Victor Davis Hanson Exposed
The Voice of Zionist and Israeli Propaganda in America
By Jonas E. Alexis • Unz Review • October 15, 2025
Victor Davis Hanson is a military historian and classicist, best known for works such as A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War, Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise to Western Power, and Who Killed Homer: The Demise of Classical Education and the Recovery of Greek Wisdom.
To be fair, these works are not without merit; Who Killed Homer in particular occupies an important place in the ongoing academic debate over the teaching of the classics. However, Hanson’s analysis collapses entirely when it comes to U.S. foreign policy and the nation’s involvement in perpetual wars across the Middle East and beyond. In The Savior Generals, for instance, he devotes an entire chapter to praising the catastrophic invasion of Iraq in 2003—a debacle that left the region in ruins.[1]
In an apparent attempt to rescue both himself and the neoconservative movement from intellectual and political oblivion, Hanson drew an extraordinary comparison between the Iraq War and the wars of 1777, 1941, and 1950. He went so far as to claim that these conflicts “led to massive American casualties and, for a time, public despair.”[2]
Not once did Hanson acknowledge the incontrovertible fact that the Iraq War was built upon a monumental deception. He never confronted the well-documented reality that the U.S. intelligence community explicitly informed the Bush administration that there was no credible evidence indicating that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Nor did he address the fact that President Bush and his inner circle deliberately sought to fabricate and manipulate evidence in order to inundate the American public with the categorical falsehood that Saddam had to be removed.[3]
Hanson made no attempt whatsoever to engage with the vast body of scholarly evidence surrounding these issues.[4] He remained silent on the atrocities committed at Abu Ghraib—the sodomy, humiliation, and torture that forever stained America’s moral standing.[5] Not once did he acknowledge that, prior to the Iraq War, practices such as waterboarding were virtually foreign to the American moral and legal tradition. Nor did he mention that George Washington himself unequivocally repudiated the use of torture, even against enemies who had shown no mercy.[6]
By now, it is a matter of public record that torture at Abu Ghraib was not an isolated incident but a systematic practice. Reports and testimonies confirmed that prisoners were routinely subjected to brutal physical and sexual abuse, including coerced acts of humiliation and violence that defied every principle of human dignity. Even young detainees were not spared such degradation. Official investigations and leaked photographs later revealed the extent of these atrocities, which stand as a permanent indictment of the moral collapse that accompanied the Iraq War. One prisoner testified that he saw one officer
“fucking a kid, his age would be about 15-18 years. The kid was hurting very bad and they covered all the doors with sheets. Then when I heard the screaming I climbed the door because on top it wasn’t covered and I saw [name blacked out], who was wearing the military uniform putting his dick in the little kid’s ass. I couldn’t see the face of the kid because his face wasn’t in front of the door. And the female soldier was taking pictures.”[7]
What’s more even interesting, “150 inmates were crammed into cells designed for 24.”[8] Abu Ghraib, as one writer put it, was “a hell-hole.”[9] Torture was also routine in Afghanistan, where adolescents were beaten with hoses “and pipes and threats of sodomy.”[10] These atrocities were not committed in obscurity. Cambridge University Press has published extensive documentation of such abuses in a volume exceeding 1,200 pages, detailing the systematic nature of the torture and its moral, political, and legal implications.[11] These atrocities were also corroborated by psychiatrists such as Terry Kupers, whose professional assessments provided further evidence of the profound psychological trauma inflicted on the victims and the moral disintegration of those who carried out the abuse.[12]
For Hanson to attempt to wiggle out of this extensive body of scholarship is nothing short of intellectual dishonesty. Since the Iraq War turned out to be an unmitigated disaster—and given that Hanson supported it from its inception[13]—he is now compelled to construct arguments that are at once incoherent and irresponsibly tendentious. This rhetorical contortion serves a dual purpose: to preserve his Neoconservative equilibrium and to justify his well-funded position as a military historian at the Hoover Institution, an establishment known for its distinctly neoconservative orientation.
More importantly, Victor Davis Hanson is a Neocon ideologue and an unapologetic warmonger. He declared without hesitation:
“I came to support neocon approaches first in the wars against the Taliban and Saddam, largely because I saw little alternative—in a post-9-11 effort to stop radical Islam and state sponsors of terror—to removing such odious enemies, and did not think leaving the defeated in power (as in 1991), or leaving in defeat (as in Lebanon), or installing a postbellum strongman was viable or in U.S. interests.”[14]
Hanson, it seems, would prefer deliberate falsehoods over confronting uncomfortable truths. The war in Iraq was never about weapons of mass destruction, precisely because the Neocons themselves were fully aware that Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction.
For example, when Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley informed Paul Wolfowitz that there was no evidence of a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, Wolfowitz responded with certainty, “We’ll find it. It’s got to be there”[15]—effectively signaling that if no such connection existed, they would fabricate one. Ultimately, the Neoconservatives did precisely that, constructing deliberate falsehoods to justify the destruction of an entire nation—Iraq—for the strategic benefit of Israel.
