Hunter Biden Tells Candace Owens His Father Blackmailed by Israel
By Kurt Nimmo | Another Day in the Empire | May 22, 2026
Hunter Biden, the crack addict son of the former president, told Candace Owens the Zionists were out to get him and his father. Despite the fact Joe Biden proudly considers himself a Zionist, the real Zionists threatened and blackmailed him into allowing a genocide in Gaza, according to Hunter.
Left unmentioned is the fact Joe Biden provided Israel with what it needed to eliminate Palestinians in Gaza. AIM-120C-8 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles for fighter jets, 155mm artillery shells, Hellfire AGM-114 missiles for attack helicopters, 2,800 MK-82 500-lb. bombs, JDAMs, small diameter bombs, and bomb fuzes worth $8 billion. He arranged the shipment of thousands of Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) kits and hundreds of small diameter bombs worth $680 million. His Pentagon authorized the “deployment of a Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) battery and associated crew of U.S. military personnel to Israel.”
During the Biden regime, “an analysis published by the medical journal The Lancet estimated that the actual number of Palestinian deaths in Gaza, including those decomposing beneath the rubble of bombed-out hospitals, schools, and densely packed refugee camps, is likely more than 186,000.”
Evidence of “genocide, starvation, ethnic cleansing, and forced displacement was clearly available to the Biden administration, yet it lied to the American public to hide its own criminal culpability in the war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.”
By June [2024], the Biden administration had sent Israel at least 14,000 massively deadly 2,000-pound MK-84 bombs, made in Oklahoma and dropped on hospitals, apartment blocks, and crowded refugee camps. In addition, it sent 6,500 500-pound bombs, 3,000 Hellfire precision-guided air-to-ground missiles, 1,000 bunker-buster bombs, 2,600 air-dropped small-diameter bombs, and other munitions.
Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN) produced a 172-page document submitted to the International Criminal Court accusing President Biden, former Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and former Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin of committing war crimes. The filing “details how the US officials provided ceaseless military and diplomatic support to Israel despite being aware that its aid was being used to commit the type of alleged war crimes for which the ICC issued warrants against Israeli leaders,” Zeteo reported.
Such US support has included at least $17.9 billion of weapons transfers, intelligence sharing, and targeting assistance – and the US abstaining from, voting against, and vetoing several UN resolutions calling for a ceasefire and hostage deal or increased humanitarian aid over the course of 15 months. It’s also included repeatedly sending weapons to Israel without congressional review.
Biden not only gave Israel everything it wanted, he was also part of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s war cabinet. “While there certainly is a time-honored tradition of a ‘special relationship’ between the U.S. and Israel, Biden has gone where no other U.S. president ever has gone during one of Israel’s wars—not only physically but also politically and strategically,” TIME Magazine reported.
“Biden’s connection to Israel is deeply engrained in his political DNA,” argues Aaron David Miller, a former Middle East negotiator. “I don’t believe you have to be a Jew to be a Zionist, and I am a Zionist,” Biden declared when he met with Netanyahu and his war cabinet during a visit to Israel.
During his long career, Biden voiced unwavering support for Israel. “America must insure Israel’s existence,” he declared in 1972 by “ensur[ing] that Israel receives whatever weapons she needs.” In 1975, he admitted that the “interest groups that I hear from are the Jewish interest groups concerned about Israel. And they’ve always been reasonable when they’ve come to me, they’ve never threatened me in any way. Maybe it’s because I tend to vote their way.”
Since his political career began as a senator in 1973, Biden has consistently supported the Jewish state. He affirmed Israel’s right to defend itself throughout the Yom Kippur War and the October 7 prison break, earning him the nickname of the most pro-Israel president in American history.
Hunter is attempting to salvage his father’s reputation, but he cannot hide the fact the elder Biden consistently supported the illegal invasion of Iraq, and that of Afghanistan. He supported the 78-day bombing of Serbia in 1999 (he called for “a Japanese-German-style occupation” of the country).
“Biden’s imperial outlooks,” writes Gerald Sussman,
drawn from Washington’s and the mainstream media’s commitments to maintaining US hegemony in the world, has placed him among the world’s leading war criminals, alongside those, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon, who led the genocide in Vietnam, where millions of people were bombed, gassed, maimed, and disfigured by chemical weapons.
While the former president’s disgraced son insists his father was setup by the Zionists, he cannot escape the fact his old man is a war criminal that “continuously and unconditionally provid[ed] political support and military support to Israel while being fully aware of the specific crimes committed by Netanyahu, Gallant, and their subordinates” while providing over $17.9 billion in military aid and arms transfers to the criminal government of Israel.
The logic of victory: Iran’s principled terms for end to imposed war define a new strategic reality
Press TV | May 22, 2026
Nearly 40 days of all-out military aggression, shadow warfare, and economic blockade have given way not to Iran’s surrender, but its emergence with a strategic upper hand.
The “Ramadan War” – an unprovoked and illegal military aggression that came amidst Oman-mediated nuclear diplomacy – ended in a way Washington and Tel Aviv never anticipated. Iran did not collapse, its alliances did not fracture and its military deterrent remained intact. And now, as the guns have fallen silent, it is Iran – not the US – that is setting the terms.
Iran’s end-of-war conditions are not maximalist bargaining ploys. Rather, they are the logical, rational, and legally grounded demands of a victor who has proven, on the battlefield and in the diplomatic arena, that aggression against a resilient nation produces only defeat.
Tehran is not asking for charity. It is demanding what is rightfully owed to a nation that has been wrongfully attacked, illegally sanctioned, economically terrorized, and yet emerging stronger, more cohesive, and more confident.
The foundational logic of ending an imposed war
The first and most critical point in Iran’s strategic calculus is remarkably simple: in any war, the side that requests a ceasefire is the side that is losing. Iran did not request a ceasefire; it was the American side. This single fact upends the conventional Western narrative that portrays Iran as an isolated, pressure-cooked “regime” desperate for a deal.
