that a 20-point so-called ceasefire scheme announced by the chief executive earlier this year would pave the way to full Palestinian governance across Gaza.
Instead, Washington’s planning documents pointed to a fractured, semi-occupied coastal sliver, where reconstruction is limited to the Israeli-controlled sector, while the rest of Gaza is effectively abandoned.
The United States has been cycling through back-to-back plans, from fenced “alternative safe communities (ASC)” to a “green-zone enclave model,” all devised without Palestinian involvement and without addressing more than two years of Washington-backed Israeli genocide that Gaza has suffered since October 2023. Even humanitarian agencies, long alarmed by US proposals, were not informed of the abrupt scrapping of the ASC model.
Observers say, with no credible roadmap for Israeli withdrawal, international peacekeeping, or large-scale rebuilding, Gaza risks being locked into a “not war but not peace” paralysis.
This, they note, would pave the way for a divided territory under constant threat of Israeli attacks, stripped of Palestinian self-rule, and starved of the reconstruction needed for even minimal recovery.
Trump’s 20-point scheme hinges on, what he calls, an “international stabilization force (ISF)” mandated by the UN Security Council.
However, Washington refuses to place a single American trooper on the ground or finance the reconstruction Palestinians desperately need, the paper wrote.
European nations were drafted into early versions of the plan, including as many as 1,500 British troops and 1,000 French forces, but diplomats from allied capitals dismissed the proposals as unrealistic and politically suicidal, it added.
According to the report, after long, bloody missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, few leaders are willing to send troops into Gaza’s shattered landscape. One source described the plan in blunt terms as “delusional.”
The documents, The Guardian revealed, also envision Jordan sending hundreds of infantry forces and thousands of police officers, despite King Abdullah’s explicitly rejecting any deployment.
With more than half the Jordanian population of Palestinian descent, such participation would be explosive domestically and a direct threat to Jordan’s internal stability, it said.
A US “concept of operation” states that foreign troops would operate only within the “green zone.” None would enter the Palestinian-held western side, where the Hamas resistance movement is reasserting control.
The “enclave” would begin with just a few hundred troops and slowly expand to a force of 20,000, integrating with Israeli forces along the dividing line.
According to the report, the parallels to the United States disastrous invasions of the 2000s are, therefore, unavoidable. In both wars, US-created “green zones” became symbols of occupation, shielded by blast walls, while chaos and destruction consumed the surrounding cities.
US planners openly hope that limited reconstruction in the green zone will “attract” desperate Palestinians into the Israeli-controlled area. As one US official put it, “People will say ‘hey we want that,’ and so it evolves in that direction. No one’s talking about a military operation to force it.”
Experts commenting on the report said the blueprint envisages a future for Palestinians conditioned on accepting the Israeli regime’s authority, not on justice, sovereignty, or the right to rebuild their own homeland.
The report came as more than 80 percent of Gaza’s infrastructure, including nearly every school and hospital, lies in ruins.
Israel continues to block even basic aid items. Tent poles, water filters, and construction materials remain barred under “dual use” claims.
Around 1.5 million Palestinians still wait for emergency shelter items, and more than two million are crushed into the narrow territory that the US plan designates as the red zone.
EU’s “Democracy Shield” Centralizes Control Over Online Speech
By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | November 13, 2025
European authorities have finally unveiled the “European Democracy Shield,” we’ve been warning about for some time, a major initiative that consolidates and broadens existing programs of the European Commission to monitor and restrict digital information flows.
Though branded as a safeguard against “foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI)” and “disinformation,” the initiative effectively gives EU institutions unprecedented authority over the online public sphere.
At its core, the framework fuses a variety of mechanisms into a single structure, from AI-driven content detection and regulation of social media influencers to a state-endorsed web of “fact-checkers.”
The presentation speaks of defending democracy, yet the design reveals a machinery oriented toward centralized control of speech, identity, and data.
One of the more alarming integrations links the EU’s Digital Identity program with content filtering and labelling systems.
The Commission has announced plans to “explore possible further measures with the Code’s signatories,” including “detection and labelling of AI-generated and manipulated content circulating on social media services” and “voluntary user-verification tools.”
Officials describe the EU Digital Identity (EUDI) Wallet as a means for “secure identification and authentication.”
In real terms, tying verified identity to online activity risks normalizing surveillance and making anonymity in expression a thing of the past.
The Democracy Shield also includes the creation of a “European Centre for Democratic Resilience,” led by Justice Commissioner Michael McGrath.
Framed as a voluntary coordination hub, its mission is “building capacities to withstand foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI) and disinformation,” involving EU institutions, Member States, and “neighboring countries and like-minded partners.”