What we are witnessing is an alarming intellectual decline on Hanson’s part. He effectively lost credibility as a serious analyst when he claimed that Iran intended to promote a Jewish Holocaust, despite the fact that Iranian Jews themselves widely denounced Netanyahu for perpetuating similarly alarmist and conspiratorial rhetoric, calling him an “insane vampire.”.[16] And what of Jimmy Carter? Hanson contends that Carter’s positions were effectively aligned with anti-Semitic sentiment.[17] Ignoring Israel’s ongoing ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in the 1940s and beyond, Hanson begins to reconstruct history according to his own narrative: “[Israel] fought three existential wars over its 1947 borders, when the issue at hand was not manifest destiny, but the efforts of its many enemies to exterminate or deport its population.”[18]
Sounding almost unhinged and unwilling to heed reasoned critique, Hanson asserts that, for more than half a century, the Arabs have sought to push “the Jews into the Mediterranean.” There is no serious scholarship, no intellectual or historical rigor, and no defensible argument—only one sweeping assertion after another. Hanson continues: “Over 500,000 Jews have been ethnically cleansed from Arab capitals since 1947, in waves of pogroms that come every few decades.”[19]
The source and historical evidence? According to Hanson, one simply has to take his word for it. His statement is self-referentially “true” because Hanson asserts it to be so. This is the same type of circular reasoning and tautology frequently encountered in so-called scientific discourse—most famously in the notion of “survival of the fittest.” Why did it survive? Because it is the fittest. How do we know it is the fittest? Because it survived.
Yet, long before Hanson began promoting his version of historical fiction, Jewish historians both in the Atlantic world and in Israel had documented a very different reality: Israel has systematically ethnically cleansed the Palestinian population.[20] Listen again to Israeli historian and flaming Zionist Benny Morris:
“A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on.”[21]
Israel has consistently undermined peace and stability in the Middle East. A striking example is the 1982 massacre, during which the Israeli military permitted Lebanese militias to attack Palestinian refugee populations. Reports indicate that the militias “raped, killed, and dismembered at least 800 civilians, while Israeli flares illuminated the camps’ narrow and darkened alleyways.”[22]
One year later, an Israeli investigative commission concluded that Israel was “indirectly responsible” for the massacre and that Ariel Sharon bore personal responsibility as an accomplice.[23]
How did Israeli officials involve the United States in these events? According to declassified documents housed in the Israel State Archives, they persuaded U.S. officials that Beirut harbored terrorist cells. Ultimately, this manipulation facilitated the massacre of Palestinian civilians—people whom the U.S. had previously pledged to protect.[24] Ariel Sharon asserted that Beirut harbored between 2,000 and 3,000 terrorists.
The American envoy to the Middle East, Morris Draper, essentially concluded that Sharon was being dishonest. Lawrence S. Eagleburger, then Secretary of State, remarked that “we appear to some to be the victim of deliberate deception by Israel.”[25]
During his conversation with Sharon, Draper understood that the United States did not fully endorse Sharon’s aggressive plans. Nevertheless, Sharon proceeded to act on his own terms. It was reported that Draper told Sharon, “You should be ashamed. The situation is absolutely appalling. They’re killing children! You have the field completely under your control and are therefore responsible for that area.”[26]
In the aftermath of the massacre, President Ronald Reagan, himself a Zionist, expressed outrage. Secretary of State George P. Shultz acknowledged that the United States had effectively become an accomplice, allowing Israel to manipulate U.S. policy to facilitate the slaughter of civilians. Yet no sanctions were imposed, and no concrete actions were taken. When asked why, Nicholas A. Veliotes, then Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, offered an indirect explanation: “Vintage Sharon. It is his way or the highway.”[27] Scholar Seth Anziska declares, “The Sabra and Shatila massacre severely undercut America’s influence in the Middle East, and its moral authority plummeted.”[28]
How might Hanson respond? Would he dismiss the archival evidence meticulously documented by Morris Draper and Ilan Pappe in their respective studies? Would he evade the fact that Israel has often acted as a destabilizing force in the Middle East? The answer is likely that we will never know, because Hanson systematically avoids engaging with such historical scholarship. Instead, he prefers silence, selectively ignoring a substantial body of evidence that contradicts his narrative.
