Truth as first casualty: Deconstructing disinformation campaign on Iran riots death toll
By Yousef Ramazani | Press TV | January 19, 2026
Amid the foreign-instigated riots and terrorism that struck Iran in recent weeks, a parallel narrative war also unfolded, centered on the deliberate propagation of wildly inflated and unverifiable casualty figures.
These figures were designed to manufacture global outrage and legitimize calls for American military intervention and yet another aggression against the Islamic Republic.
The discourse surrounding riot-related casualties in the past few weeks has been fundamentally shaped by a coordinated disinformation campaign originating from US-funded organizations operating entirely outside Iran. Central to this campaign was the circulation of sensational death tolls that bore little resemblance to verifiable facts on the ground.
The figure of 12,000 deaths was initially promoted by the New York–based Center for Human Rights in Iran, an organization financially linked to the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a US Congress–funded entity with a well-documented history of interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states.
This claim was presented without transparent methodology, primary data, or independent verification, raising eyebrows both inside and outside the country.
Despite this lack of evidence, the narrative was uncritically amplified by major Western media outlets and online influencers, creating a pervasive – but demonstrably false – impression of mass violence. Iranian officials consistently rejected these claims, presenting forensic evidence of manipulated datasets and instead reporting a death toll in the hundreds, the majority of whom were security personnel and civilians killed by armed rioters with foreign backing.
The subsequent escalation of these figures to even more implausible numbers – such as claims of 52,000 dead – underscores the persistence of a hybrid warfare strategy aimed at demonizing Iran while obscuring or outright excusing the violence committed by its adversaries.
Genesis of a false narrative: Center for Human Rights in Iran and its backers
The primary source of the sensational 12,000-fatality claim was neither an Iranian authority nor a verifiable international body, but the Center for Human Rights in Iran, an organization headquartered in New York. Despite its name, the group operates entirely outside Iran and has no physical presence or investigative capacity within the country.
An examination of its leadership and funding reveals a clear political orientation inconsistent with impartial human rights monitoring. The chair of its board is Minky Worden, an American activist with a documented history of spearheading anti-China advocacy campaigns, including efforts to politicize the Beijing Winter Olympics.
Financially, the organization relies heavily on grants from the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington, D.C. The NED is a privately managed but publicly funded institution that receives annual allocations from the US Congress through the State Department budget.
Historians, observers, and former intelligence officials have long characterized the NED as a transparent successor to activities once conducted covertly by the Central Intelligence Agency, particularly the funding of political opposition groups and media outlets under the banner of “democracy promotion.”
The NED’s record includes extensive involvement in “regime-change” efforts across Eastern Europe, Latin America, and West Asia – regions that have consistently featured in American foreign policy campaigns.
Amplification network: From NED grantees to global headlines
The unfounded casualty figure did not remain confined to a single organization. It was rapidly injected into the global media bloodstream through a tightly networked ecosystem of interconnected groups.
Other NED-funded entities, including the Human Rights Activists News Agency and the Abdorrahman Boroumand Center, echoed and cross-cited the same unsubstantiated statistics.
Operating largely from the US, these organizations function within a closed loop of mutual citation, manufacturing the illusion of multiple independent confirmations.
This echo chamber was then leveraged by major Western media outlets, including BBC Persian, Voice of America, The Washington Post, and ABC News, which incorporated the figures into their reporting.
Typically, these outlets attributed the numbers vaguely to “human rights groups” or “activists,” effectively laundering the information and granting it a veneer of credibility without conducting any independent verification. This failure is particularly striking given the well-documented funding sources and political objectives of the originating organizations.
Crucially, much of this coverage omitted the context that these groups are financially and ideologically aligned with the very governments actively seeking to pressure, isolate, and destabilize the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Iranian rebuttal and exposure of fabricated evidence
Iranian government officials and domestic media mounted a comprehensive, forensic rebuttal to the widespread disinformation campaign. The judiciary’s spokesperson and the head of the Supreme National Security Council categorically denounced the claim of 12,000 deaths as “psychological warfare” and a “complete fabrication.”
They publicly challenged the originators of the figure to provide a single verifiable name, death certificate, or precise locational detail to substantiate their alleged casualty lists, a challenge that was never answered.
Cyber units affiliated with Iranian media conducted technical analyses tracing the viral dissemination of the figures to known bot networks operating from locations in the United States, Israeli-occupied territories, and Albania.
Further investigations revealed that purported “martyr lists” were riddled with fraud: hundreds of duplicate entries, names of individuals who had died decades earlier during the Holy Defense war, and even names copied directly from public cemetery records in other countries.
The case of Saghar Etemadi became emblematic of the deception. Widely declared a “martyr” by external outlets, she was later confirmed by the Iranian judiciary and by her own family to be alive and receiving medical treatment for injuries sustained during a riot.
Iranian reports emphasized that the actual death toll, resulting from terrorist acts carried out by foreign-backed armed rioters, numbered in the hundreds. A significant proportion of the victims were police officers, Basij forces, and civilians deliberately targeted by violent saboteurs.
Escalation to absurdity and the weaponization of atrocity propaganda
The disinformation ecosystem demonstrated its capacity for rapid and unchecked escalation.
From the initial claim of 12,000 deaths, narratives soon proliferated across social media platforms and activist circles alleging 52,000 fatalities and more than 300,000 wounded.
These figures, divorced from any conceivable reality, serve a deliberate psychological and political function. They are designed to induce global emotional shock, overwhelm critical scrutiny, and portray the Iranian state as uniquely and exceptionally undemocratic
This narrative fulfills a dual geopolitical purpose, according to experts. First, it seeks to manufacture consent for foreign intervention, intensified sanctions, or diplomatic isolation by invoking a humanitarian pretext. Second, it functions as a tool of distraction and moral laundering.
By creating a false equivalence, or even attempting to eclipse, the documented casualties inflicted by the Israeli regime in Gaza, the campaign aims to redirect global outrage and obscure the horrendous crimes of Washington’s and Tel Aviv’s allies.
Influencers and online networks aligned with the Israeli regime aggressively promoted the fabricated Iranian casualty figures in an effort to undermine the global Palestine solidarity movement and digitally overwrite the extensive evidence of Israeli war crimes.
Underlying architecture: NED as a US “regime-change” instrument
The role of the National Endowment for Democracy is central to understanding the structural foundations of this disinformation campaign. Leaked documents and historical analyses reveal the NED as a key instrument of US foreign policy, operating as a conduit for government funds to support political movements aligned with American strategic interests abroad.
The organization was established following congressional scrutiny of CIA covert operations. One of its founders, Allen Weinstein, openly acknowledged that “a lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.”
The NED’s activities extend far beyond Iran. It has been a principal funder and organizer of so-called “color revolutions” in Eastern Europe and has been formally designated an “undesirable organization” by Russia for interference in domestic affairs. Its involvement in Hong Kong and Xinjiang has prompted sanctions from China.