The Centre’s “Stakeholder Platform” is to unite “trusted stakeholders such as civil society organisations, researchers and academia, fact-checkers and media providers.”
In practice, this structure ties policymaking, activism, and media oversight into one cooperative network, eroding the boundaries between government power and public discourse.
Financial incentives reinforce the system. A “European Network of Fact-Checkers” will be funded through EU channels, positioned as independent yet operating within the same institutional framework that sets the rules.
The network will coordinate “fact-checking” in every EU language, maintain a central database of verdicts, and introduce “a protection scheme for fact-checkers in the EU against threats and harassment.”
Such an arrangement destroys the line between independent verification and state-aligned narrative enforcement.
The Commission will also fund a “common research support framework,” giving select researchers privileged access to non-public platform data via the Digital Services Act (DSA) and Political Advertising Regulation.
Officially, this aims to aid academic research, but it could also allow state-linked analysts to map, classify, and suppress online viewpoints deemed undesirable.
Plans extend further into media law. The European Commission intends to revisit the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) to ensure “viewers – particularly younger ones – are adequately protected when they consume audiovisual content online.”
While framed around youth protection, such language opens the door to broad filtering and regulation of online media.
Another initiative seeks to enlist digital personalities through a “voluntary network of influencers to raise awareness about relevant EU rules, including the DSA.” Brussels will “consider the role of influencers” during its upcoming AVMSD review.
Though presented as transparent outreach, the move effectively turns social media figures into de facto promoters of official EU messaging, reshaping public conversation under the guise of awareness.
The Shield also introduces a “Digital Services Act incidents and crisis protocol” between the EU and signatories of the Code of Practice on Disinformation to “facilitate coordination among relevant authorities and ensure swift reactions to large-scale and potentially transnational information operations.”
This could enable coordinated suppression of narratives across borders. Large platforms exceeding 45 million EU users face compliance audits, with penalties reaching 6% of global revenue or even platform bans, making voluntary cooperation more symbolic than real.
A further layer comes with the forthcoming “Blueprint for countering FIMI and disinformation,” offering governments standardized guidance to “anticipate, detect and respond” to perceived information threats. Such protocols risk transforming free expression into a regulated domain managed under preemptive suspicion.
Existing structures are being fortified, too. The European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO), already central to “disinformation” monitoring, will receive expanded authority for election and crisis surveillance. This effectively deepens the fusion of state oversight and online communication control.
Funding through the “Media Resilience Programme” will channel EU resources to preferred outlets, while regulators examine ways to “strengthen the prominence of media services of general interest.”
This includes “impact investments in the news media sector” and efforts to build transnational platforms promoting mainstream narratives. Though described as supporting “independent and local journalism,” the model risks reinforcing state-aligned voices while sidelining dissenting ones.
Education and culture are not exempt. The Commission plans “Guidelines for teachers and educators on tackling disinformation and promoting digital literacy through education and training,” along with new “media literacy” programs and an “independent network for media literacy.”
While such initiatives appear benign, they often operate on the assumption that government-approved information is inherently trustworthy, conditioning future generations to equate official consensus with truth.
Viewed as a whole, the European Democracy Shield represents a major institutional step toward centralized narrative management in the European Union.
Under the language of “protection,” Brussels is constructing a comprehensive apparatus for monitoring and shaping the flow of information.
For a continent that once defined itself through open debate and free thought, this growing web of bureaucratic control signals a troubling shift.
Efforts framed as defense against disinformation now risk becoming tools for suppressing dissent, a paradox that may leave European democracy less free in the name of making it “safe.”
Trump’s and the Pentagon’s Illegal Killings in the Caribbean
By Jacob G. Hornberger | The Future of Freedom Foundation | November 13, 2025
In federal criminal cases, U.S. District Judges issue the following types of instruction to jurors:
“The indictment is not evidence of any kind. It is simply the formal method of accusing a person of a crime. It has no bearing on the defendant’s guilt or innocence, and you must not consider it in your deliberations except as an accusation. You must not assume the defendant is guilty just because he or she has been indicted. The defendant begins this trial with a clean slate.The burden is entirely on the government to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
In other words, an indictment carries absolutely no evidentiary weight whatsoever. It is simply an accusation. It is not proof. It is not evidence. The jury is prohibited from considering it when deciding guilt or innocence.
This principle applies to any person accused of violating federal criminal statutes.
President Trump and the Pentagon have now attacked and killed more than 70 people on the high seas in the Caribbean and the Pacific Ocean near South America. They justify these killings by claiming that the victims are engaged in a violations of U.S. federal drug laws.