If you still doubt this, pick up Hanson’s recent book, The End of Everything. In it, he reads as if he’s on the verge of a heart attack at the mere thought of Iran possessing nuclear weapons. He writes:
“The specter of a soon to be nuclear theocratic Iran that professes it can survive a nuclear exchange, or at least find the ensuing postmortem paradise preferrable to the status quo ante bellum, ensures a dangerous state of affairs, especially amid recent proxy wars between Iran and nuclear Israel in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria.”[29]
What Hanson never dares to tell his readers is that Iran has signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, whereas Israel has not—and consistently insists on a double standard. Israel itself poses a global threat, declaring that if it falls, it will take the world down with it. Listen to Israeli historian Martin van Creveld’s chilling warning:
“We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force… We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.”[30]
Shouldn’t Hanson be concerned about this? Or is he so dazzled by Israeli and neocon propaganda that he cannot think clearly, leaving him both intellectually and historically crippled? Like his fellow neocons, Hanson will never consult objective, scholarly materials that challenge his thesis on Iran and Israel. For instance, he won’t touch Trita Parsi’s trilogy on Iran, published by Yale University Press, nor will he engage with studies such as Intelligence and U.S. Foreign Policy: Iraq, 9/11, and Misguided Reform—apparently because doing so would undermine his neoconservative agenda.[31]
Hanson’s 2021 book, The Dying Citizen: How Progressive Elites, Tribalism, and Globalization Are Destroying the Idea of America, is nothing short of propaganda. Why? Because a look at the very foundations of the United States reveals that the Founding Fathers themselves rejected the notion of making unconditional alliances with any foreign power—let alone Israel. So how did Hanson and his neocon allies become defenders of a country that has brought nothing but misery to the United States? The term “progressive elites” might be more aptly applied to Hanson and his cohort, as they have sought to fundamentally alter the principles articulated by the Founding Fathers.
In The Dying Citizen, Hanson risibly declares that he is deeply concerned about “how putting global concerns above national interests insidiously erodes the financial health, freedoms, and safety of Americans. In blunter terms, when American elites feel their first concerns are with the world community abroad rather than with the interests of their own countrymen, there are consequences for American citizens.”[32] Does this man ever look in the mirror and realize that he too has contributed to the economic disaster that followed the Iraq War—a war that will cost the United States at least six trillion dollars?[33] Think for a moment: what could a single country do with such an enormous sum? Virtually every American could have access to decent health care and an affordable college education. Yet Hanson cannot confront these fundamental issues because he remains blinded by the neoconservative and Israeli agenda.
Hanson reminds me of Thomas Sowell, who has offered many valuable insights in his books, yet Sowell too seems intellectually constrained by the Israeli propaganda machine. Much of what Sowell has written over the years—including Education: Assumptions versus History and Affirmative Action: An Empirical Study—is accurate. I must admit, I had to do some serious rethinking when I first read his assessment of slavery.
But Sowell is completely mistaken in his stance on the Middle East. He is essentially echoing what neocons have been asserting for years and appears trapped within the neoconservative worldview. In his 2010 book Dismantling America, Sowell declares:
“With Iran moving toward the development of nuclear weapons, we are getting dangerously close to that fatal point of no return on the world stage… The Iranian government itself is giving us the clearest evidence of what a nuclear Iran would mean, with its fanatical hate-filled declarations about wanting to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.”[34]
What was particularly striking about this extraordinary claim is that Sowell provided not a single piece of evidence for it—an intellectually embarrassing omission that undermines much of his own work. When I finished reading The Vision of the Anointed, I contacted Sowell to express my appreciation for his work, to which he politely replied, “Thank you.” However, after reading Dismantling America and asking him for evidence supporting some of his assertions, he never responded. He continues to warn about “the fatal danger of a nuclear Iran,” yet there is no way to assess these authoritative—and indeed dogmatic—claims because Sowell offers not a shred of evidence.
Sowell serves the neocons and warmongers in the United States in a manner similar to what Charles Murray does for neocon think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute. After supporting the invasion of Iraq for years and writing positively about progress there in works such as Intellectuals and Society,[35] Sowell later wrote in 2015: “Whether it was a mistake to invade Iraq in the first place is something that will no doubt be debated by historians and others for years to come.”[36] Sowell then advanced a claim that directly contradicts all available evidence regarding the Iraq War:
“But, despite things that could have been done differently in Iraq during the Bush administration, in the end President Bush listened to his generals and launched the military ‘surge’ that crushed the terrorist insurgents and made Iraq a viable country.”[37]
Iraq is a “viable country”? Sowell echoes the same tired mantra in Intellectuals and Society, insisting that the “Iraq surge” was a success—even in the face of abundant evidence proving otherwise. He writes: “Eventually, claims that the surge had failed as predicted faded away amid increasingly undeniable evidence that it had succeeded.”[38] Where has this man been living for the past ten years? One would have to be morally and intellectually blind to come up with such nonsense. Consider the perspective of retired U.S. Army Armor Branch officer and military historian Andrew J. Bacevich:
“Apart from a handful of deluded neoconservatives, no one believes that the United States accomplished its objectives in Iraq, unless the main objective was to commit mayhem, apply a tourniquet to staunch the bleeding, and then declare the patient stable while hastily leaving the scene of the crime… The fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq has exacted a huge price from the U.S. military—especially the army and the Marines. More than 6,700 soldiers have been killed so far in those two conflicts, and over fifty thousand have been wounded in action, about 22 percent with traumatic brain injuries. Furthermore, as always happens in war, many of the combatants are psychological casualties, as they return home with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or depression.