In the Iranian context, the NED has for decades funded an array of exile media outlets, advocacy groups, and cultural figures, with the explicit aim of cultivating an alternative political leadership.
A leaked 2024 proposal revealed NED plans to funnel State Department resources into an “Iran Freedom Coalition” composed of US neoconservatives and selected exile figures, exposing the direct link between humanitarian narrative construction and overt regime-change ambitions.
A perennial pattern of narrative warfare
The manipulation of casualty figures during the 2025–2026 unrest is not an isolated episode, but part of a recurring tactic in the long-running hybrid war against the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The pattern is consistent and predictable: a US-funded NGO, operating safely from New York or Washington, releases an unverifiable and sensational claim. A network of affiliated organizations and social media assets amplifies it, after which mainstream Western media repackages it as credible reporting.
The objective is never truth, but the construction of a carefully engineered perceptual reality serving strategic interests. This reality is designed to demonize independent states, legitimize coercive policies, and erase or minimize the crimes of allied regimes.
The Iranian experience, from the myth of 12,000 deaths to the even more fantastical claim of 52,000, stands as a stark case study in the weaponization of information in the 21st century.
In this domain, the battlefield is not only the street, but global consciousness itself, and the most powerful weapons are often not missiles, but meticulously crafted falsehoods.
What a War on Iran Would Really Look Like — Beyond the Regime-Change Fantasy
By Robert Inlakesh | The Palestine Chronicle | January 19, 2026
While the corporate media and social media influencers run non-stop regime change propaganda, replete with unverified statistics, fabricated claims, and the denial of objective reality, it is important to cut through this and ask the more important question: What will a regime change war on Iran look like?
The following analysis must be first prefaced by stating that the unrelenting wave of regime change propaganda currently being disseminated with the implicit intent of manufacturing consent for war is, in essence, no different from the claims and rhetoric used over decades to justify various other wars of aggression.
Last year, Israel attacked Iran in a blatant violation of the United Nations Charter, and was later followed by the United States, which also participated in illegal aggression. Although it should be noted that using the metrics of International Law is at this stage redundant, as it has been rendered null and void by the US-Israeli alliance since October 7, 2023.
In the immediate aftermath of last June’s 12-Day-War, US-based pro-war think-tanks ranging from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) all the way to the Atlantic Council, all began scheming about what the next round should constitute and its intended outcomes. Meanwhile, on July 7, Axios News cited its sources claiming that Israel was already seeking a greenlight for a new attack and that it believed the US would grant it.
Fast forward to December 28, 2025, when peaceful protests erupted in Iran over government mismanagement of the worsening economic crisis, caused by Western economic sanctions. The very next day, December 29, former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett posted a video talking about a mass anti-government uprising, which had not yet happened. His message was accompanied by countless old videos and AI-generated footage depicting such a rebellion.
As this was happening, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was visiting US President Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago, where, according to several media reports, he was requesting an American attack on Iran and had received everything he had asked for. At the beginning of January 2026, violent elements suddenly emerged, and protests calling for the fall of the government began.
On January 8, 9, and 10, the situation dramatically escalated as Iran shut off the internet across the country. The footage revealed that the largest crowds participating in the riots and protests numbered only in the tens of thousands, yet numerous rioting groups emerged throughout the country.
The Western media and pro-Israeli social media influencers had by this time constructed their own narratives that deemed what was happening a “revolution” of “millions across Iran” and that peaceful protesters were being slaughtered for standing up for their freedom.
Without going into the fine details, it suffices to say that what we see portrayed in the corporate media about Iran is a reflection of a parallel universe. There is a total denial of any nuance, an inability to accept mass pro-government demonstrations that were bigger than the riots that occurred, a refusal to air the countless videos of armed militants on the streets and mass destruction caused by rioters.
Instead, Iran is an “evil regime” that is “slaughtering its own people” for absolutely no reason beyond that they are peacefully protesting for their freedom. There is also a particular focus on women’s rights when it comes to this propaganda. Even those who accept that over 160 members of the Iranian security forces were killed, including some who were beheaded and set on fire, still uphold that a peaceful revolution occurred. One that they all claimed would topple the government in days or weeks.
You need only look back over the past decades to see the same regime change scripts in action. The Colonial Feminism employed to justify these wars of aggression has been apparent throughout, especially in the case of Afghanistan. Yet, after 20 years of war and 2 trillion dollars in taxpayer dollars later, it was clear that the US’s longest war had nothing to do with “liberating the women of Afghanistan”.
Bear in mind also that atrocity propaganda can come from so-called trusted sources, especially when used to drum up support for such a major foreign policy objective as overthrowing the Iranian government. For example, Amnesty International gave credit to totally fabricated claims that Iraqi soldiers had thrown babies out of incubators in the lead-up to the First Gulf War.
Former Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi was also accused of “killing his own people” as the justification for NATO intervention, while it was claimed that peaceful protesters sought to achieve democracy. Then came a tirade of totally fabricated statistics and outlandish stories, none of which the corporate media dare challenge.
Every time it’s the same cycle, a totally fictitious narrative is constructed as a means of justifying a kind of “humanitarian intervention”, after which everyone will later acknowledge much of it was exaggerated or outright false. Then, anyone challenging this is labelled a “regime puppet” and called names to delegitimise their arguments. Disgruntled members of that nation’s diaspora are also employed to come up with sob stories and advocate regime change, a cheap identity politics trick.
What Will A War On Iran Look Like
A war with Iran could go in many different directions, depending on a large number of variables and how countless actions factor into decision-making on all sides. Therefore, the first point of entry into this brief analysis should be the reality inside Iran and separating this from the fictional depictions provided by the corporate media.
Iran is not Venezuela, nor is it Syria. The Islamic Republic of Iran, for a start, possesses military capabilities that are beyond any other player in West Asia, with exceptions of the Israelis and Turkish militaries. Even in these cases, they do not possess the volume of ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, or drones that Iran has mass-manufactured.
What Tehran lacks in terms of the latest in technological development, it makes up for with its offensive missile and drone arsenal, enabling it to hit the Israelis and US bases across the region. These capabilities are now tried and tested on the battlefield.
On the ground, Iran has its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) along with its regular army. The conservative estimates put the total active personnel of the IRGC at around 190,000 men strong, while the regular army is said to have 420,000 active duty members. In addition to this, there is a volunteer paramilitary force known as the Basij, which is said to be able to mobilise over a million fighters if needed.
The Iranian military is well trained, well armed and is constantly running exercises designed to combat insurgencies and foreign invasion forces. Iran’s terrain is also mountainous and vast, meaning that even in the event that mistakes are made, there is room for them to then regain lost ground. All previous US war games estimated that an invasion of Iran in the early 2000’s would have been a disaster for American forces. This was before the Iranians developed militarily in the way they have over the past decade or so.
Millions of Iranians who have demonstrated they will come to the streets in order to protest in solidarity with their government is also a strong sign of the base of support behind the current government. Although survey data is scarce, a large portion of the Iranian population is indeed socially conservative and believes in the religious doctrine of the Islamic Republic.