Iran’s logic is rooted in the universal, time-tested rationality of all wars. Wars do not end because both sides grow weary simultaneously. They end when one side realizes that continued fighting will produce worse outcomes than accepting the other side’s terms.
In the 40-day imposed war and its aftermath, the American-Zionist enemy – an alliance of the world’s most advanced militaries, intelligence agencies, and economic powers – failed to achieve its stated objectives. There was no “regime change.” Iran’s nuclear infrastructure remains intact. The Axis of Resistance did not collapse. And critically, Iran emerged stronger.
Had America possessed the capacity to defeat Iran militarily, it would have done so. It would not have sought a ceasefire and opened back channels for negotiation.
The very act of seeking an end to war is an admission of strategic failure. Therefore, the enemy has no right to obtain through diplomacy – through the end of war – what it could not obtain through indiscriminate force, cowardly acts of terror, and state-sponsored criminality.
This is a strategic logic and it dictates everything that follows.
The aggressor pays: Restitution, withdrawal, and end of sanctions
Because the US is the aggressor – having initiated an unprovoked war against the Iranian nation through assassinations, sabotage, cyberattacks, and direct military strikes – it must bear the full cost of the cowardly aggression.
Iran’s conditions are therefore not punitive fantasies but standard provisions in any post-war settlement where the aggressor ends up on the losing side.
Iran demands full payment of war damages and compensation for all victims of American and Israeli aggression; return of all Iranian assets and properties illegally blocked or seized; complete withdrawal of US forces from military bases surrounding Iran; termination of the illegal naval blockade that in itself constitutes an act of war; a comprehensive end to aggression on all fronts, including against Iran’s allies in the Axis of Resistance; full and verifiable lifting of all illegal sanctions against Iran, including the revocation of UN Security Council sanction resolutions and a signed end-of-war agreement enshrining these terms.
These demands are not opening bids but the minimum acceptable outcome for Iran. The enemy may negotiate over the sequencing or technical details of implementation, but the substance is non-negotiable. The aggressor pays, withdraws and lifts its illegal economic siege.
Diplomacy as a continuation of war by other means
Iran has already demonstrated its superiority in diplomacy. By forcing the American side to accept its framework for ending the illegal and unprovoked war, Tehran has demonstrated that Washington is the frustrated, failed and isolated party in this war.
The US assembled the most powerful military coalition in modern history, planned for years to overthrow the Islamic Republic or force it into fundamental concessions, and came away with nothing. None of the military objectives came to fruition and everyone acknowledges that.
Any future negotiations after the end of this imposed war will be conducted from a position of Iranian strength. Iranian negotiators will have no need to link those talks to wartime pressures. And make no mistake: Iran will enforce compliance.
Any shortcoming by the enemy in fulfilling its obligations will be met with Iranian responses below the threshold of full-scale war – a domain in which Iran operates with even greater ease and lethality. The enemy has already tested Iran in conventional war and suffered a crushing reputational, military, political, and strategic defeat. It has no appetite for a second round.
Strait of Hormuz – A prize already won by Iran
Perhaps no single issue illustrates Iran’s strategic upper hand more clearly than the Strait of Hormuz. Western analysts habitually frame the strait as a point of vulnerability for Iran, a choke point that Iran threatens to close. This is exactly backward.
Iran’s position is that the Strait of Hormuz is already an Iranian gain from the war. It is a legal, principled, and logical right that is presently in Iran’s hands. Unlike blocked assets or sanctions, which require active enemy reversal control over this strategic waterway located between the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman – requires no new action from Iran. It is a fait accompli.
Iran’s enhanced control over the Strait of Hormuz serves three concrete objectives.
- Security: Guaranteeing Iran’s security in the Persian Gulf against future American or Persian Gulf Arab aggression.
- Economic justice: Preventing blackmail by regional governments and securing material rights of the Iranian nation through tolls and transit fees.
- Strategic deterrence: Creating a new normal in which any future aggression against Iran must account for Tehran’s tightened grip over global energy chokepoints.
The status of the strait after the war is fundamentally different from before the war. Iran will not return to the previous order. That order – in which the US patrolled freely, imposed sanctions, and threatened Iran with impunity – is effectively dead. Iran’s permanent sovereignty over the waterway is not a demand but a reality that the enemy must accept.
Iran is not acting unilaterally or recklessly in this regard. Agreements with neighboring Oman, based on mutual interests, are necessary to consolidate Iran’s control. Iran’s diplomatic apparatus is actively pursuing these agreements.
This is not an act of belligerence but an act of responsible statecraft, embedding Iran’s strategic gain within a framework of regional cooperation.
Finally, the strait carries profound symbolic weight. Iran’s unchallenged sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz represents the heavy penalty and fine that the aggressor must pay for having invaded Iranian territory – directly or by proxy. Every tanker that transits under terms acceptable to Tehran is a reminder that the US miscalculated catastrophically.
And if the enemy ever indulges in the fantasy of another war on Iran, it will now have to factor in Tehran’s expanded maritime and land sovereignty as a permanent, inescapable variable.
The nuclear file – Deferred but not diminished
Western media frequently portrays Iran’s nuclear program as the central point of leverage against Tehran. It is not a point of weakness, but an area of demonstrated Iranian resilience.
Throughout its long history of peaceful nuclear activities, including temporary, voluntary transparency measures, Iran has never abandoned its principles or its legal rights.
International law recognizes Iran’s right to possess the full nuclear fuel cycle. America has no authority to override international organizations and treaties and it is not the world’s nuclear policeman. The US defeat in the recent war has stripped it of any pretense to that role.