“The Department of Veterans Affairs reported in the fall of 2012 that more than 247,000 veterans of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars have been diagnosed with PTSD. Many of those soldiers have served multiple combat tours. It is hardly surprising that the suicide rate in the U.S. military increased by 80 percent from 2002 to 2009, while the civilian rate increased only 15 percent. And in 2009, veterans of Iraq were twice as likely to be unemployed as the typical American. On top of all that, returning war veterans are roughly four times more likely to face family-related problems like divorce, domestic violence and child abuse than those who stayed out of harm’s way.
“In 2011, the year the Iraq War ended, one out of every five active duty soldiers was on antidepressants, sedatives, or other prescription drugs. The incidence of spousal abuse spiked, as did the divorce rate among military couples. Debilitating combat stress reached epidemic proportions. So did brain injuries. Soldier suicides skyrocketed.”[39]
As Dismantling America progresses, it becomes clear that Sowell is entirely ensnared in the neoconservative matrix. He asserts, “Iran, for example, has for years ignored repeated U.N. resolutions and warnings against building nuclear facilities that can produce bombs.”[40] In 2012, Sowell wrote in the National Review that Iran was “well on its way to being able to produce more than the two bombs that were enough to force Japan to surrender in 1945.”[41]
This mantra has been repeated endlessly, yet no one has produced any scholarly or academic evidence to support it. In fact, the available scholarship directly refutes this frivolous claim. Paul R. Pillar, an academic and 28-year veteran of the CIA, has stated that Iran is not a threat to global peace. Remarkably, Pillar even made the controversial claim that we could coexist with Iran possessing nuclear weapons.[42] Sowell’s stance only confirms what Andrew J. Bacevich warned in 2012 in his article “How We Became Israel”:
“U.S. national-security policy increasingly conforms to patterns of behavior pioneered by the Jewish state. This ‘Israelification’ of U.S. policy may prove beneficial for Israel. Based on the available evidence, it’s not likely to be good for the United States.”[43]
Both Sowell and Hanson have, in effect, become ideological extensions of Israel—perpetuating hoaxes, fabrications, and at times outright falsehoods about the Israel–Palestine conflict and the broader Middle East. Consider Hanson’s statement that “the radical Iranian ayatollah Ali Khamenei could freely tweet about destroying Israel.”[44]
What have Iranian representatives actually been saying for more than fifty years? Khomeini once declared that “international Zionism is using the United States to plunder the oppressed people of the world.” To understand this statement properly, we must place it within its historical context. Khomeini coined the term “the Great Satan” in 1979 largely because he had witnessed firsthand what “international Zionism” and Western powers were doing throughout the Middle East and beyond. It’s important to remember that the Anglo-American coup in Iran in 1953 effectively vindicated much of Khomeini’s suspicion about foreign interference and exploitation.
“There is no crime America will not commit in order to maintain its political, economic, cultural, and military domination of those parts of the world where it predominates,” Khomeini said back in 1979. “By means of its hidden and treacherous agents [i.e., the Neoconservatives and other warmongers], it sucks the blood of the defenseless people as if it alone, together with its satellites, had the right to live in this world. Iran has tried to sever all its relations with this Great Satan and it is for this reason that it now finds wars imposed upon it.”[45]
Khomeini’s uncomfortable yet largely accurate observation remains relevant today. If anyone doubts this, they need only look at how Israel and the neocons in the United States have systematically contributed to the destruction of one Middle Eastern nation after another—from Iraq and Afghanistan to Syria and Libya. It must also be noted that these figures show little genuine concern for the well-being of the American people. Their priority has long been the pursuit of an aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East that consistently serves particular geopolitical interests rather than U.S. national ones. As my colleague Vladimir Golstein of Brown University once remarked, neoconservatives are incapable of understanding political reality.[46] In that sense, they cannot construct a coherent worldview without resorting to double standards. Scholar Michael MacDonald has documented this tendency in detail:
“As [the Neocons] were mocking Clinton in the late 1990s as cowardly for his caution in the face of Saddam’s brutality, central Africa was engulfed in war and chaos. Around 5,400,000 people, mostly in Congo, perished in the convulsions and the starvation and disease they caused from 1998 to 2003.
“Yet the Weekly Standard, a reliable guide to neoconservative priorities, published just two stories on Congo during these years. In the same time span it published 279 articles on Iraq. Neoconservatives were bent on projecting power in the Middle East, not on engaging in humanitarian do-goodism.”[47]
The fact that Khomeini emphasized “international Zionism” shows that his criticism was not directed at ordinary Americans—most of whom have little understanding of the geopolitical realities in the Middle East—but at the powerful political and ideological networks that have shaped U.S. policy there for decades. His warning pointed to the continuing suffering of Palestinians since 1948, a reality well documented by numerous human-rights organizations. If one prefers more recent examples, the wars and interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, and Syria provide ample evidence of how destructive these policies have been.