But the fact is that Trump’s and the Pentagon’s claims are nothing more than informal accusations. In fact, their informal accusations don’t even amount to a formal accusation set forth in a grand-jury indictment. That’s because a grand jury cannot issue an indictment unless it sees evidence that establishes that there is “probable cause” that the accused committed the crime. With Trump’s and the Pentagon’s informal accusation, no such burden of proof is required.
Therefore, if a jury is prohibited from using an indictment to convict a person who the feds are accusing of having violated U.S. drug laws, it stands to reason that U.S. officials are prohibited from killing people based simply on their informal accusation that the person has violated the law.
In fact, with the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, our American ancestors expressly prohibited the federal government from depriving any person of life without due process of law. It has been long established that due process in a criminal case means, at a minimum, two things: (1) being formally notified of the specific charges that the defendant is accused of violating; that’s what a grand-jury indictment is for; and (2) a trial where the government is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt with relevant and competent evidence that the person actually did commit the crime. The accused, if he elects, can have a jury, not the judge, decide whether or not he is guilty.
There have always been some Americans who hate these provisions. They prefer how things are done in nations run by totalitarian regimes, where the government wields the omnipotent power to kill or punish anyone it suspects of having committed a crime — without having to go through the difficulty and expense of formally accusing people and according them a trial.
Nonetheless, like it or not, that is our system of government, and it remains so unless and until the Constitution is amended to end it.
What about the fact that it is the military that is carrying out these killings? No matter the exalted position that the national-security establishment has come to play in America’s federal governmental system, it doesn’t alter the constitutional principles at all. All it means is that the military is operating in the role of a policeman who is enforcing a federal criminal statute.
For example, suppose that Trump’s military troops that are occupying various U.S. cities begin enforcing federal drug laws by arresting people and then turning them over to the DEA for incarceration and prosecution. The military would simply be operating in a police capacity, not in a war situation.
It’s no different with those killings in the Caribbean. The military, which, by the way, is legally prohibited from enforcing drug laws inside the United States, is simply operating in a police capacity when it is enforcing U.S. drug laws on the high seas. It is essentially standing in the stead of the Drug Enforcement Administration.
What about Trump’s and the Pentagon’s claim that the U.S. is at war and, therefore, it’s okay for soldiers to kill the enemy in war. Clearly that claim is a ruse designed to justify their extra-judicial killings. The concept of war involves conflicts between nation-states, not enforcement of criminal statutes. There is no war between the United States and Venezuela, Columbia, Mexico, or any other Latin American country.
After all, if Trump’s and the Pentagon’s ruse was valid, it would entitle them to use the military to kill drug-war suspects here inside the United States under the claim that enemy drug forces have invaded and occupied the United States and are waging “war” against the United States. In fact, their ruse would enable them to use the military to kill anyone they wanted who they claimed had violated any federal criminal statute.
What about Trump’s and the Pentagon’s claim that the victims are also being accused of violating federal terrorism statutes and, therefore, that it is okay to summarily kill them? Again, it’s just another ruse to justify the extra-judicial killing of people who are accused of violating U.S. criminal laws. After all, terrorism itself is a federal criminal offense. That’s why there are criminal prosecutions for terrorism in federal district court. Trump and the Pentagon are bound by the same principles in federal criminal cases involving terrorism as they are with cases involving alleged federal drug offenses. They are required to secure federal criminal indictments and accord the people with trials, where they bear the burden of proving that the defendants really are guilty of terrorism (or drug offenses) before they can kill them or punish them.
One more point worth noting: The troops carrying out these killings are obviously loyally and blindly obeying orders to commit an illegal act. That’s because, as I have long pointed out, their loyalty is to their commander-in-chief, notwithstanding the oath they take to support and defend the Constitution.
Trump, the Pentagon, and the troops are clearly engaging in illegal conduct with their extra-judicial, unconstitutional drug-war killings. The problem is that given their omnipotent power within America’s federal governmental system, neither the Congress nor the Supreme Court or anyone else will — or can — do anything to stop them.
US Officers Cannot Explain Why So Much Military Needed for Strikes in Caribbean – Reports
Sputnik – 11.11.2025
WASHINGTON – US senior Special Operations officers in a briefing last month did not provide a comprehensive explanation why the Trump administration needed a massive military presence in the Caribbean for strikes on a few small boats allegedly used by drug cartels, CNN reported on Tuesday, citing sources with the knowledge.
At the moment, there is no public information from the Pentagon on what the military is using to conduct the strikes, but the sources told CNN that MQ-9 Reaper drones are used for US attacks on alleged drug boats, as well as AC-130J gunships and fighter jets.
The sources told CNN that the Pentagon officials also could not provide an exact amount of taxpayers’ dollars spent on the counternarcotics campaign. However, administration officials have stated that each strike costs up to hundreds of thousands of dollars, the report said.