Both the US and the Zionist regime tried to force Iran’s nuclear surrender through unprovoked war and bombing campaigns, but catastrophically failed. They will also fail in any future negotiations to strip Iran of its inalienable nuclear rights. Iran’s nuclear decisions – regarding enrichment levels, research, development, and even the scope of its program – are Iran’s own business.
They are not tied to the recent war, from which Iran emerged victorious in preserving its nuclear materials, facilities, and, most critically, its scientific and engineering knowledge.
The bomb question: A clear doctrine, not an ambiguity
Donald Trump and members of his war cabinet, including war secretary Pete Hegseth, repeatedly claim that preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb is their primary objective. But here again, Iran’s position is clear and has been stated repeatedly: a nuclear bomb has no place in Iran’s defense and security doctrine.
This is not a new or ambiguous position. It is a matter of public record, reinforced by the martyred Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei’s fatwa (religious decree) against the development and use of nuclear weapons.
Trump cannot claim victory on an issue where no threat existed. The embattled American president does not get to factor the nuclear bomb myth as his personal achievement.
If, in the future, with changed regional circumstances and potentially a revised fatwa, Iran’s doctrine evolves, that is a matter for another time. But today, in the present, the doctrine has not changed. Iran possesses all the knowledge required to complete the nuclear cycle for peaceful development, and it will continue to exercise its inalienable rights.
The invalidity of Trump’s deadline threats
Throughout the recent war and its aftermath, Trump repeatedly resorted to a worn-out, theatrically bankrupt tactic: the artificial deadline. “Iran must agree by X date, or else.” This gimmick failed at least five times. Each time, the US president backpedaled.
This deadline threat is a psychological warfare technique designed to induce panic, haste, and unforced errors from the Iranian side. Iran has shown that it will not be rushed and it will take all the time necessary to draft a meticulous, robust end-of-war document that closes every loophole and secures national and strategic interests.
The deadline is fundamentally a threat of war. But war has already been tried. War brought the enemy nothing but humiliation, and re-entering a war cannot produce anything different.
The enemy is bluffing with a hand it has already shown and lost. Iran’s diplomatic apparatus must remain vigilant against this trick, but it need not lose sleep over it.
The Bab el-Mandeb incidents – A warning across the sea
Recent explosions and security incidents reported in the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and around Socotra Island, including a temporary shutdown of the strait for several hours, have been met with conspicuous silence from the US, the Israeli regime, and Western media outlets.
That silence is not accidental. It is the silence of an enemy that understands it has been outmaneuvered.
These incidents constitute a clear and explicit warning from the broad Axis of Resistance. If the American-Israeli enemy resumes its military adventurism against Iran, the war this time will not remain contained to the Persian Gulf. It will expand to include the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. Bab el-Mandeb, another global energy chokepoint, will become an active front.
Even during active negotiations to end the war, the hand of the resistance front is not tied. Iran and its allies have many available options, any of which can make conditions harder for the enemy. The message is unambiguous: military escalation will be met with geographical expansion of the war, not with Iranian retreat.
These security incidents may well be a prelude to the extra-regional translation of the war against the Islamic Republic of Iran, as previously alluded to in warnings from the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC). In other words, the battlefield is no longer limited to Iranian soil, the Persian Gulf, or even West Asia. Iran’s enemies are being served notice that their own vulnerabilities – far from their shores – are well within reach.
American refineries – The cyber dimension
The recent chain of explosions and fire incidents in at least five American refineries and petrochemical complexes across different regions of the United States has also been underreported and underexamined by American authorities. This, too, is no accident.
These incidents demonstrate a strategic evolution that should terrify Iran’s enemies. The world has reached a stage where knowledge based on information technology has grown so advanced that it can replace physical military action in specific geographies.
Cyber capabilities, wielded by unknown actors anywhere in the world, can achieve the same results as armed assault, but without the high costs, missile range limitations, or legal and international liabilities.
Iran’s adversaries have long relied on their ability to project conventional military power globally. The refinery incidents suggest that this advantage is being nullified. An actor with sophisticated cyber capabilities can now impose severe economic costs on the American homeland without the need to fire a single missile or cross any border.
The lesson for the enemy is stark: your critical infrastructure is vulnerable. Your refineries, your grids, your financial systems – all are potential targets in a domain where traditional military superiority offers no protection. If you wage another war on Iran, you will not be safe anywhere.
Are we on the verge of a US-Iran deal?
China is emerging as the silent, indispensable diplomatic power in the region
By Trita Parsi | May 22, 2026
Nothing is confirmed and finalized yet, and the spoilers should not be underestimated, but lots of activity points in the direction of a deal.
A few things stand out:
1. The role of China in the background is essential. Without having its fingerprints on the deal, and by that, avoiding any responsibility if it fails, China is emerging as the silent, indispensable diplomatic power in the region. (While Pakistan’s Asim Munir is traveling to Tehran, the Pakistani Prime Minister will be departing for Beijing shortly)
2. The regional involvement in the mediation is astounding: Pakistan, Qatar, Egypt, Turkey, Saudi and Oman are all or have all been playing an instrumental role in moving things forward. If a deal is reached, it will have regional buy-in (save from Israel and the UAE) at levels far beyond the JCPOA.
3. Regional diplomats and intel folks have been shuttling in and out of Tehran for weeks now. Qatar’s role, in particular, is noteworthy.
4. Europe’s absence is noticeable but not felt, as its irrelevance is becoming normalized.
5. More ships have been passing through the Strait of Hormuz. Whether these were mainly tankers going to China, and whether China paid a fee, is unclear at this point. But it is noteworthy that the ships are passing through both the Iranian AND the American “blockades.”
6. Though some distance remains to reaching a deal, my own conversation with folks on both sides has left me slightly more optimistic, primarily because of the flexibility I am detecting on the Iranian side regarding the stockpile (despite the Reuters story from yesterday). Ideas that were categorically rejected two weeks ago are now being genuinely considered.