Hanson objects to Iran’s use of expressions such as “the Zionist regime,” suggesting that such terminology reflects an illegitimate or hostile stance that must be rejected. Yet, he never addresses how figures within the Israeli establishment—including certain rabbis and political leaders—have themselves described Palestinians and Arabs in dehumanizing terms. For example, Rabbi Yaacov Perrin once stated, “One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail,”[48] while MK Rabbi Eli Ben-Dahan referred to Palestinians as “beasts, not human.” Ben-Dahan further asserted that “a Jew always has a much higher soul than a gentile, even if he is a homosexual.”[49]
Were such remarks uttered by religious or political figures in a Muslim-majority country, they would undoubtedly provoke international outrage and intense media scrutiny. Yet when similar statements emanate from Israeli officials, they are largely ignored or downplayed by major Western outlets. This double standard raises important ethical and political questions. How can Middle Eastern nations be expected to engage in meaningful cooperation with Israel when the Israeli leadership and certain religious authorities display open contempt for the very people with whom they must coexist? More importantly, why do historians such as Hanson fail to meaningfully engage with these issues in any of their books? Listen to Hanson very carefully in his book Between War and Peace Lessons from Afghanistan to Iraq:
“Palestinians appeal to the American public on grounds that three or four times as many of their own citizens have died as Israelis. The crazy logic is that in war the side that suffers the most casualties is either in the right or at least should be the winner. Some Americans nursed on the popular ideology of equivalence find this attractive. But if so, they should then sympathize with Hitler, Tojo, Kim Il Sung, and Ho Chi Minh, who all lost more soldiers —and civilians—in their wars against us than we did. Perhaps a million Chinese were casualties in Korea, ten times the number of Americans killed, wounded, and missing. Are we, then, to forget that the Communists crossed the Yalu River to implement totalitarianism in the south—and instead agree that their catastrophic wartime sacrifices were proof of American culpability? Palestinians suffer more casualties than Israelis not because they wish to, or because they are somehow more moral —but because they are not as adept in fighting real soldiers in the fullfledged war that is growing out of their own intifada.We are told that Palestinian civilians who are killed by the Israeli Defense Forces are the moral equivalent of slaughtering Israeli civilians at schools, restaurants, and on buses. That should be a hard sell for Americans after September 11, who are currently bombing in Afghanistan to ensure that there are not more suicide murderers on our shores. This premise hinges upon the acceptance that the suicide bombers’ deliberate butchering of civilians is the same as the collateral damage that occurs when soldiers retaliate against other armed combatants.”[50]
It is important to note that Hanson, as a historian, makes these claims without citing a single serious scholarly source to substantiate them. A considerable body of balanced academic research exists that he appears to have disregarded, including works produced by Israeli and Zionist historians such as Benny Morris and others.[51] Morris declared unambiguously:
“A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on.”[52]
Does Hanson genuinely maintain that the Palestinians themselves are to blame for the process of ethnic cleansing carried out under the pretext of combating terrorism? Only an Israeli or Zionist ideologue could plausibly sustain the kind of argument that Hanson is advancing.
Moreover, people like Hanson would never have the intellectual courage to address the issue of Jewish terrorism,[53] as doing so would evidently undermine the foundations of their otherwise unsubstantiated arguments. Israel has even been implicated in acts of terrorism against the United States,[54] yet this remains of little concern to Neocon puppets such as Hanson, who continue to promote the view that support for Israel is necessary.[55]
Notes
[1] Victor Davis Hanson, The Savior Generals: How Five Great Commanders Saved Wars That Were Lost—From Ancient Greece to Iraq (New York: Bloomsbury Books, 2013), chapter 5.
[2] Victor Davis Hanson, The Father of Us All: War and History—Ancient and Modern (New York: Bloomsbury Books, 2010), 12.
[3] See for example Vincent Bugliosi, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder (New York: Perseus Books, 2008).
[4] See for example Paul R. Pillar, Intelligence and U.S. Foreign Policy: Iraq, 9/11, and Misguided Reform (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011); Murray Friedman, The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005); Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); Bob Drogin, Curveball: Spies, Lies, and the Con Man Who Caused a War (New York: Random House, 2007); John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (New York: 2007). More scholarly studies have been published recently Stephen M. Walt, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy (New York: Farrar & Straus, 2007); More scholarly studies have been published recently: Michael MacDonald, Overreach: Delusion of Regime Change in Iraq (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2014); John M. Schuessler, Deceit on the Road to War: Presidents, Politics, and American Democracy (New York: Cornell University Press, 2015).