A significant part of all deployed US naval assets worldwide have been located in US Southern Command since last month, and even more US military assets are about to be placed in the Caribbean, the report added.
Earlier this week, US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said that the United States conducted strikes on two drug trafficking vessel in the Eastern Pacific, killing six people.
To date, the US military has conducted 19 strikes, destroyed 20 boats, and killed 76 people as part of a counternarcotics campaign, CNN reported.
In late October, the Trump administration held a briefing in the US Congress to lay out its legal justification for the strikes on Venezuelan ships. However, only Republicans were invited to the briefing, causing negative responses and vast criticism among Democrats.
United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres believes that US attacks in the Caribbean contradict international law, and so does UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk.
Universities in West are “occupied by Zionist/Jewish supremacist lobby groups,” repress speech against genocide
By Syed Zafar Mehdi | Press TV | November 11, 2025
Over the last two years, universities across the West have gone out of their way to repress speech against the ongoing genocide in Gaza and against Zionism, says a university lecturer who was forced to leave his university due to a Zionist witch-hunt.
In an interview with the Press TV website, Harry Pettit, the former Assistant Professor of Human Geography at Radboud University, the Netherlands, said any speech in support of the Palestinian resistance has been criminalized in Western academic circles.
Pettit, who holds a PhD from the London School of Economics and Political Science and is the author of The Labor of Hope: Meritocracy and Precarity in Egypt (2023), has been hounded at his university over his strong advocacy for Palestinian rights.
His social media posts, in which he unequivocally condemned the genocide in Gaza and the complicity of Western governments, sparked controversy as Zionist lobby groups in the Netherlands campaigned for his ouster from Radboud University.
In a statement on Monday, Pettit said the university had monitored his X account and he was pressured to retract his statements on Palestine.
He was even warned by the university administration and threatened with dismissal at the behest of influential Zionist lobby groups such as the Center for Information and Documentation on Israel (CIDI), the Netherlands Committee for Israel and the Jewish People (NCAB), as well as media outlets like De Telegraaf and Education Minister Gouke Moes.
“Over the last two years, universities across the West have gone out of their way to repress speech against the genocide, against Zionism, and in support of the Palestinian resistance,” Pettit told the Press TV website only hours after announcing he was leaving the university.
“They have done this because they are occupied by Zionist/Jewish supremacist lobby groups that want to shut down any critique of ‘Israel’. We have no choice but to fight back against this.”
He said the pro-Israel lobby is powerful in the Netherlands, which is evidenced by the data.
“If you look at data, the Netherlands has by far the biggest economic relationship with Israel in the whole of Europe. Therefore, there is a big incentive to squash critique,” he noted.
“CIDI is the main lobby group and it acts in similar ways to other countries, targeting individuals who speak out and trying to destroy their livelihoods. It also has links to political parties, the media, and student groups like Standwithus, and together they apply pressure on universities.”
Pettit, however, was not alone in this fight. He received tremendous support from his colleagues and students, who defended his freedom of speech.
“I have received a lot of support from colleagues and students who have also been taking risks to speak out against the genocide and Zionism, and the students have been incredible at engaging in disruptive protest over the last two years that has forced the university to cut ties with Israeli universities,” he told the Press TV website.
Unfazed by the threats, he vowed to continue speaking for the Palestinian cause and against the ongoing genocide in the Gaza Strip.
“I have every intention of continuing to use my platform to advocate for Palestinian liberation. That is why I left Radboud to go to a more supportive environment that enables me to keep doing that,” he asserted.
Pettit had been vocal not only on his own social media handles but also had been giving media interviews to raise awareness about the plight of Palestinians.
In one of his interviews in October, he told Volkskrant that he wants to raise awareness in the Netherlands that Palestinians “as an oppressed people have the right to armed resistance.”
“Calling October 7th a legitimate resistance operation doesn’t mean I condone everything that happened that day. But Israel wants us to see Hamas as barbarians who hate Jews. That’s a racist frame that serves to legitimize the genocide. It also obscures decades of oppression,” he said at the time.
His defense of the Palestinian resistance and the historic Operation Al-Aqsa Storm on October 7, 2023, irked Zionist lobby groups that aggressively pushed for his ouster.
Amid the genocide in Gaza, students in many universities across Europe and the US have been suspended and even arrested at the behest of Zionist lobby groups.
Out of 270 journalists, ‘Israel’ killed 44 in Gaza displacement tents
Al Mayadeen | November 10, 2025
44 Palestinian journalists were killed inside displacement tents in the Gaza Strip, out of more than 270 media workers slain by Israeli occupation forces since October 2023.
According to a new report by the Freedoms Committee of the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate, many of the journalists were sheltering near hospitals and United Nations-run facilities when occupation forces launched airstrikes or opened sniper fire directly at displacement tents.