7. If a deal is secured, Trump will face a lot of criticism from the Blob and the pro-Israel crowd in DC, but he will be in a very good position to sell the deal to the American public, whose concerns are very different from those of the Blob…
Douglas Macgregor: NATO Attacked Russia; U.S. Being Pushed Out of the Middle East
Glenn Diesen | May 21, 2026
Trump’s Gaza ‘peace’ board in turmoil as funding pledges fail to materialise
MEMO | May 21, 2026
Donald Trump’s controversial “Board of Peace” for Gaza has warned that a gap between pledged funds and money actually disbursed must be closed urgently, raising fresh doubts over the US-led scheme already widely viewed as the president’s vanity project rather than a serious plan to rebuild the besieged Palestinian enclave.
A report submitted to the United Nations Security Council said: “The gap between commitment and disbursement must be closed with urgency.” It warned that funds pledged but not transferred mark “the difference between a framework that exists on paper and one that delivers on the ground for the people of Gaza.”
Trump established the Board of Peace to oversee his plan to end Israel’s genocide on Gaza and rebuild the territory, large parts of which have been reduced to rubble after more than two years of bombing. The reconstruction effort is estimated to cost around $70 billion, while $17 billion has reportedly been pledged to the board so far.
The board had previously denied that it faced funding constraints, insisting that it was an “execution-focused organisation that calls capital as needed.” However, its own report to the Security Council now urges countries that have made pledges to accelerate disbursement and calls on non-member states and international organisations to contribute without delay.
The United States, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar are among the states said to have pledged funds, alongside Kuwait, Morocco and Uzbekistan. Yet the future of Gulf commitments now appears more uncertain following Trump’s war on Iran, which has deepened regional instability and exposed the fragility of US-led security arrangements in the Middle East. The Iran war has widened rifts between Washington and its allies, with European leaders saying they were not consulted before US-Israeli strikes on Iranian leadership and infrastructure.
The funding concerns add to longstanding criticism that the Board of Peace is less a credible reconstruction mechanism than an exercise in Trumpian self-promotion. The initiative is widely seen as “aggrandising theatre” and warned that it erases Palestinian political rights while recasting Gaza as a development site rather than an occupied territory whose people are entitled to freedom, dignity and self-determination.
The board was created after Trump’s broader Gaza plan, which placed the US president at the centre of the transitional initiative. It is chaired by Trump and tasked with supervising a still-to-be-formed Palestinian technocratic government and reconstruction under the second phase of the ceasefire deal.
Critics say the plan fails to confront the root causes of Gaza’s destruction: Israel’s occupation, siege and military assault. Analysts have pointed out that Gaza does not need a branding exercise or a donor board dominated by Washington and its allies, but a political settlement rooted in Palestinian sovereignty and international law.
The board’s report says 85 per cent of Gaza’s buildings and infrastructure have been destroyed and that around 70 million tonnes of rubble must be cleared. Despite an October ceasefire, Israel has kept troops in a large part of Gaza and continued air strikes, while the second phase of Trump’s plan — including broader Israeli withdrawal, reconstruction and the disarmament of Palestinian factions — has not been implemented.
Many states remain reluctant to channel reconstruction funds through Trump’s board because of concerns over transparency, oversight and political control. Under the board’s charter, member states reportedly hold three-year terms unless they pay $1 billion to fund its activities and secure permanent membership, raising further questions over whether Gaza’s reconstruction is being treated as a humanitarian obligation or a pay-to-play diplomatic platform.
Palestinian Prisoners Club says Israel uses detention of solidarity activists to intimidate global supporters
MEMO | May 21, 2026
The Palestinian Prisoners Club said on Wednesday that Israel has turned the detention and abduction of international solidarity activists into a systematic policy aimed at intimidating supporters of the Palestinian cause worldwide.
In a statement, the organisation said Israeli authorities seek to send a message that anyone showing solidarity with the Palestinian people could face detention, abuse, arrest and torture.
The statement followed the circulation of videos released by Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir showing the mistreatment of activists from the Freedom Flotilla Coalition and the “Global Solidarity Flotilla,” who were detained by Israeli forces while attempting to reach the Gaza Strip.
According to the Prisoners Club, Israeli authorities intercepted the activists in international waters and forcibly transferred them to the Port of Ashdod.
The organisation described the scenes shown in the videos as involving humiliation, mistreatment and abuse, arguing that they reflect treatment routinely experienced by Palestinian and Arab detainees in Israeli prisons.
The group further stated that the involvement of Ben-Gvir in the filmed incidents highlighted what it characterised as the broader policy of intimidation directed against international solidarity movements supporting Palestinians.
US Provided Most of Israel’s Missile Defense During Iran War
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | May 21, 2026
The US fired hundreds of its most advanced interceptors to protect Israel from Iranian missiles during the first five weeks of the war.
According to a Department of War assessment described to The Washington Post, the US used 200 Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptors and over 100 SM-3 and SM-6 missiles in defense of Israel. Israel only used 100 Arrow interceptors and 90 David’s Sling missiles.
Speaking about the imbalance, an administration official told The Post, “In total, the U.S. shot around 120 more interceptors and engaged twice as many Iranian missiles.” The official added that “The imbalance will likely be exacerbated if fighting restarts.”
The imbalance occurs because Washington and Tel Aviv developed a strategy for the defense of Israel, where the US advanced interceptors handled the bulk of the Iranian missiles. The official said that the policy resulted in a significant “drawdown” of the US interceptor stockpile.
During the conflict, the US used about half of its stockpile of advanced interceptors, including Patriots, SM-3, SM-6, and THAAD interceptors. The US intelligence community says Iran has over 70% of its pre-war launchers and missiles. Additionally, Tehran has resumed drone production, and it’s rebuilding its military production at a surprising rate.