[5] See Karen J. Geenberg and Joshua L. Dratel, eds., The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004); Lila Rajiva, The Language of Empire: Abu Ghraib and the American Media (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2005); Alfred McCoy, A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation, From the Cold War to the War on Terror (New York: Owl Books, 2006); Mark Danner, Torture and Truth: America, Abu Ghraib, and the War on Terror (New York: New York Review of Books, 2004); Dana Priest and Joe Stephens, “Secret World of U.S. Interrogation,” Washington Post, May 11, 2004; for similar reports, see Jane Mayer, “The Black Sites: A Rare Look inside the C.IA.’s Secret Interrogation Program,” New Yorker, August 13, 2007; Craig Whitlock, “Jordan’s Spy Agency: Holding Cell for the CIA,” Washington Post, December 1, 2007. Jane Mayer, The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals (New York: Anchor Books, 2009).
[6] David Hackett Fischer, Washington’s Crossing (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004).
[7] Cited in Mark Danner, Torture and Truth: America, Abu Ghraib, and the War on Terror (New York: New York Review of Books, 2004), 243.
[8] Susan Taylor Martin, “Her Job: Lock Up Iraq’s Bad Guys,” St. Petersburg Times, December 14, 2003.
[9] Alfred McCoy, A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation, From the Cold War to the War on Terror (New York: Owl Books, 2006), 132.
[10] See for example Alissa J. Rubin, “Anti-Torture Efforts in Afghanistan Failed, U.N. Says,” NY Times, January 20, 2013.
[11] Karen J. Geenberg and Joshua L. Dratel, eds., The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004).
[12] See for example Lila Rajiva, The Language of Empire: Abu Ghraib and the American Media (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2005), 167.
[13] Victor Davis Hanson, “On Loathing Bush: It’s Not About What He Does,” National Review, August 13, 2004.
[14] Victor Davis Hanson, “Catching up With Correspondence,” PJ Media, June 20, 2008.
[15] Thomas E. Ricks, “Fear Factor,” NY Times, October 5, 2012.
[16] “Iran’s Jewish parliamentarian calls Netanyahu an ‘insane vampire’ over Persia comparison,” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, March 14, 2017.
[17] Victor Davis Hanson, “Israel Did It!: When in Doubt, Shout About Israel,” National Review, December 15, 2006.
[18] Victor Davis Hanson, “The New Anti-Semitism,” Hoover.org, March 28, 2012.
[19] Ibid.
[20] See for example Zeev Sternhell , The Founding Myths of Israel (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998); Ilan Pappe, The Forgotten Palestinians: A History of the Palestinians in Israel (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011); Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee: Problem Revisited (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003); Ilan Pappe , The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (London: One World Publications, 2007). Benny Morris, 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008).
[21] Ari Shavit, “Survival of the Fittest? an Interview with Benny Morris,” Counterpunch, May 23, 2010.
[22] Seth Anziska, “A Preventable Massacre,” NY Times, September 16, 2012.
[23] Ibid.
[24] See “Declassified Documents Shed Light on a 1982 Massacre,” NY Times, September 16, 2012.
[25] Anziska, “A Preventable Massacre,” NY Times, September 16, 2012.
[26] Thomas E. Ricks, “Fear Factor,” NY Times, October 5, 2012.
[27] Anziska, “A Preventable Massacre,” NY Times, September 16, 2012.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Victor Davis Hanson, The End of Everything: How Wars Descend into Annihilation (New York: Basic Books, 2024), kindle edition.
[30] Quoted in “The War Game,” Guardian, September 21, 2003.
[31] Trita Parsi , Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008); A Single Roll of the Dice: Obama’s Diplomacy with Iran (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012); Losing an Enemy: Obama, Iran, and the Triumph of Diplomacy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017); Paul R. Pillar, Intelligence and U.S. Foreign Policy: Iraq, 9/11, and Misguided Reform (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011); John J. Mearsheimer, Why Leaders Lie: The Truth About Lying in International Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011) .
[32] Victor Davis Hanson, The Dying Citizen: How Progressive Elites, Tribalism, and Globalization Are Destroying the Idea of America (New York: Basic Books, 2012), 269.
[33] Ernesto Londono, “Study: Iraq, Afghan war costs to top $4 trillion,” Washington Post, March 28, 2013; Bob Dreyfuss, The $6 Trillion Wars,” The Nation, March 29, 2013; “Iraq War Cost U.S. More Than $2 Trillion, Could Grow to $6 Trillion, Says Watson Institute Study,” Huffington Post, May 14, 2013; Mark Thompson, “The $5 Trillion War on Terror,” Time, June 29, 2011; “Iraq war cost: $6 trillion. What else could have been done?,” LA Times, March 18, 2013.
[34] Thomas Sowell, Dismantling America (New York: Basic Books, 2010), 48.
[35] Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society (New York: Basic Books, 2009), chapter 7.
[36] Thomas Sowell, “Who Lost Iraq?,” Jewish World Review, June 9, 2015.
[37] Ibid.
[38] Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, 271.
[39] Andrew Bacevich, Breach of Trust: How Americans Failed their Soldiers and Their Country (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2013), 94, 105.