The report pointed to the systematic campaign targeting Gaza’s media infrastructure, citing the destruction of news offices and the deliberate killing of journalists in their homes, workplaces, and temporary shelters.
Deliberate targeting and legal violations
The Syndicate stressed that targeting journalists constitutes a war crime under Article 79 of the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, which guarantees civilian protection to media workers. It further noted that attacks on displacement tents near hospitals and schools represent a serious breach of the protections granted to humanitarian zones.
Investigators confirmed that no military activity was detected in or around the targeted tents, refuting Israeli claims of accidental strikes. The group argued that the use of precision weaponry in densely populated civilian zones “reflects a calculated intent not only to cause death, but to silence witnesses and obstruct documentation of events.”
Call for international accountability
The Palestinian Journalists’ Syndicate urged the formation of an independent international commission to investigate the targeting of journalists and called for the activation of International Criminal Court mechanisms to pursue accountability for war crimes.
It also appealed for cooperation with UNESCO and the International Federation of Journalists to establish safe corridors and protected zones for displaced media workers, while maintaining a comprehensive legal archive to support future judicial proceedings.
Previous incidents
Earlier in August, six journalists, including Al Jazeera’s correspondent Anas al-Sharif, were killed when an Israeli airstrike targeted a tent sheltering reporters outside the main gate of Gaza City’s al-Shifa Hospital. The deliberate attack, which targeted al-Sharif, drew international condemnation and renewed calls for investigations into “Israel’s” criminal action.
The Syndicate’s latest report adds to growing evidence from press freedom organizations, including the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and Reporters Without Borders (RWB), that “Israel’s” war on Gaza has become the deadliest conflict for journalists in modern history, raising urgent alarms about systematic violations of international humanitarian law.
Israeli soldiers recount indiscriminate killing of Palestinian civilians in Gaza
The Cradle | November 10, 2025
In a new documentary film, Israeli soldiers have described a “free-for-all” in Gaza, in which they killed civilians “without restraint” with the encouragement of politicians and rabbis, The Guardian reported on 10 November.
“If you want to shoot without restraint, you can,” stated Daniel, the commander of an Israeli tank unit.
He and other soldiers gave testimony about killings they perpetrated during combat tours in Gaza for the film ‘Breaking Ranks: Inside Israel’s War,’ which will be broadcast in the UK on ITV on Monday night.
The soldiers who agreed to talk confirmed they routinely used Palestinians as human shields and opened fire unprovoked on civilians seeking aid at militarized distribution points set up by the US-Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF).
Captain Yotam Vilk, an Israeli armored corps officer, said that in basic training, they were taught to only fire at a target that has the means, shows intent, and has the ability to cause harm.
But in Gaza, “there’s no such thing as ‘means, intent and ability,’” Vilk stated in the film.
“No soldier ever mentions ‘means, intent, and ability.’ It’s just a suspicion of walking where it’s not allowed. A man aged between 20 and 40,” he explained.
Another soldier, identified in the film as Eli, says individual commanders had the freedom to determine who was killed and who was allowed to remain alive.
“Life and death aren’t determined by procedures or opening fire regulations. It’s the conscience of the commander on the ground that decides,” Eli said.
“If they’re walking too fast, they’re suspicious. If they’re walking too slow, they’re suspicious. They’re plotting something. If three men are walking and one of them lags behind, it’s a two-to-one infantry formation – it’s a military formation,” he added.
Eli describes an incident in which a senior officer ordered a tank to destroy a residential building, crushing civilians to death inside, because a man was hanging laundry on the roof.
“The officer decided that he was a spotter. He’s not a spotter. He’s hanging his laundry. You can see that he’s hanging laundry,” he said.
“Now, it’s not as if this man had binoculars or weapons. The closest military force was 600–700 meters away. So, unless he had eagle eyes, how could he possibly be a spotter? And the tank fired a shell. The building half collapsed. And the result was many dead and wounded.”
The Guardian notes that according to the Israeli military’s own intelligence data, 83 percent of those killed in Gaza were civilians, a historic high for modern conflicts. More than 69,000 Palestinians have been killed since the war started, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, with tens of thousands more likely not counted as they remain buried under the rubble of destroyed buildings.
The Israeli military publicly claims its forces seek to protect civilians. However, some of the soldiers interviewed for the film said they were influenced by genocidal language used by Israeli politicians and religious leaders who claimed that no Palestinians in Gaza were innocent after the Hamas attack of 7 October 2023.
For example, a UN commission pointed to comments made by Israeli President Isaac Herzog, who claimed after 7 October that, “It is an entire nation out there that is responsible. It is not true, this rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved, it’s absolutely not true.”