A US official also told The Post that Israel’s offensive capabilities were slowing down. They explained that by the end of March, Israel was conducting 50% fewer strikes against Iran because its air force was exhausted by operations against Lebanon and Yemen.
In recent days, President Donald Trump has threatened to restart the war against Iran if Tehran does not comply with his demands. However, the President had made similar threats throughout the six-week-long ceasefire and has always backed down.
The Post reports that the US has positioned additional naval assets near Israel to assist with missile defense if the war restarts.
‘Unprecedented act of savagery’: How Israel’s new law places Palestinians on death row by default
By Zeynep Conkar | TRT World | May 19, 2026
Israel has become the first Western-aligned “democracy” to legislate a mandatory death penalty targeting a single ethnic group under military occupation, and this week, it put that law into force.
The order was signed on Sunday by Major General Avi Bluth, commander of the Israeli army’s Central Command, at the request of Defence Minister Israel Katz, the same minister who once ordered the immediate cut-off of water supply to Gaza and has publicly threatened Gaza’s civilians with “total devastation” in what South African prosecutors and international legal experts cited as evidence of genocidal intent before the International Court of Justice.
Under the new law, military courts prosecuting Palestinians whose attacks resulted in the death of an Israeli must apply the death penalty as the sole available sentence, unless the court finds special circumstances allowing for life imprisonment instead.
Once a final ruling is handed down, the sentence must be carried out within 90 days.
Within Israeli courts, military orders always take precedence over Israeli and international law, according to Nasir Qadri, an international law practitioner and a critical legal scholar at Koc University.
“The system was never designed to adjudicate guilt; it was designed to administer a colonised population through the form of law, and a 96 percent conviction rate is its proof,” Qadri tells TRT World.
“The 90-day execution deadline and the prohibition on pardon or commutation remove formal residues from a structure already characterised by arbitrary arrest, incommunicado detention, secret evidence that defendants cannot challenge, and confessions extracted under torture,” he adds.
National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, whose far-right Jewish Power party had long campaigned for the measure, hailed the signing as a political victory, declaring “we promised and we fulfilled.”
The law was passed by the Knesset on 30 March 2026, by a vote of 62 to 47, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu present in the chamber to support the bill.
Before the vote, it had already drawn wide condemnation, not only from Palestinian organisations and international human rights bodies, but from within Israel’s own legal establishment.
This is a discriminatory behaviour under international law, Qadri argues.
“This law converts the colonial administration of Palestinian life into the colonial administration of Palestinian death, and does so through the same legal instruments, military orders, security classifications, and jurisdictional exclusions,” says Qadri.
“The prohibition on arbitrary deprivation of life under Article 6 of the ICCPR, as interpreted by the Human Rights Committee in General Comment 36, requires in capital cases the strictest observance of fair trial guarantees.”
“The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination stated in May 2026 that the law is de facto applicable to Palestinians only, given that its threshold, intent to negate the existence of the state, structurally excludes Israeli Jewish defendants by definition,” says Qadri.
A dual discriminatory system
The legislation’s reach is defined by the dual legal system operating across the occupied West Bank.
Palestinians there live under military law, while Israeli settlers fall under civilian law, two parallel frameworks in the same territory.
The death penalty provision applies only through the military courts, which means it applies exclusively to Palestinians. In the civilian track, the law only covers those acting with the intent to deny the existence of the State of Israel, a definition designed to exclude Jewish defendants.
The law operates across two legal orders that share only a maximum penalty, according to Qadri.
“Palestinian defendants in the West Bank face military courts where judges are uniformed officers, confessions extracted under interrogation constitute primary evidence, and the conviction rate is 96 percent.”
“Israeli defendants face civilian courts with independent judges, full evidentiary standards, and a Supreme Court appellate structure. Placing the same capital sanction across both frameworks without equalising the procedural conditions that determine whether it is applied fairly is a structural guarantee of differential outcomes,” Qadri explains.
The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination said the law rolls back Israel’s long-standing de facto moratorium on executions, in place since 1962, and noted with concern that it “prohibits mitigation, commutation or pardon of the death penalty” once a sentence is handed down.
UN experts have warned that the mandatory nature of the sentence violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Israel ratified in 1991, under which mandatory death sentences are prohibited as inherently arbitrary.
What it means for Palestinians behind bars
The law comes into force against a backdrop of severe and worsening conditions for Palestinians in Israeli arbitrary detention.
As of March 2026, approximately 9,500 Palestinians are held in Israeli prisons, with about half under administrative detention or labelled “unlawful combatants,” held without charge and unable to defend themselves in court.
Palestinian prisoners’ rights groups have described the new law as an “unprecedented act of savagery,” accusing Israel of codifying violence against detainees amid mounting reports of torture and deaths in custody since the genocide in Gaza intensified.
“Administrative detention is a colonial relic, the bitter fruit of Britain’s 1945 Emergency Regulations, exported and perfected across an archipelago of twenty-five detention centres, prisons, and interrogation facilities, twenty-one of them inside Israel itself,” Qadri says.
“What the death penalty law changes is not the material conditions of detention; the torture, the medical neglect, the enforced disappearance of hundreds of families still unable to determine whether their loved ones are alive, detained, or dead; but the existential conditions, so that every unanswered question about a detained relative now carries the weight of an execution deadline,” he adds.
The Association for Civil Rights in Israel, alongside Adalah and several other rights organisations, has petitioned the High Court against the law, arguing it is racially discriminatory, unconstitutional, and that the Knesset has no authority to legislate directly for the occupied West Bank.
The court has yet to issue a final ruling. In the meantime, the law is in force, and for Palestinians facing military prosecution, the death penalty is the default sentence the law prescribes.
“This is the precise function of what international law has failed to name, not merely to kill, but to make an exposed population live in permanent, calibrated proximity to death as a technique of control over the living,” Qadri says.