Another element to consider here is that the Iranian opposition has no real leader. The son of the Shah has a very small base of support inside Iran and is widely regarded as no more than an Israeli puppet. Then we have the Iranian minorities, who have managed to coexist much better under the Islamic Republic than the former Shah’s rule, as the Shia religious system does not rule for the Persian majority alone and does not have the same ethno-supremacist tendencies as previous Iranian leaderships.
On top of Iran’s own forces, there are also its regional allies. These include Ansarallah in Yemen, the Iraqi Hashd al-Shaabi, the Afghan Fatimeyoun, Pakistani Zeinabiyoun, the entire Palestinian resistance, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. These are the main players, but there are also various other groups that they have partnered with.
There is also a question mark surrounding what role China will play in support of Iran, while it is expected that Russia will also provide some kind of assistance. Beijing, in particular, cannot afford the fallout of losing Iranian oil and has already signed an economic partnership deal with Tehran.
Understanding all, there are clearly various cards that the Iranians have to play, and the idea that the government would simply fall without a fight and that its leadership would flee is pure fantasy. Several scenarios could play out given a war opens, including the following:
- Iran initiates a preemptive series of strikes.
- The US bombs Iran symbolically and tries to fight a limited conflict.
- An Israeli-US total regime change plot is hatched.
To address the first way this could unfold, it may be possible that, given the failure of the riots to create major fractures in the Islamic Republic’s system and drag the country to civil war, the US and Israelis may be trying to bait Iran into attacking first. The reason for this would be so they are able to gauge how broad the confrontation will be from the opening round of strikes and then adjust their own offensive from there. This kind of conflict would likely be limited.
The next option would be a US air campaign designed to deal a blow to Iran, with the hope that it could also lead to a change of events that results in regime change, but primarily to send a message and extend the conflict to another round. Such an exchange could end up getting out of hand, depending upon how both sides choose to retaliate against each other’s actions, yet the goal would be to avoid a long war.
If these kinds of 12-Day-War style rounds are to keep occurring each year or so, then this would greatly favour Iran. This is the case as Iran replaces its stockpiles infinitely quicker than the US and Israel.
Then there is the worst-case scenario, an all-out regime change war. Whether this arrives through a series of waves of attacks, both from the air and using militants on the ground, or through a tit-for-tat escalation that leads to it, expect enormous death and destruction on all sides.
There can be no disputing the US military edge here from the air, although an air campaign alone will not topple the government. If this happens, the worst-case scenario will be that the US will strike Iran repeatedly, perhaps alongside Israel’s attacks, assassinating political and military leaders, taking out weapons depots, missile launch sites, infrastructure targets, government buildings, and cultural sites. If Iran is unable to effectively defend from such an assault, it should be expected that it will take around 4 days to get on its feet.
This being said, such an assault would likely radicalise the population and make them double down. If the US and Israel succeed at assassinating Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, then we should expect an unprecedented war that may even extend beyond the region. More than being the Iranian Supreme Leader, he is also a Shia Spiritual leader, meaning his role transcends that of a leader of a country. It would be the equivalent of assassinating the Pope.
Iran itself has several options: to pound American bases, strike US aircraft carriers, launch much larger waves of ballistic missiles into Israel, and at this point, it is likely its allies would have mobilised. The Iranians themselves could shut down the Persian Gulf by locking the Gulf of Hormuz, inflicting a global economic crisis.
Hezbollah, Ansarallah, the Hashd al-Shaabi, Zeinabiyoun, Fatemeyoun, and Palestinian factions could all then participate in an all-out war, one from which there is no turning back. For the Shia in particular, their ideology is not one of backing down in these situations; they will very likely interpret such circumstances as their equivalent to the battle of Karbala, where the Prophet of Islam’s grandson Hussein was martyred.
If this becomes an all-out battle, everyone will take the gloves off, and the only way the Israelis will likely prove capable of escaping is to begin using nuclear weapons, which may not even work.
Although the doomsday scenario is possible, it is likely the war will end before it gets to that stage, and although all of Iran’s allies may participate this time, it would appear the US would like to refrain from entering a long, unpopular, and unwinnable war of aggression. The Trump administration likes quick wars that don’t take much time and runs away when things don’t go their way, as we saw with their attack on Yemen.
It should be expected that the Israelis and their Western allies throw the kitchen sink at Iran in an attempt to manufacture civil war, also. So far, the Syriaization of Iran has failed, but this isn’t to say they will give up on implementing such an agenda.
All of this is to say that regime change in Iran is not a simple matter of committing a few airstrikes; it is an ideologically driven State with mass support and a large number of allies willing to fight on its side. Therefore, the likelihood of the Islamic Republic of Iran falling in a few days or weeks is outlandish to say the least.
– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine. He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.
Palestinian prisoners in 2025: Shocking figures and escalating violations
Palestinian Information Center – January 17, 2026
RAMALLAH – The Asra Media Office has revealed alarming data regarding the situation of Palestinian prisoners up to the end of 2025, noting that their number has reached approximately 9,300 prisoners, nearly half of whom are held in detention without charge or trial amid an unprecedented expansion in the use of administrative detention and arbitrary classifications, including the so-called “unlawful combatant.”
In a report issued today, Saturday, the office explained that the Israeli occupation authorities have escalated their repressive policies by targeting women, children, journalists, and medical personnel, alongside systematic violations inside prisons. These violations include physical and psychological torture, deliberate medical neglect, starvation, detention under inhumane conditions, sexual assaults, the denial of visits, restrictions on lawyers’ work, and obstruction of the tasks of the International Committee of the Red Cross.
According to official data, since 1967 and up to the end of 2025, around 323 prisoners have died inside Israeli prisons, including 86 prisoners since 2023 and 32 during 2025 alone. The occupation authorities continue to withhold the bodies of 94 prisoners, constituting a grave violation of international humanitarian law, amid documented cases of direct killing, torture, and medical neglect leading to death.
The Asra Media Office noted that by mid-January 2026, the number of martyrs of the prisoners’ movement had risen to 324, including 87 since the war of genocide, with the continued withholding of 95 bodies under a policy of collective punishment prohibited under international law.
Despite the release of 3,745 prisoners during exchange deals in 2025, the Office confirmed that the occupation continued its policies of deportation and re-arrest, alongside the enactment of dangerous repressive legislation, including calls for the execution of prisoners, the extension of administrative detention periods, the revocation of citizenship, and the targeting of human rights institutions working on prisoners’ issues.
The Office called on the international community to assume its legal and moral responsibilities and to take immediate action to hold the occupation authorities accountable for these crimes, ensure the urgent release of sick prisoners, children, and women, and impose independent international monitoring over Israeli prisons.
US announces Gaza ‘Board of Peace’ amid ongoing Israeli ceasefire breaches
Press TV – January 17, 2026
The administration of US President Donald Trump has announced the executive members of Gaza’s so-called Board of Peace, a body purportedly tasked with managing transitional governance in the territory, as Israel continues to violate its ceasefire agreement with Hamas.