Roughly 1,200 Israelis and foreign nationals were killed in the Hamas attack. Israel blamed all these deaths on Hamas; however, the military itself killed hundreds with attack helicopters, drones, and tanks, per a special order known as the Hannibal Directive.
The order was given for Israeli pilots to fire on their own civilians to prevent them from being taken to Gaza as captives that Hamas could use to liberate Palestinians in a prisoner exchange.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly referred to Palestinians in Gaza as “Amalek,” citing a story from Jewish scripture in which the Hebrews were ordered to exterminate the entire Amalekite nation, killing every man, woman, and child – even babies.
Daniel, the tank unit commander, said that this type of rhetoric influenced the behavior of soldiers in his unit. “You hear that all the time, so you start to believe it,” he stated.
Jewish rabbis in the Israeli army also advised soldiers to exterminate Palestinians in Gaza.
“One time, the brigade rabbi sat down next to me and spent half an hour explaining why we must be just like they were on 7 October. That we must take revenge on all of them, including civilians. That we shouldn’t discriminate, and that this is the only way,” said Major Neta Caspin.
Rabbi Avraham Zarbiv, who participated with his unit in the genocide in Gaza, stated in the film that, “Everything there is one big terrorist infrastructure.”
Zarbiv personally drove military bulldozers and boasted about destroying Gaza, stating that the army spent “hundreds of thousands of shekels to destroy the Gaza Strip. We changed the conduct of an entire army.”
The soldiers speaking in Breaking Ranks also confirmed their use of Palestinians as human shields, known as “Mosquitos,” to clear tunnels and homes where booby traps may be present. That way, a Palestinian would be killed rather than an Israeli soldier.
“You send the human shield underground. As he walks down the tunnel, he maps it all for you. He has an iPhone in his vest, and as he walks, it sends back GPS information,” said Daniel, the tank commander.
“The commanders saw how it works. And the practice spread like wildfire. After about a week, every company was operating its own mosquito.”
A private contractor, identified as Sam, confirmed that Israeli soldiers opened fire on and killed unarmed civilians seeking food at GHF distribution sites.
He described witnessing Israeli soldiers murder two Palestinian men.
“You could just see two soldiers run after them. They drop onto their knees, and they just take two shots, and you could just see … two heads snap backwards and just drop,” Sam explained.
In another case, he saw a tank destroy “a normal car … just four normal people sat inside it.”
At least 1,889 Palestinian civilians were killed by Israeli soldiers while seeking food in Gaza between 27 May and 18 August 2025, according to UN figures.
The West discovers Zelensky is not really a good guy
In a fleeting glimpse of lucidity, the mainstream media has noticed a tiny fraction of the corruption and authoritarianism in Kiev
By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | November 7, 2025
It’s that time of the great proxy war crusade against Russia again. Someone in the mainstream West has woken up to, if not the facts about the politics of Ukraine, then at least a quantum of disquiet.
The last major wave of the likes of the Financial Times, The Economist, and the Spectator suddenly noticing – all at the same time, as if on cue – that Ukraine has an authoritarianism and corruption problem (and then some) took place less than half a year ago.
Now it’s Politico – usually a steadfast party organ of Russophobia, Zionism-come-what-genocide-may, and servility to NATO – that feels vaguely troubled by the realities of the Kiev regime or, as the publication puts it, the “dark side” of Vladimir “I don’t like elections” Zelensky’s rule.
Not all of those realities, of course. That would be asking too much. Instead, Politico is homing in on one great scandal (out of countless ones) concerning one man and the anguish of a few “civil-society”-NGO types, both with good connections to the West. This time, the scandal concerns the obvious, shameless political prosecution of Vladimir Kudritsky, formerly a high-ranking and effective energy infrastructure executive and de facto civil servant.
Yet what about noticing the murder in Ukrainian detention of critical blogger – and US citizen – Gonzalo Lira? Or the vicious persecution of leftist war critic Bogdan Syrotiuk? Or the mean, indecent harassing of Christian clergy and believers for not saying their prayers in quite the right Ukrainian-nationalist-approved manner? Perish the thought!
In a similar spirit of extreme selectiveness, some Western outlets are now registering – a little and very slowly – the brutal realities of Ukrainian forced mobilization that feed the Western proxy war: Recently, a war – pardon, “defense” – editor of the ultra-gung-ho British tabloid The Sun has returned shell-shocked from NATO’s de facto eastern front, not because of the bloody and wasteful fighting but because the uncouth Ukrainians press-ganged his fixer.