“The law is not addressed to the defendant; it is addressed to the population,” he adds.
Naftali Bennett Is Running A Campaign To ‘Fix Israel’s Hasbara’
The Dissident | May 21, 2026
Naftali Bennett, the leader of the Israeli opposition challenging Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, shares the exact same genocidal, expansionist vision of greater Israel as Netanyahu, arguably in an even more extreme way.
Bennett, who has described himself as “more right-wing than Bibi”, has called to annex the majority of the West Bank, celebrated the genocide in Gaza, justified the IDF shooting Palestinian children, supports the Israeli occupation of South Lebanon, and supports the war on Iran.
As the Times of Israel noted, Bennett and his coalition partner, Yair Lapid, “broadly accept Netanyahu’s security assumptions — hardline on Iran, hawkish on Gaza and Lebanon, opposed to Palestinian sovereignty under current conditions”.
One of the major ways Bennett is differentiating himself from Benjamin Netanyahu is by campaigning on improving Israel’s propaganda machine, effectively supporting the same Greater Israel policies of the Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, but doing a better job in hiding them from the world.
Israel recently suffered another PR crisis after its national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, released a video showing his forces abusing detained activists who were attempting to bring food aid to Gaza.
In repose, Naftali Bennett did not oppose the torture of international activists, but criticized the damage Ben-Gvir did to Israel’s propaganda machine by publishing the video of it, saying, “The Netanyahu-Ben Gvir-Deri coalition has weakened Israel’s international standing to an unprecedented low, endangering IDF soldiers abroad and arming our antisemitic enemies around the world.”
He then announced one of the key planks of his campaign platform, “how we will fix Israel’s hasbara”.
Announcing his plan, Bennett laid out an organized attempt to run social media troll farms and to plant Israeli propagandists in media in order to silence criticism and factual reporting on Israel’s war crimes.
He said that he will “establish a powerful national hasbara authority:
The authority will set Israel’s messaging strategy, coordinate between bodies, and ensure that the Israeli response is swift, unified, and professional. It will have an independent budget, a professional director, and its own power”.
This “powerful national hasbara authority,” according to Bennett’s plan, “will recruit experts in international media, social networks, public opinion research, crisis management, creativity, data, and technology”.
Bennet called to create a pool of Israeli propagandists in the media to be activated to do damage control for Israel.
As part of his plan, he called to “create a pool of spokespeople in major languages who will appear in global media, podcasts, universities, and social networks.
We will initiate a presence—in every language, in every arena, at every hour.”
He also called to establish a social media troll farm to silence criticism of Israel, calling to “establish a consciousness and technology war room” which “will operate an advanced war room that will monitor the discourse in real time, identify disinformation before it takes hold, and distribute sharp, accurate, and fast content.”
He called to coordinate this campaign with existing Israeli troll farms, writing, “Today, there are many excellent private hasbara efforts operating out of a sense of mission around the world, but they operate alone. We will connect them to a coordinated campaign, one fist for Israel.”
Finally, he called to work with Western government backing Israel in this major propaganda operation, writing, “Israel is not alone. There are other democracies grappling with disinformation attacks and attempts at influence by foreign actors. We will work together with technological, legal, and media tools to fight the lie machines that poison young people around the world.”
Naftali Bennett will be at least as genocidal and expansionist as the Netanyahu coalition government, but he will do a better job at hiding Israel’s crimes from the world by running an even more sophisticated propaganda operation, as he has openly admitted.
Boxed into a Corner: Iran Has Outsmarted Trump Every Step of The Way
By Robert Inlakesh | Palestine Chronicle | May 21, 2026
US President Donald Trump has boxed himself into a corner that his ego will not allow him to get out of. Instead of Tehran surrendering, it is Washington that has to accept defeat, or risk dragging this regional conflict into a much wider and bloody war. The bottom line– Iran is better at wars of attrition.
From the first moments of the US-Israeli attack in February 2024, up until the temporary cessation of hostilities came into effect, the Iranians were in the driver’s seat. Iran’s former leader, Seyyed Ali Khamenei, had remained in his publicly known office and was killed almost immediately, almost too easily, it should be noted.
Unlike at the beginning of the 12-Day War, last June, the Iranians didn’t take 15 hours to respond to the aggression against them. Instead, it took only a few hours until missiles were raining down across the Persian Gulf and on Israeli targets.
The message that has been sent to both the Israelis and the US appears to be one that they are incapable of comprehending: assassinations don’t win wars against the Iranian-led Axis of Resistance. Despite its overwhelming technical and military advantages, the US-Israeli alliance watched on as the Iranians absorbed hit after hit, maintaining the capability to continue firing every single day and inflicting significant retaliatory blows.
Around 16 US bases and hundreds of American military assets were crushed, while the military casualties numbered at least into the hundreds; that we know about. Iran, however, flipped the tables completely and decided to make what could be construed as a territorial gain– they now control the Strait of Hormuz.
The only answers the Trump administration has been able to come up with, in response to the Strait of Hormuz closure and Iran’s proven ability to continue fighting, are that he directs enormous strikes on civilian infrastructure or puts boots on the ground. Both these options will result in severe consequences, regionally and domestically, for the United States.
All of this could be solved if the US government were capable of making its own decisions, independent of Israel. However, we live in the real world, where President Trump openly says he isn’t thinking of his own citizens’ financial position, but instead about what Israel cares about (“Iran can’t have nuclear weapons”).
It is also apparent that Trump doesn’t actually care about Iran potentially building nuclear weapons, because if he did, the path to preventing this outcome is a deal that replicates the 2015 Nuclear Deal. The US’s problems with Iran have never been about nuclear weapons; they seek regime change in Tehran for two reasons: Iran is an independent nation, and Israel wants to see it fall.