[40] Sowell, Dismantling America, 31.
[41] Thomas Sowell, “Democrats, God, and Jerusalem,” National Review, September 11, 2012.
[42] Paul R. Pillar, “Waltz and Iranian Nukes,” National Interest, June 20, 2012. Paul R. Pillar, “We Can Live with a Nuclear Iran,” Washington Monthly, March/April 2012.
[43] Andrew J. Bacevich, “How We Became Israel,” American Conservative, September 10, 2012.
[44] Hanson, The Dying Citizen, 342.
[45] Quoted in E. Michael Jones, “The Great Satan and Me: Reflections on Iran and Postmodernism’s Faustian Pact,” Culture Wars, July/August, 2015.
[46] Jonas E. Alexis and Vladimir Golstein, “Globalists and Neocons Prove Incapable of Understanding Reality,” VT, July 4, 2016.
[47] Michael MacDonald, Overreach: Delusions of Regime Change in Iraq (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2014), 100.
[48] Quoted in Clyde Haberman, “West Bank Massacre; Israel Orders Tough Measures Against Militant Settlers,” NY Times, February 28, 1994.
[49] Philip Weiss, “Netanyahu deputy charged with administering Palestinians says they are ‘beasts, not human,’” Mondoweiss.com, May 9, 2015.
[50] Victor Davis Hanson, Between War and Peace Lessons from Afghanistan to Iraq (New York: Random House, 2004), 23-24.
[51] See for example Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998); Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-2001 (New York: Vintage, 2001); 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008); Ilan Pappe, The Forgotten Palestinians: A History of the Palestinians in Israel (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011); The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (London: Oneworld Publications, 2007); Sara Roy, Hamas and Civil Society in Gaza (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013).
[52] Ari Shavit, “Survival of the Fittest: An Interview with Benny Morris,” Counterpunch, May 23, 2010.
[53] Ami Pedahzur and Arie Perliger, Jewish Terrorism in Israel (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011); Ronen Bergman, Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations (New York: Random House, 2019).
[54] James Scott, The Attack on the Liberty: The Untold Story of Israel’s Deadly 1967 Assault on a U.S. Spy Ship (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2009); James M. Ennes, Assault on the Liberty (New York: Random House, 1979); A. Jay Cristol, The Liberty Incident: The 1967 Israeli Attack on the U.S. Navy Spy Ship (Dulles, VA: Bassey’s Inc., 2002).
[55] Hanson, Between War and Peace, chapters 10-14.
Toxic AIPAC
By Adam Dick | Peace and Prosperity Blog | October 16, 2025
On Wednesday, Seth Moulton, a Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives from Massachusetts, announced he is running for the US Senate in a Democratic primary challenge to incumbent Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA). The next day, Moulton made another announcement — that he is returning all contributions he has received from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and refusing to accept any more AIPAC donations or support.
Is the timing coincidence for this candidate who has received AIPAC money while in the House, or has Moulton’s nascent Senate campaign recognized it can do better in its primary challenge against Markey if Moulton can disassociate himself from AIPAC? The latter seems the likely answer. AIPAC is disliked by many people for its pulling of levers behind the scenes to ensure Congress members keep supporting the US government giving massive financial and military support to the Israel government despite opposition from the American public.
AIPAC can and does give candidates a lot of money. But, at least for some campaigns, the toxicity of being connected to AIPAC can impose a cost greater than the benefit AIPAC’s money can buy.
How MI6 built Syria’s extremist police
By Kit Klarenberg | Al Mayadeen | October 16, 2025
On September 19th, in a speech marking the end of his five-year tenure as MI6 chief, Richard Moore hailed the achievements of Britain’s foreign spying agency under his watch. Key among the stated gains was “the end of 53 years of the Assads in Syria.” He openly admitted MI6 “forged a relationship” with HTS, Damascus’ Al-Qaeda and ISIS-tied presumptive rulers – “a year or two before they toppled Bashar.” Moore went on to boast:
“Syria is a good example of where, if you can get ahead of events, it really helps when they suddenly, unexpectedly move at a faster pace. This nimbleness is a fundamental requirement for MI6 – and I think we remain pretty good at it. John Ratcliffe, the CIA director, while discussing a piece of joint business, said to me recently: ‘You guys can really hustle.’”
Al Mayadeen English has previously exposed how HTS was groomed for power for years prior to its violent palace coup in December 2024 by Inter-Mediate, an MI6-adjacent consulting firm run by Jonathan Powell. A key architect of the criminal 2003 Anglo-American Iraq invasion, he now serves as British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s national security adviser, coincidentally taking up the position mere days before HTS illegitimately proclaimed themselves Syria’s government. It’s been subsequently revealed that Inter-Mediate has maintained a dedicated office in Syria’s Presidential Palace ever since.