On Friday, the White House published the names of the Gaza Strip’s so-called “Board of Peace” members and the head of the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG), marking the launch of the second phase of Trump’s 20-point plan for Gaza.
Ali Sha’ath, a former Palestinian deputy minister in the Palestinian Authority (PA), will lead the NCAG, according to the White House.
The so-called Board of Peace will be chaired by Trump himself, with key members including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, and former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair.
The statement also listed members of a “Gaza Executive Board”: Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan; United Arab Emirates’ Minister of State for International Cooperation Reem Al-Hashimy; veteran Qatari diplomat Ali Al-Thawadi; Egypt’s intelligence chief Hassan Rashad; UAE-based Bulgarian diplomat and former UN envoy Nickolay Mladenov; Cypriot-Israeli businessman Yakir Gabay; Dutch politician Sigrid Kaag; as well as Witkoff, Kushner, and Blair.
Mladenov will act as High Representative for Gaza, linking the Board of Peace with the NCAG, while Major General Jasper Jeffers will lead the International Stabilization Force (ISF).
The US also appointed Aryeh Lightstone and Josh Gruenbaum as senior advisers to the Board of Peace to supervise “day-to-day strategy and operations.”
More appointments to the Executive Board and the Gaza Executive Board are expected in the coming weeks.
The announcement follows Witkoff’s Wednesday statement launching the second phase of the Gaza ceasefire plan.
The second phase is said to focus on “demilitarisation, technocratic governance, and reconstruction.”
However, most of the goals in Trump’s 20-point plan that became the basis for a ceasefire in Gaza three months ago never became a reality on the ground.
Phase one was designed to immediately halt the fighting, facilitate the exchange of Israeli and Palestinian captives, set a boundary for Israeli withdrawal from parts of Gaza, allow the full entry of humanitarian aid, and open the Rafah crossing between Gaza and Egypt.
While the daily number of Israeli attacks has decreased since the start of the ceasefire, Israel has killed at least 451 Palestinians and injured 1,251 – an average of nearly five killed every day – since October 10.
Under the ceasefire deal, Hamas released all 20 living Israeli captives in exchange for nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners.
Hamas has also returned 27 of the 28 bodies of deceased captives, while the search is still on for the remaining body, believed to be buried under the rubble of buildings bombed by Israel.
However, according to Hamas, Israel has failed to release all women and child prisoners as stipulated in the agreement.
Moreover, the Israeli military did not fully withdraw its troops to an area dubbed the “yellow line” and continues to restrict aid.
The opening of the Rafah crossing did not happen, either.
Since Israel launched its genocidal campaign on October 7, 2023, more than 71,000 Palestinians have been killed and over 172,000 wounded, the majority of them women and children.
Hamas: Israeli minister’s boasting over Gaza’s destruction an open admission of genocide

Palestinian Information Center – January 17, 2026
GAZA – Hamas spokesperson Hazem Qassem said on Saturday that the Israeli war minister’s public boasting about the destruction of the Gaza Strip, and his congratulation to the soldiers for criminal acts, amounts to an explicit and unprecedented admission of genocide.
Qassem said the remarks, made in light of revelations by Western media about the scale of devastation in Gaza, constitute further proof of a level of contempt for international law and humanitarian norms unseen in modern history.
He added that what has unfolded in the Gaza Strip, genocide and ethnic cleansing, constitutes a full-fledged crime under international law, now accompanied by a clear and public confession from those responsible. This, he said, necessitates genuine accountability for the entire Israeli occupation system behind these crimes.
Israel launched a genocide in the Gaza Strip in October 2023 that continued for more than two years, resulting in the killing of more than 71,000 Palestinians and the wounding of over 171,000 others. The assault caused massive destruction to approximately 90 percent of Gaza’s civilian infrastructure, with the United Nations estimating reconstruction costs at around $70bn.
Figures behind massacre of starving Gazans now shaping US Gaza plan
Press TV – January 16, 2026
Many of the figures now being elevated as key figures in Washington’s proposed postwar administration for Gaza were architects of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a US-Israeli aid operation under which Palestinian civilians were repeatedly killed while attempting to access food.
According to the Financial Times, individuals shaping the new Gaza executive committee were directly involved in designing and promoting GHF, a scheme that operated for months inside Israeli-controlled areas of the strip.
GHF was presented as a humanitarian workaround after Israel restricted UN and NGO aid access. In practice, it forced starving Palestinians to travel through militarized corridors to tightly controlled distribution hubs, where limited food was handed out under the watch of Israeli troops and US contractors.
Gaza health officials reported that hundreds of Palestinians were killed along access routes to these sites, while some estimates place the death toll at close to 2,000 over six months.
Israeli authorities denied deliberate targeting and disputed casualty figures, even as repeated shootings were documented near GHF hubs.
Despite the collapse of the foundation in November, the same network behind it is now shaping Gaza’s future governance.
The planned executive committee, operating under a Trump-led “Board of Peace,” is being influenced by Roman Gofman, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s chief military adviser and a nominee to head the Mossad; US-Israeli venture capitalist Michael Eisenberg; US-Israeli policymaker Aryeh Lightstone; and Israeli tech entrepreneur Liran Tancman, who has links to Israeli intelligence.
All four were involved in establishing or promoting GHF.
The executive committee is expected to include Palestinian technocrats tasked with replacing Hamas in civil administration under the second phase of a US-brokered ceasefire.
Eighteen Palestinian figures have reportedly received invitations, with former Palestinian Authority planning official Ali Shaath designated to head the body and retired intelligence officer Mohammed Nisman expected to oversee security.
Meetings are scheduled to take place in Cairo, while the committee is set to operate under direct US supervision.
The push comes as Israel continues to violate the ceasefire. Since the truce was announced in October, Israeli forces have killed more than 440 Palestinians and injured over 1,200, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry.
Israeli troops were supposed to withdraw to designated lines and halt attacks during the first phase of the agreement, but instead have expanded their presence, destroyed thousands of buildings, and constructed new military outposts inside Gaza.
Humanitarian commitments under the ceasefire have also gone unmet. Of the 57,000 aid trucks stipulated in the agreement, fewer than 25,000 have been allowed into Gaza, according to the Government Media Office.
Promised increases to 4,200 trucks per week have not materialized, while Israel has announced plans to bar dozens of international NGOs from operating in the strip. The blockade remains in place, exacerbating food insecurity, medical shortages, and displacement.
Former UN envoy and Bulgarian defense minister Nickolay Mladenov is set to be named “high representative” for Gaza, overseeing a 14-member Palestinian technocratic committee responsible for day-to-day governance.
The broader “Board of Peace,” expected to include Trump and 15 international leaders, has been delayed, reportedly due to regional tensions and Trump’s threats of military action against Iran.
The US team driving Gaza policy answers directly to Jared Kushner, with much of the planning conducted outside formal diplomatic and military coordination channels.
Meanwhile, Israeli media have reported that the army has drawn up plans for a renewed assault on Gaza aimed at seizing additional territory, even as Washington announces the start of the ceasefire’s second phase.