Evidently, the Trump administration is in the back pocket of the US-based Israel Lobby and is incapable of saying no, which has gotten them into this current mess. A leader like Trump, whose shallow ego makes him incapable of admitting defeat, has been led into a disaster that he can’t get out of.
Instead of weakening the Islamic Republic, if the war were to end on the simple terms that Iran has set out – namely, a ceasefire on all fronts, a new system governing the Strait of Hormuz, and the lifting of sanctions, in addition to handing over frozen assets and compensation – then Tehran will be transformed into a major regional power. If it were militarily battered and had no leadership, as President Trump consistently claims, this would not even be on the table.
The Trump administration fell for the bait of attacking Iran and launching a decapitation strike; now it is being made to pay a price. The Iranians are not about to throw away their leverage for nothing; they want to use this opportunity to free their nation economically and to achieve victory across the region.
Then came the “Uno reverse card” strategy, Washington imposing a blockade on top of Iran’s blockade. If you were to believe the White House, the Iranians are already begging on their knees due to this strategy. If you instead trust your own perceptions, then the reality couldn’t be further from this fictional and egotistical depiction.
Iran can easily outlast its opponents when it comes to surviving an economic war, because it has suffered through this for 47 years. Which means that Trump is running out of time.
On the Lebanon front, Hezbollah is grinding down the Israeli ground forces who are currently attempting to impose an occupation in the south of the country. Washington’s solution has been to try to use the deeply unpopular Lebanese government in an attempt to stir civil unrest inside Lebanon, but also to drag it into a normalization agreement with Tel Aviv, one that will present the Israelis with a propaganda victory.
Hezbollah, both Washington and Tel Aviv told the world, was supposed to have been defeated in 2024. Instead, it is now using asymmetric warfare to batter the Israelis and impose a new equation that will eventually force a retreat that will represent an even more consequential retreat than occurred as a result of the 2000 liberation of South Lebanon.
So the Trump administration is running out of time, the economic pressure on his Persian Gulf Arab allies is immense and the Israelis are feeling the heat of Hezbollah’s blows. There are two ways forward: to escalate again militarily or to bow to Iranian demands. The military option is a non-option, because there is simply nothing more that can be achieved without enormous consequences. Yet, Donald J Trump, the weakest President in American history, appears incapable of saying no to Israel.
– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine.
If Thomas Massie Was President…
By Alan Mosley | The Libertarian Institute | May 20, 2026
If Thomas Massie were president, there would be no American involvement in the war in Iran. Rep. Massie (R-KY) introduced a bipartisan resolution barring “unauthorized hostilities” against Iran and said flatly that, “The ongoing war between Israel and Iran is not our war.” Massie respects the Constitution: Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 grants Congress the exclusive power to declare war. A Massie presidency would not begin hostilities at the behest of a foreign nation and then pretend the War Powers Resolution clock never started when Iran didn’t turn out like Venezuela (which he also wouldn’t have started).
If Thomas Massie were president, Americans wouldn’t be funding Ukrainian oligarchs to the tune of billions of dollars. He said, “We shouldn’t send another penny to Ukraine,” and demanded an audit before another dollar moved. Congress, meanwhile, appropriated more than $174 billion for Ukraine-related purposes through FY 2024, passed another $60.84 billion package in April 2024, and oversight bodies documented serious tracking failures for sensitive equipment. A government that cannot account for what it sends abroad has not earned the moral right to demand more from taxpayers at home.
If Thomas Massie were president, there would be no more regime change wars, period. Years before Iran returned to the front page, Massie was already trying to block unauthorized aid to Syrian rebels, restrain intervention in Yemen, require congressional authorization for any action in Venezuela, and later withdraw the United States from NATO. The antiwar right is perfectly encapsulated by the non-interventionist foreign policy supported first by Dr. Ron Paul, and now by Massie. America First means supporting the troops, and supporting the troops means not sending them to police the world.
If Thomas Massie were president, a foreign government (Israel) wouldn’t control America. Massie voted against Israel’s 2024 supplemental, proposed forcing politically active organizations that principally advance foreign interests to register under FARA, and argued that federal officeholders should disclose dual citizenship and abstain from votes uniquely benefiting those countries. It was when Massie told Tucker Carlson about his colleagues in Washington having an “AIPAC Guy,” a handler to make sure they were always putting Israel’s interests first, that the Rubicon had been crossed. Israeli billionaires would then make the Republican primary in Kentucky’s 4th district the most expensive such race in America. To be Israel First is to be America Last.
If Thomas Massie were president, Jeffrey Epstein’s co-conspirators would be in jail. He forced the U.S. House to vote on releasing the full Epstein files, gathered the signatures to bring the measure to the floor, and said Americans deserve to know “who’s implicated, and how deep this corruption goes.” Massie said we would know the movement to release the Epstein Files was a success when “rich men… powerful men are being perp-walked to the jail.” Such men have faced consequences abroad, but not in America. The Epstein class is politically active in the States.
If Thomas Massie were president, there would be no FISA Section 702, no warrantless spying on Americans. He has spent a decade attacking the “backdoor” searches that let intelligence agencies rummage through Americans’ communications without a warrant, and he warned in 2025 that, “The intelligence agencies will use these loopholes to spy on Americans.” His Republican colleagues were urged to unite behind extending Section 702, and Congress promptly bought more time for the program. A President Massie would be among the first since the days of Jefferson to repeal and restrict executive power, even when (or especially when) that executive is himself.
If Thomas Massie were president, there would be no automobile kill switch mandates. Massie authored a 2026 amendment to block federal funding for the impaired-driving technology mandate born in the 2021 infrastructure law, and he argued that a car should not become “your judge, your jury, and your executioner.” Regulators may prefer cleaner language, but the civil-liberties dispute is obvious enough: should Washington require vehicles to monitor drivers and intervene? Massie’s answer is no, and instead of being celebrated for voting to defund the Biden-era legislation, it became yet another grievance of those who prefer safety over liberty.