In a similarly traumatic experience, Hollywood’s Angelina Jolie had her local driver snatched away at a Ukrainian military roadblock. Yet violent forced mobilization has been an everyday occurrence in Ukraine for years already. So much so that Ukrainians have chosen the term “busification” (from minibus, a popular vehicle for mobilization manhunts) as word of the year for 2025.
For quite a few of its victims, it ends up even worse than for those privileged enough to work for Western movie stars and British propagandists. Roman Sopin, for instance, who did not even resist, has just been beaten to death in a mobilization precinct in central Kiev, as an official medical assessment of his cause of death implies as clearly as anyone may dare under Zelensky’s regime.
But let’s get back to the few things Western media deign to notice occasionally: Already dismissed last year, Kudritsky is now facing the courts under transparently trumped-up charges. The reason is obvious to everyone. He has been too popular and far too vocal about corruption at the highest levels and the authoritarian power grabs of Zelensky’s presidential office in particular.
Kudritsky’s case – comparatively harmless, really – does raise many disturbing questions: why is it that the Zelensky regime has such a nasty record of abusing arbitrary financial sanctions and politically perverted legal processes, or lawfare? And haven’t we been told that this regime under its “Churchillian” leader is fighting for Western values of democracy and legality?
Are Zelensky, his sinister fixer-in-chief Andrey Yermak and their team preparing the ground for elections after a possible end of the war – that is, after losing it – by preemptively crippling domestic critics and rivals? Does this mean Zelensky, Ukraine’s most catastrophic leader since independence in 1991 (and that’s a high bar) is seriously considering not slinking away into exile but imposing himself even longer on his unfortunate country?
Or is all of this part of decimating whatever is left of Ukraine’s mangled society to continue the meatgrinder war for as long as the NATO-EU Europeans are willing to pay? If things go the way the bloodthirsty fantasists at The Economist want, then the West will shell out another cool $390 billion over the next four years. Apparently, they believe that waves of forced conscription in Ukraine will provide the human cannon fodder to go along with the Western funding.
Yet if Zelensky’s fresh authoritarian moves are really aiming at preparing for a postwar election next year, then that is a terrible sign, too. It would indicate not only that he is planning to damage Ukraine even further by his presence, but also that those postwar elections will be anything but fair and equal. In other words, in that scenario, Zelensky will try to stay around, and so will the authoritarian regime he has built.
To be fair to Zelensky, his authoritarianism has never been a response to the war, as his Western fans still believe, even when they are finally deigning to notice a little of his “dark side.” Zelensky was building an authoritarian regime – widely known and criticized in Ukraine back then already as “mono-vlada” – long before the escalation of February 2022.
Zelensky is not a benevolent leader who has been forced to adopt dictatorial habits by an emergency. In reality, if anything, he has exploited the emergency for all it was worth to indulge his lust for unlimited power and extreme corruption. So, trying to take his misrule into the postwar period is at least not inconsistent: it has never been tied to wartime.
But behind all of this, there is one great irony and one bigger question: The question is simple. If Politico really believes that going after Kudritsky with lawfare and frustrating the “civil-society”-NGO crowd is “the dark side” of Zelensky’s rule, what, if we may ask, is the bright side supposed to be?
Indeed, where is the better side of real-existing Zelensky-ism? Is it the humungous corruption? The Bakhmut-style military fiascos, the Kursk Kamikaze incursion, and now Pokrovsk? The fact that the media have been mercilessly streamlined? The raging nepotism that makes sure that the poor fight and the sons and daughters of Ukraine’s gangsterish “elite” go on holidays and party? The personality cult?
Or is it – and this brings us to the great irony – that Zelensky-Ukraine is allegedly in sync with “Western values”? And do you know what? It really is! But not the way that the propagandists of both Ukraine and the NATO-EU West want us to believe. What the Zelensky regime and its supporters in the EU really have in common is that neither care about either democracy or the rule of law.
Zelensky going after critics with individual financial sanctions to evade normal legal procedures and leave his victims not even a slim chance to defend themselves, for instance? That is exactly what Germany and the EU are now doing to the journalist Hüseyin Dogru, and not only to him. Zelensky using a perverted reading of the law to harass whoever does not submit or is a political danger to him? Bingo again. That as well is now EU practice, too. Ask, for instance, Marine Le Pen in France. Finally, widespread abuse of political office for self-enrichment and influence peddling? Bingo again: Less than a month ago, the Financial Times ran a detailed article on “scores” of EU parliament members who “earn income from second jobs in areas that overlap with their lawmaking,” raising “questions about disclosure of potential conflicts of interest.” How delicately put. And it sounds just like Ukraine’s Rada.
Here’s the real news: The “dark side” of Zelensky’s rule is all of Zelensky’s rule. And it is also what has become the new normal in an increasingly authoritarian and corrupt EU. Who has learned from whom? Kiev from NATO-EU Europe or vice versa? Either way, this is not a bug but a feature. And it must stop. Everywhere.