Hamas and other Palestinian factions, meeting in Cairo, have focused discussions on reopening crossings, ensuring aid entry, and securing Israeli withdrawal, while Israeli artillery and gunfire continue to target multiple areas across the strip.
“Real men go to Tehran” — The Zion-Con fantasy of regime change in Iran
By Junaid S. Ahmad | MEMO | January 16, 2026
“Anyone can go to Baghdad. Real men go to Tehran.”
It is difficult to imagine a sentence that more perfectly distils the arrested adolescence of American neoconservatism. Equal parts locker-room bravado and imperial hallucination, the phrase belongs to the same intellectual ecosystem as Rambo sequels, Tom Clancy paperbacks, and the enduring belief that history naturally submits to men armed with air superiority and a television-ready talking point.
The slogan has circulated for decades among Washington’s most aggressively incurious minds. Iraq was merely the appetizer. Tehran was always the entrée — the Everest of regime change, the final boss in a video game played by men who have never once paid the price of defeat.
Iran is not different merely because of its size, its population, or its terrain — though the Zagros Mountains are far less forgiving than the streets of Fallujah. Iran is different because it has refused, stubbornly and at enormous cost, to internalise the post–Cold War catechism: accept American primacy, subcontract your sovereignty, and call the arrangement “integration into the international order.”
For the ‘Zion-Cons’ — Zionist neoconservatives — this refusal is not simply strategic defiance. It is psychological heresy.
The theology of regime change
Neoconservatism is not a foreign-policy framework. It is a belief system. Like all theologies, it comes equipped with sacred texts, sanctioned demons, and end-times fantasies. Iran occupies a unique place in this cosmology: simultaneously an ideological abomination and a geopolitical temptation too intoxicating to abandon.
The Islamic Republic represents everything neocon thought cannot tolerate — an independent regional power immune to Western legitimacy rituals, rooted in a civilizational memory more than a millennium older than Washington itself. That it is also openly hostile to Israel, and persistently aligned with Palestinian resistance, elevates Iran from problem to obsession.
This obsession is always framed as concern. Concern for democracy. Concern for women’s rights. Concern for regional stability. Yet the concern follows a suspiciously selective pattern. It spikes when Iranian women protest. It flattens when women in Gaza are buried beneath concrete and shrapnel. It demands sanctions in the name of “helping the Iranian people” while celebrating the annihilation of Iran’s middle class as a strategic achievement.
This is not hypocrisy. It is architecture.
Sanctions are not a failed alternative to regime change; they are its slow-motion variant. When bombing proves politically inconvenient, starvation becomes policy. When diplomacy threatens stabilisation, diplomacy must be sabotaged. Engagement is dangerous precisely because it works. The objective is not reform. The objective is obliteration.
Israel’s strategic mirage
For Israel’s security establishment, Iran is the final unresolved obstacle in a region otherwise disciplined into submission. Egypt neutralised. Syria pulverised. Iraq shattered and held together with duct tape. Lebanon perpetually destabilised. Only Iran remains intact and intolerably autonomous.
The idea that Israel’s posture toward Iran has ever been defensive borders on parody. The fear is not that Iran will strike tomorrow; it is that Iran will exist coherently ten years from now.
This explains the fixation on Iran’s air defences, its scientists, its infrastructure. The logic is brutally simple: a state that cannot defend itself cannot act independently. A state that cannot act independently can eventually be wrecked, partitioned, and remade.
But here the fantasy collides with reality. Iran is not Syria. It is not Libya. It is not Iraq circa 2003 — hollowed out by sanctions and ruled by a dictatorship so despised that collapse felt like relief. Iran, like all societies, contains fractures and rivalries. But fragmented societies do not automatically disintegrate. Quite often — especially under existential threat — they consolidate. External assault does not reliably dissolve states. Sometimes it forges them.
The opposition mirage
Every regime-change project requires a hero. In Iran’s case, while ritualistic nods are made toward protesters with genuine grievances, the starring role is awkwardly reserved for an exile aristocracy whose Twitter/X followings vastly exceed their domestic relevance.
Reza Pahlavi is marketed like a Silicon Valley prototype: sleek, Western-approved, and permanently “almost ready.” His appeal thrives in think tanks, donor salons, and Israeli conference halls. Inside Iran, his name provokes neither mass devotion nor visceral hatred — just indifference at best, uncontrollable laughter at worst.
This is the core contradiction of Washington’s Iran policy: regime change without revolution; installation without legitimacy; democracy without the inconvenience of mass politics.
The resulting strategy is perversely elegant in its cynicism — wait for collapse while ensuring no alternative survives long enough to govern.
Civil war option
What follows regime collapse? Zion-Con discourse treats the question like a software update users will sort out later. Something, it is assumed, will emerge. Something manageable. Something vaguely liberal.
History offers no such reassurance
Iran’s disintegration would not yield a liberal republic — and it is not meant to. It would yield precisely what Zion-Cons privately welcome: centrifugal violence, ethnic fragmentation, militia economies, refugee flows that would make Syria look like a rehearsal dinner. Kurdish separatism. Baloch insurgency. Nuclear insecurity. The scenario reads less like a transition plan than a controlled demolition spiralling out of control.
For Washington and Tel Aviv, this is not a deterrent. It is an acceptable – perhaps even desirable – outcome. A broken Iran is preferable to a strong one, even if the shards cut indiscriminately.
The masculinity problem
“Real men go to Tehran” is not merely rhetoric. It is theatre. It reflects a masculinity crisis at the heart of American empire — a compulsion to prove relevance through violence because legitimacy has evaporated.
Short wars. Clean optics. Cinematic strikes. The problem with Iran is that it refuses to follow the script. There is no “Mission Accomplished” banner waiting in the Persian Gulf. There is only attrition, retaliation, and the dawning realisation that power is not a substitute for strategy.
The endgame nobody admits
The scarcely concealed truth is that regime change in Iran is not primarily about Iran. It is about preserving Zionist hegemony in the region. An Iran that survives sanctions, absorbs pressure, and refuses submission is contagious. It teaches others that defiance is survivable.
That lesson is intolerable
So, the fantasy endures. The slogans recycle. The men who went to Baghdad insist they are wiser now — just before deliberately repeating the same catastrophe, only on a grander scale.
But Tehran is not a sequel. It is a reckoning. And this time, the audience will not be so forgiving.
The Gaza ceasefire’s Phase 2 only exists in the media and at UN meetings
By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | January 14, 2026
As the debate continues to rage regarding what Phase Two of the Gaza Ceasefire will look like, it has become clear that there is no such thing occurring on the ground. From start to finish, the entire process has been a US-Israeli gambit to achieve their regime change goals, while removing Gaza’s suffering from the headlines.
Through December 2025, reports emerged claiming that this January would see the implementation of a second phase to the so-called Gaza Ceasefire agreement. As expected, there has been even more stalling on this front, as only vague comments made regarding the implementation of US President Donald Trump’s plan.