If Thomas Massie were president, there would have been no federal COVID mandates. He sued to end the CDC’s air-travel mask order, introduced legislation to terminate the vaccine mandate for international travelers, and condemned the “faceless bureaucrats” behind edicts Congress never enacted. The courts later blocked OSHA’s vaccine-or-test rule for large employers, and CMS eventually withdrew its healthcare-worker vaccine mandate. Massie was right earlier than most, and louder than nearly everyone who later pretended the whole episode had simply been an understandable excess.
If Thomas Massie were president, there wouldn’t have been record federal gun control prosecutions. His legislative instinct runs in the opposite direction: national constitutional carry, repeal of the Gun-Free School Zones Act, and fewer federal crimes piled onto conduct that the Second Amendment was written to protect. That outlook is irreconcilable with a Justice Department mentality that boasts it will “pursue every firearms case referred.” A Massie administration would treat gun ownership as a liberty to be secured, not as a pretext for one more bureaucratic dragnet.
If Thomas Massie were president, the national debt wouldn’t be $39 trillion and rising by trillions each year. Massie has spent years voting against omnibus bills and continuing resolutions, and he now calls the continuing resolutions ritual a “fake fight,” because both parties preserve the machinery that drives borrowing higher. The Biden-era spending levels were not only cut, but refusing to rubber-stamp said spending created yet more friction between him and the supposed party of “fiscal conservatism.” The 2025 tax-and-spending package was projected to add roughly $3.8 trillion more over a decade. In Washington, insolvency is bipartisan, but a President Massie would veto such bills, challenging Congress to keep trying until it could either balance the budget, or embrace shutdown.
If Thomas Massie were president, gas prices would be cheaper. His politics point toward more supply, fewer regulatory affectations, and less willingness to destabilize oil-producing regions in the name of grand strategy. In Congress he backed cross-border energy infrastructure, while current inflation data show energy prices surging and gasoline costs jumping as the Iran war drove up oil. A government that constrains energy at home and jeopardizes it abroad should not affect surprise when the reckoning arrives at the pump.
If Thomas Massie were president, grocery store prices would be cheaper. He has long argued that Washington makes food needlessly dear by burdening local production and intrastate processing, backing the PRIME Act, interstate raw-milk legislation, and country-of-origin transparency. USDA still shows food-at-home prices above year-earlier levels, and Federal Reserve research has noted that modern food inflation is driven heavily by supply-chain and processing costs, not merely by raw commodities. Massie attacks the most important problem facing everyday Americans, cost of living, from multiple angles, be it tackling inflation or clearing the path between producers and consumers.
If Thomas Massie were president, the swamp wouldn’t be bigger than ever. He calls out the political theater of Washington, attacks taxpayer-funded censorship programs, presses for foreign-agent transparency, and treats debt monetization as a racket and a ponzi scheme. In his view, the swamp is manned from all corners of DC: lobbyists, bureaucracies, intelligence agencies, subsidy-seekers, and legislators. A Massie presidency would work to dismantle the managerial state which is full to bursting with progressive lifers who somehow manage to retain their positions with each passing administration, both Democrat and Republican alike.
But with Donald Trump as president, the opposite is true. Under Trump, America enjoys new wars along with its decades-long police actions. It features extensions for spying apparati, even those used against Trump. It stares at $40 trillion in debt, not only without tapping the brakes, but with calls for even more spending. It navigates an evolving narrative on Epstein from releasing the files, to calling them a hoax, to then attacking those who demand justice. Above all else, America under President Trump puts the needs of Israel before the needs of its own citizens. And should a single Congressman from rural Kentucky both say America First and mean it, then he is Public Enemy #1.
If only Thomas Massie were president and not exiting Congress.
Featured Video
Macgregor: We Haven’t Seen the Worst of the Iran War Yet
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
New Book
Breast Cancer: Before You Consent
A new Unbekoming paperback
Lies are Unbekoming | September 18, 2026
Peter Gøtzsche reviewed every randomised mammography screening trial ever conducted for the Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane’s headline is that, assuming a 15% mortality reduction, one woman in 2000 avoids dying of breast cancer over ten years. Ten are overdiagnosed and treated. Two hundred experience false alarms.
But that headline assumes the reduction. When Gøtzsche looked only at the trials with adequate randomisation — the higher-quality ones — the reduction disappeared. No effect on breast cancer mortality. No effect on all-cause mortality.
This is the Cochrane finding, published in the establishment’s own database of systematic reviews.
No woman being asked to consent to a mammogram this week knows it.
That is why the new Unbekoming paperback exists. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- US lawmaker blocks $2.8 billion weapons sale to Israel: Report
- Yemeni army claims responsibility for strikes on sensitive sites in Saudi capital, Aramco facilities in Yanbu
- Iran Judiciary issues indictments against 159 US, Israeli officials for assassination of Leader, commanders
- Turkiye revokes Iranian bank license under US sanctions campaign
- US-Denmark Agreement on Greenland Is ‘PR Stunt’ Ahead of Midterms
- Araghchi: Military intervention cannot create security; coercion cannot bring peace
- Fraud Squared
- Breast Cancer: Before You Consent
- Iran’s Plan to Shut Down AI in the Persian Gulf
- Israel seeks ‘compensation’ from Washington over Saudi F-35 sale
- If Americans Knew
- Inside Gaza’s death trap of collapsing, bombed-out buildings
- The everyday items Israel bans from Gaza every day
- Inside the siege, the ruined buildings of Gaza – Daily Update
- Debunking The Claim That Macklemore Has A “History Of Antisemitism”
- CPJ demands release of arrested Palestinian-US journalist near Bethlehem
- Robert Kraft: The Billionaire Friend of Netanyahu Pulling The Strings Behind the Macklemore/Ed Sheeran Blow Up
- 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?
- 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 