Tarik Cyril Amar, is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory.
German court upholds ruling in favour of Ghassan Abu Sitta over ban from Berlin conference
MEMO | November 7, 2025
A German court has ruled that authorities in Berlin acted unlawfully when they barred British-Palestinian surgeon Dr Ghassan Abu Sitta from participating in a conference on Palestine held in the German capital in April 2024.
The Berlin Administrative Court’s decision, reaffirmed this week, declared that the immigration authorities’ actions were illegal, upholding a lower court ruling issued in July. The Higher Administrative Court rejected an appeal by the Berlin state government, stating that it did not meet the legal criteria required for a retrial.
According to the court’s findings, immigration authorities had no legal grounds to prohibit Dr Abu Sitta from attending the conference, giving media interviews, or making public statements. The ruling emphasized that the restrictions imposed lacked adequate justification related to national security or the protection of public order.
Authorities had originally justified the ban by suggesting that Abu Sitta might express support for the 7 October 2023 Hamas-led Al-Aqsa Flood operation against Israel, or make statements perceived as threatening to the existence of the Israeli state. However, the court concluded that there was no evidence that his participation or remarks posed any danger to Germany’s democratic order.
Dr Abu Sitta, who has treated victims of the Israeli genocide in Gaza and other war zones, has become a prominent advocate for Palestinian medical and human rights. The latest ruling is seen as a significant legal victory for freedom of expression in Germany amid growing debates over restrictions on pro-Palestinian speech.
Featured Video
Houthis Keep Advancing as the Red Sea Crisis Deepens
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
15 Saudi ‘hijackers’ were CIA agents working for US: Scholar
Press TV – April 13, 2016
Fifteen of the 9/11 “hijackers” from Saudi Arabia were CIA agents working for the United States government, which was seeking to destroy the Middle East for Israel and to double the American military budget, says Dr. Kevin Barrett, an American academic who has been studying the events of 9/11 since late 2003…. continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Russia Just Struck the Eyes of NATO’s War Machine in Ukraine
- Russia summons UK charge d’affaires over Kiev drone support
- NATO member warns bloc seeking pretext for war with Russia
- Macgregor: We Haven’t Seen the Worst of the Iran War Yet
- ‘We are not like everyone else’ laws that bind other nations do not apply to Israel, says Likud lawmaker
- Report: Saudi Arabia seeks allies’ assistance as missiles deplete amid war on Yemen
- Fuel Crisis Deepens: Pakistan Warns Tanker Attack in Red Sea Would Be an ‘Act of War’
- ‘Bucha massacre’ a false flag orchestrated by UK – Moscow
- China Rejects Outside Pressure on Trade Ties After New US Russia Sanctions Bill
- Houthis Keep Advancing as the Red Sea Crisis Deepens
- If Americans Knew
- Columbia Administered Fund Gives Big Money to Pro-Israel Groups
- Deportation Case of Palestinian Activist Salah Sarsour Tests First Amendment
- ‘We Will Not Forget’: Palestinians Mark 44 Years since Sabra and Shatila
- Why do we let Zionists decide what we can and can’t say?
- US welcomes Israeli, Iranian delegations to UN, but not Palestinians – Daily Update
- Biden’s Genocide Accomplices Targeted by New Accountability Campaign
- AIPAC’s Network Has Already Spent $67.2 Million to Shape the Midterm Elections
- Jewish Supremacist Manufacturing a Civilizational Threat to License Bigotry
- US bans Palestinian president from speaking at the UN
- Israeli Forces Detain Journalist Alaa al-Rimawi amid Widespread West Bank Raids
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: ‘Global Drought Shows No Detectable Recent Acceleration Under Climate Warming’
- Economic Masterminds: German Socialists Suggest Taxing Productivity Gains Stemming From Using AI
- The South China Sea Has Not Been Cooperating With The Climate Change Narrative
- Energy Crisis: Germany Enters Heating Season With Historically Low Gas Reserve Fill Levels
- New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation
- Study: Ocean Heating Rates From Thousands Of Years Ago ‘Dwarf’ Modern Ocean Heating Rates
- Climate Extremists Target, Attack Large-Scale Power Grid Infrastructure In Germany!
- New Study: Antarctic Ice Melt Has Contributed Less Than 1 Centimeter To Sea Level Rise In The Last 30 Years
- Fear Of Debate: Alarmist German Climate Scientist Calls On Mainstream Media To Discredit Skeptic Voices
- End-Of-August Arctic Sea Ice Extent Hasn’t Fallen In 20 Years, Official Data Show!
Aletho News 