United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution 2803, passed on November 17, 2025, laid out the agenda for the Gaza Strip as clear as day. There were no guarantees for the rights of the Palestinian people, all references to precedents set for decades on the issue of “Israel’s” occupation were absent, instead, there was a vague outline of a regime change plot.
Contrary to the Trump administration’s claims that it no longer seeks to be involved in “nation building”, UNSC Resolution 2803 gives approval for what is labelled the “Board of Peace” (BoP) in Gaza. It also approves the deployment of an “International Stabilisation Force” (ISF).
In essence, the BoP is an undemocratic rule set to be imposed upon the Palestinian people, with Trump taking over the role as de facto dictator of the Gaza Strip, while the ISF is set to be a multi-national invasion force tasked with regime change. Phase Two of the ceasefire will hedge upon the success of both these pillars of the so-called “peace plan”.
The failure of Phase Two
When it comes to the BoP, there is no clear strategy that has been set forth for making this work on the ground. A number of different vague proposals have been floated through the media in recent months, all pointing towards the imposition of the BoP for areas still under Israeli occupation.
The Zionist regime’s forces not only refused to respect the so-called “Yellow Line” barrier in the Gaza Strip, which was supposed to demark 53% of the territory from the remaining 47% in the hands of the Hamas-led administration and security authority. The Israelis are now operating inside nearly 60% of the territory.
Under the control of the Israeli occupation forces are five ISIS-linked militant groups that have been established, with the purpose of fighting the Palestinian resistance. The only people living in the seized territory are these militants and their families, whose numbers reportedly reach only into the thousands.
Last year, the Wall Street Journal reported that Donald Trump’s so-called “Project Sunrise” was being seriously pitched to regional governments. The proposal advances a rather ridiculous model featuring luxury resorts on the sea, high-rise buildings, high-speed rail, and an advanced AI-driven grid. All of this will allegedly cost at least 112 billion dollars over 10 years, according to the 32-page document put forth by Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff.
This model aligns with an AI generated video published by the US President in early 2025, called “Trump Gaza”, featuring a sleazy billionaire’s playground where Trump and Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu are sitting at a resort together.
In the world, what has actually been laid out by more serious officials within the Trump and Netanyahu administration’s, is the idea of reconstruction in the areas of Gaza where the Zionist regime is currently based. This is of course failing the complete disarmament of the Palestinian resistance, which evidently is not going to happen.
This is where the so-called ISF comes into the picture. This multi-national force is intended to be composed of troop contributions from around the world. According to what has been revealed publicly, it appears as if the plan is for the ISF to number into the tens of thousands at most, meaning they will be outnumbered by the Palestinian resistance.
At this stage, although the ISF was supposed to have already been deployed to Gaza, Israeli authorities have been making huge issues regarding which armies will be permitted to join this force. Zionist officials have publicly opposed the inclusion of Turkish or Qatari forces, yet they now appear unable to secure even Azerbaijan’s agreement to agree to contribute troops.
The Egyptians, on the other hand, who are a guarantor of the ISF project, have publicly suggested that it be set up as a “peacekeeping force” that could be comparable to the UNIFIL forces deployed in Southern Lebanon. The US and Israelis are, however, adamant that the ISF not be a peacekeeping force, and according to UNSC 2803, it is not a UN-aligned force. If Cairo says no, getting the ISF off the ground will be difficult.
In the spirit of trying to reach some level of compromise in this regard, the US has floated the idea that the ISF would only work to ensure the security of the borders, train a new Palestinian security force and perhaps coordinate on other issues like securing the transfer of humanitarian supplies.
Yet, even such a limited ISF mission is already showing signs of disaster if it does go ahead. The security firm, UG Solutions – which was responsible for employing private military contractors to lead the defunct Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) scheme – was revealed as early on during the ceasefire to have been interviewing new recruits to deploy to the Gaza Strip.
According to the investigative reporting of Drop Site News, the role of these military contractors could be to coordinate with the ISF and again participate in aid distribution. The GHF project resulted in what Palestinians called a “death trap”, luring starving civilians to aid sites, where American private military contractors and the Israeli military would open fire upon them. The result was over 2,000 civilians murdered, primarily by the Zionist regime, over a period of 6 months. The GHF was directly funded by the US Trump administration.
Under the worst-case scenario, which the Israelis are pushing for, the ISF will be tasked with disarming the Palestinian Resistance. It does not take a military expert to understand that bringing together hundreds of soldiers from one foreign army, with thousands from another, all of whom speak different languages, have never encountered a situation like Gaza and operate under different doctrines, is a recipe for disaster.
The ISF is intended to be the regime change force that finishes the job that the Israeli military failed at. Bear in mind that the Israelis had deployed hundreds of thousands of soldiers, on rotation, inside the Gaza Strip and still failed.
Prior to the announcement of the ceasefire on October 8, 2025, the Israeli military was in the process of launching its failed “Gideon’s Chariots 2” Operation. According to internal Israeli estimates at the time, the goal of this campaign, which was to occupy Gaza City, would have required up to 200,000 soldiers and possibly taken up to a decade if it was to mirror a West Bank style occupation.
The Israelis were never willing to fight the Palestinian Resistance head on, instead they carried out a genocide, and the majority of their military tasks on a day-to-day basis were destroying civilian infrastructure. In other words, the Israeli army has not changed its primary function, during the war, since the beginning of the so-called ceasefire.
It has continued to demolish buildings and feed its own private industry that has developed behind this demolition work, throughout the ceasefire period. The only difference has been that it no longer experiences the high levels of danger it did previously, due to the resistance adhering to the ceasefire.
This entire genocide has gone down in a similar manner to the way the ceasefire is being implemented. The US-Israeli alliance has no idea how to achieve their desired victory, so they come up with scheme after scheme, military operation after military operation, then when they fail, they simply escalate the violence against civilians and try again.
The way that the US and Israeli military have managed the conflict in Gaza is perhaps the most embarrassing failure in the history of modern warfare. The combined power of the region’s most advanced military, alongside the world’s dominant military power, were not capable of defeating Palestinian Resistance groups who were armed primarily with light weapons they produced themselves under siege.
In every conceivable way, the Israelis and Americans have the upper hand, yet they have to resort to calling in an international invasion force to do their job for them, after committing genocide for over two years and destroying almost every standing structure in all of Gaza. Quite frankly, it is pathetic, not only that they have failed militarily and instead fought against civilians, but that they are so irrational that they cannot even accept defeat.
On the first day the ceasefire was declared, I predicted this exact predicament, that countless schemes would be set forth and that the agreement would be frozen between Phase One and Phase Two for some time. This is precisely what has happened. There was never any real ceasefire, because only one side has adhered to it, Hamas and the Palestinian Resistance. The exact same scenario has played out in Lebanon. The inevitable outcome on both fronts is more war.
We must act before Palestinian hostages are executed in the world’s worst prisons

Demonstration held in Gaza in solidarity with Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails. [photo by AA]
By Adnan Hmidan | MEMO | January 14, 2026
Warnings are no longer enough. Condemnation alone no longer carries any weight. We are standing at a moment that will be remembered, not for what was said, but for what was done. Today, in Israeli prisons, Palestinians are not simply being detained. They are being pushed, step by step, towards a reality where death itself is written into law, where execution is no longer a crime but a procedure, no longer an exception but a policy.
This is no longer just about harsh detention conditions or even about the routine violation of prisoners’ rights. The danger now runs deeper. What is unfolding is a systematic attempt to reshape justice to fit the needs of occupation, to turn trials into formalities before punishment and to reduce the law to a tool of retaliation rather than protection. New legislation, exceptional legal routes and an openly hostile political discourse now speak of execution not with embarrassment but with confidence, pride even. In such a climate, every legal fig leaf has fallen away and every moral mask has been removed.
Human rights organisations across the world have issued clear warnings about this direction, especially the push to establish “special” courts for Palestinians alone. These courts do not merely breach the principle of equality before the law; they destroy the very idea of justice. They operate outside internationally recognised standards and function in a space dominated by security priorities rather than judicial independence. When a person stands before a court designed especially and exclusively for him or her, not to offer fairness, but to ensure conviction, justice ceases to exist. It is a performance where the ending is known before the first word is spoken.
The threat does not end in the courtroom. It extends into a growing policy of denying release altogether, cutting off any realistic hope of freedom through exchange, parole, or genuine judicial review. What we are witnessing is a dangerous shift from punishment with limits to punishment without end, from imprisonment as a legal measure to imprisonment as a permanent political sentence. This approach deepens arbitrary detention, entrenches isolation and strips detainees of the most basic forms of human connection, turning prisons into spaces beyond accountability and beyond compassion.
Most disturbing of all is the open preparation for the death penalty, particularly when it is framed in a way that is mandatory, discriminatory, and aimed squarely at Palestinians. This represents a grave assault on the right to life and raises the terrifying possibility of executions carried out after trials shaped more by politics than by justice. Any attempt to apply such punishment retroactively, or to enforce it selectively, shatters the principle of legality and transforms the law into an instrument of elimination rather than protection. This is not a distant fear. It is a path already being cleared, step by step, in front of a world that seems increasingly willing to look away.
It is from this sense of urgency that the Red Ribbons Campaign was born, not as a slogan, nor as a gesture, but as a human alarm. A warning sounded before prison cells become execution chambers, and before silence becomes complicity. The colour red was chosen for a reason beyond the aesthetic; it signifies danger, the colour of blood and the colour of the final signal when words are no longer enough. It is the colour of freedom when it is taken by force and of injustice when it is endured in silence.
The campaign calls for a coordinated digital action beginning on the evening of Thursday 15th of January, under two clear hashtags: #الحرية_للأسرى and #FreePalHostages. The aim is to restore the human face of those held in Israeli prisons, not as statistics and certainly not as abstract political figures, but as doctors who once healed others, women whose lives were interrupted and children who should have been in classrooms, not in prison cells. This is about breaking a narrative that allows the suffering of one side to be visible while the pain of the other is deliberately and forcefully made invisible.
The action then moves from screens to streets on Saturday the 31st of January, with posters carrying the faces of Palestinian hostages placed in public spaces. This is not meant as theatre, but rather to remember while people are still alive, refusing to await their death to set a memorial. It is a way of saying: these lives matter now, not later.
But this movement will only have meaning if it belongs to people on the street and not just to organisations, movements or campaigns. It will only succeed if it becomes personal. No special permit is required to demonstrate care. No official mandate is needed to act. A photo can be placed in your local neighbourhood, with red ribbons tied around it; a picture taken, and then shared. In doing so, you become part of something larger, not a campaign of noise, but a community of conscience.
This is not a political disagreement that can be postponed. It is a moral test that demands an answer now. Will we act before executions take place, or will we limit ourselves to words of sorrow afterwards? Will we raise our voices while there is still time, or will we save them for statements that come too late?
The Red Ribbons Campaign may not be the final chapter in this struggle, but it could be one of the last chances to prevent a darker one from being written. History is not kind to those who watch from a distance. Blood, once spilled cannot be taken up. And justice, when abandoned at the moment of danger, becomes nothing more than a story we tell ourselves later.
We must act now, not because we seek attention, but because we refuse to be silent witnesses to the execution of Palestinian hostages in the world’s worst prisons.
Knesset advances bill mandating death by hanging for Palestinian prisoners

The Cradle | January 13, 2026
Israeli lawmakers are advancing a bill that would introduce executions by hanging for Palestinians convicted under military law, according to a report by Haaretz published on 13 January.
The report detailed the proposal and internal objections following its approval in a first Knesset reading in November.
The legislation, formally titled the “death penalty for terrorists” bill, was initiated by Israeli lawmaker Limor Son Har-Melech of the Otzma Yehudit party and approved by a vote of 39-16.
It would allow Israeli military courts to impose death sentences without a prosecutor’s request and by a simple majority rather than unanimous verdicts.
Under the proposal, executions would be carried out by hanging and completed within 90 days of a final ruling, following a judge-signed order and under the supervision of the Israel Prison Service.
A designated prison officer would perform the execution, appointed directly by the prison service commissioner.
The bill mandates near-total isolation for prisoners sentenced to death, with visits restricted to authorized personnel and legal consultations limited to visual contact via video calls only, with no possibility of sentence reduction once imposed.
Prison officers and the state would be granted full civil and criminal immunity for carrying out executions.
While execution details would be published on the prison service website, the Freedom of Information Law would not apply, and those involved would remain anonymous.
Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir celebrated the vote by handing out sweets and wearing a gold noose pin.
He later said the noose represented “one of the options,” adding that “the electric chair” and “lethal injection” were also possibilities.
Legal advisors to the Knesset’s National Security Committee warned that the bill raises serious constitutional and legal concerns, saying it would apply only to Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, creating a separate legal regime and risking violations of international treaties.
Human rights groups condemned the proposal, with The Association for Civil Rights in Israel saying it would grant the state power to carry out “the intentional taking of a human life,” calling it another step toward a “racist legal system” built on selective and oppressive enforcement against Palestinians.
Palestinian surgeon Ghassan Abu Sittah defeats pro-Israel lawfare in landmark GMC ruling

MEMO | January 12, 2026
Prominent Palestinian reconstructive surgeon and academic Dr Ghassan Abu Sittah has won a misconduct case brought against him by pro-Israel lobbyists, in what campaigners have described as a major blow to the UK’s Israel lobby and its use of lawfare to silence critics of Israel’s assault on Gaza.
On Friday, the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) dismissed a two-year-long General Medical Council (GMC) case against Abu Sittah, concluding that there was no evidence that his writing or social media activity supported terrorism, anti-Semitism or violence.
“WE WON”, said Abu Sittah on X following his victory over UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI).
“The General Medical Council Tribunal has thrown out the complaint made by UK Lawyers for Israel, accusing me of support of violence and terrorism and antisemitism”.
The case stemmed from complaints lodged in 2023 by UKLFI, a notorious pro-Israel pressure group that has repeatedly targeted activists, academics and professionals who speak out for Palestinian rights.
The complaint centred on an article written by Abu Sittah in the Lebanese newspaper Al Akhbar and two reposts on X, which UKLFI alleged had “impaired his fitness to practise”.
The tribunal found that an “ordinary reader” would not interpret the material as providing material or moral support for terrorism, nor as endorsing violence. It also ruled that there was no intent on Abu Sittah’s part to promote violence or hatred, leaving no basis for a finding of misconduct.
Abu Sittah, a Kuwait-born British Palestinian plastic and reconstructive surgery consultant and rector of the University of Glasgow, said the case was part of a broader strategy of intimidation aimed at silencing pro-Palestinian voices.
“This complaint forms part of a broader lawfare strategy which aims to instrumentalise regulatory processes to intimidate, silence and exhaust those who speak out against injustice in Palestine,” he said. “I do not, and have never, supported violence against civilians. I know too well its consequences.”
Abu Sittah spent 43 days in Gaza during Israel’s initial assault in October 2023, working at Al-Ahli, Al-Shifa and Al-Awda hospitals. He has repeatedly spoken publicly about the mass civilian casualties he treated, including children with catastrophic injuries, and has accused the Israeli military of using white phosphorus and deliberately targeting civilians.
The case was supported by the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP), whose director, Tayab Ali, described the ruling as a “complete vindication”.
“For months, Dr Abu Sittah was shamelessly targeted by pro-Israel lobby groups through a sustained campaign of lawfare,” Ali said. “The serious allegations advanced against him have now been entirely rejected.”
The ruling comes amid growing scrutiny of UKLFI’s tactics. The European Legal Support Center (ELSC) and the Palestine Institute for Public Law and Counsel (PILC) have filed a formal complaint with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) against UKLFI director Caroline Turner.
The complaint alleges the use of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs), breaches of professional conduct rules and misleading claims about regulatory oversight. It also calls for an investigation into whether UKLFI is effectively operating as an unregulated law firm.
The complaint details eight threatening letters sent by UKLFI between 2022 and 2025, which ELSC says demonstrate a pattern of vexatious and legally baseless intimidation aimed at shutting down Palestine solidarity efforts. Campaigners argue that these tactics have contributed to workers being disciplined or dismissed, events being cancelled and activists being smeared.
Abu Sittah’s victory also fits into a wider pattern of setbacks for pro-Israel efforts to suppress dissent in the UK. In December, a court quashed a summons issued against comedian Reginald D Hunter. The judge in the case said Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) misled him when bringing a private prosecution against the comedian.
Satellite images reveal extensive bulldozing of rubble in Beit Hanun amid signs of broader plans
Palestinian Information Center – January 12, 2026
GAZA – An analysis conducted by Al Jazeera of satellite images has revealed that the Israeli occupation army has carried out large-scale operations to remove the rubble of destroyed homes in the city of Beit Hanun, in the northern Gaza Strip, raising fundamental questions about the objectives of these actions and whether they are limited to security considerations or extend to broader plans.
The analysis relied on high-resolution satellite images captured between October 8, 2025, two days before the start of the ceasefire in Gaza, and the most recent images dated January 10 of the current year. These images show the continued bulldozing and removal of rubble in devastated neighborhoods, particularly in the Al-Boura area and along the outskirts of Al-Masriyin and Al-Na’ayma streets in northeastern Beit Hanun.
Geographic measurements indicate that the area from which home rubble was removed, along with land that was leveled, amounts to approximately 408,000 square meters, roughly 100 acres. The number of homes whose rubble was cleared is estimated at around 329, in addition to agricultural structures, rooms, and property belonging to farmers in an area considered one of the city’s agricultural zones.
The images also show bulldozers operating among the destroyed homes undergoing debris removal, within a zone that includes several active and inactive Israeli military positions.
The data suggest that the rubble-removal operations began at the start of Beit Hanun’s urban boundary, adjacent to the security fence separating it from nearby Israeli settlements close to the northern border, including the settlement of Sderot.
These scenes contradict recent statements by the Israeli army reported by the newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth regarding the purpose of “recruiting” civilian tractors belonging to settlers in the Gaza envelope for use inside the Strip, including in Beit Hanun.
According to the newspaper, the army explained that it had borrowed these tractors for a military unit to carry out tasks behind the border aimed at improving visibility by removing dense vegetation, clearing shrubs, and leveling the ground, without mentioning the removal of rubble from hundreds of homes.
The Israeli army also denied that the purpose of these works was to prepare Palestinian land for Israeli agricultural needs.
The use of agricultural equipment belonging to settlers inside the Gaza Strip is considered unprecedented since 2005. The newspaper noted that the Israeli army’s Southern Command had previously expressed reservations about such a step.
Beit Hanun lies at the extreme northern edge of the Gaza Strip within what are known as the “zero zones,” areas under full Israeli military control. The city has suffered unprecedented levels of destruction due to continuous bombardment and bulldozing over two years of war, including during the ceasefire period, and its residents have only been able to return for short, partial periods.
In the same context, Israel has not concealed its settlement intentions in the Gaza Strip. References to Beit Hanun have repeatedly appeared in speeches and slogans by leaders of the far-right within Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government.
In January 2024, ministers and Knesset members from the ruling coalition signed what was termed the “Charter of Victory and the Renewal of Settlement in the Gaza Strip and Northern Samaria” during a conference held in Jerusalem, where a map was displayed showing planned settlement points, including a settlement nucleus on the outskirts of Beit Hanun.
In December of the same year, ministers and Knesset members visited a site overlooking the Gaza Strip from the settlement of Sderot and discussed establishing settlements inside it. Meanwhile, Hadar Bar-Hai, director of a settlement group, stated that Beit Hanun and Beit Lahiya are uninhabited areas, affirming that more than 800 Jewish families are ready to settle immediately once permitted.
Last December, Israeli Army Minister Israel Katz made statements about the future of the Gaza Strip, revealing during a conference at the settlement of Beit El a plan to establish military-agricultural “Nahal nuclei” in northern Gaza, asserting that Israel “will never withdraw and will never leave Gaza.”
Katz described these bases as an alternative to the settlements evacuated in 2005, prompting discontent within the US administration, which demanded clarifications, viewing the plan as contradictory to US President Donald Trump’s plan to end the war.
Meanwhile, the Israeli army continues, in parallel, to demolish homes and expand its areas of control within what is known as the “Yellow Line” in the Gaza Strip, including leveling thousands of dunams of land and residential buildings.
The ceasefire agreement ended a genocidal war launched by Israel against Gaza Strip on October 8, 2023, which lasted two years and resulted in more than 71,000 Palestinian martyrs and over 171,000 wounded, in addition to widespread destruction affecting nearly 90% of civilian infrastructure. The United Nations has estimated the cost of reconstruction at approximately $70 billion.