Moore’s fresh admissions, while vague, offer further confirmation that London’s foreign spying agency has a longstanding relationship with HTS, which remains a proscribed terrorist group under British law. A key, confirmed mechanism by which MI6 entrenched HTS’ power in north west Syria over the years before the extremist group’s seizure of power was by financing and managing, via cutouts, “moderate opposition service provision”. This took the form of entities including the infamous White Helmets, which supposedly provided “demonstrations of a credible alternative” to Bashar Assad’s government.
While the clandestine efforts were ostensibly intended to weaken HTS’ hold on power and push “moderate” groups, leaked documents indicate British spooks were well-aware these initiatives were cementing the group’s credibility as a governance actor, assisting its “growing influence”, and meant many Syrians regarded HTS as “synonymous with opposition to Assad.” Eerily, the same documents note the group and its armed affiliates – including Al-Qaeda – were “less likely to attack opposition entities that are receiving support” from British intelligence, such as the White Helmets.
We are now left to ponder whether British-run “service providers” were explicitly left alone because of MI6’s secret relationship with HTS. In this context, the earliest and most obvious indication of a dark alliance between London and Syria’s new rulers may date back to January 2019, when HTS took power outright in north west Syria. Almost instantly, the Free Syrian Police, a British-created “moderate opposition service” provider, was formally dissolved. Its members were then invited to continue their activities under HTS’ banner.
‘Revolutionary Entities’
Like the White Helmets, the FSP were components of a wider effort by London to establish a series of statelets across occupied Syria, complete with parallel governance structures staffed by locals trained and funded by Britain, the EU, and US. Western propaganda and media reporting – heavily influenced by MI6 – universally portrayed these breakaway colonies as “moderate” success stories. In reality, they were deeply chaotic and dangerous, run by murderous violent factions, often under obscenely strict interpretations of Sharia Law.
In March 2017, the BBC published a fawning profile of the FSP, noting its British funding, and claiming the group “demonstrates to Syrians that it is not necessary to carry weapons in order to administer law and order in the country.” The British state broadcaster repeatedly stressed, the FSP “does not co-operate with extremist groups.” However, nine months later, it was revealed that London’s “moderate” police force enjoyed intimate relationships with multiple extremist groups, including HTS forerunner Jabhat al-Nusra.
Several FSP stations were found to be closely linked to and take directions from extremist courts run by these militants, which executed citizens who violated local extremist legal codes. FSP operatives were also not only present when women were stoned to death for disobeying al-Nusra’s extreme codes, but even closed roads to allow executions to take place. Meanwhile, portions of sums sent to the FSP by its foreign sponsors were regularly handed over to extremist factions for “military and security support”.
While these disclosures caused a scandal, and British funding for the FSP was temporarily suspended, it was reinstated within mere weeks, sparking outcry among aid experts. Officials justified their decision on unstated “mitigating context” to the revelations, and the issues in question being “already known” by the Foreign Office. Indeed, leaked documents reviewed by Al Mayadeen English indicate close collaboration with extremist groups and courts was hardwired into the FSP from the group’s inception, and not concealed from donors.
The documents, submitted to the Foreign Office by ARK – founded by MI6 veteran Alistair Harris – noted the FSP were “revolutionary entities who share a general ideological affinity with the Syrian rebels,” conducting “rudimentary policing operations” in opposition-controlled territory. FSP stations varied significantly “in terms of their effectiveness, their mandate and their overall level of organisation” in the areas comprising their beat. “Their authority” was dependent on “several factors, the most important of which” were:
“The strength of the relationship between an FSP station and local armed groups; the centrality of an FSP station in the work of a local rebel court or other judicial structure; the sophistication and maturity of an FSP station’s overarching command structure.”
‘Direct Engagement’
The leaks further state, “FSP networks enjoy the strongest relations with more moderate Syrian rebel groups.” Yet, chief among “key armed groups that have established relationships with FSP stations” was Nur al-Din al-Zinki. The group was said to have greatly “empowered” FSP offices across occupied Aleppo, establishing the force “as primary policing bodies in towns in which it is strong.” In reality, Nur al-Din al-Zinki didn’t adhere to any meaningful definition of the term “moderate”.
During the initial years of the foreign-fomented Syrian civil war, the group committed countless horrendous atrocities, including beheading a Palestinian teenager in 2016. Its fighters subsequently joined HTS en masse. The readiness of ARK – and by extension British intelligence – to rub shoulders with dangerous armed elements is writ large in another leaked file, outlining potential risks to the project. If “armed actors” denied the FSP “operating space”, ARK would conduct “direct engagement” with the relevant militants to resolve the issue.
Other hazards included almost inevitable submission of “fraudulent invoices” by FSP operatives, and “significant physical risk” to them, “including possible assassination of police or justice actors.” Still, the British were so keen on the project, millions were pumped into the force over many years, with sophisticated communications equipment and vehicles provided. ARK also looked ahead to rebel groups increasing their “influence and territorial reach” in Syria, believing this would “[yield] benefits for the FSP” and expand its sphere of operations.
Fast forward to today, and courtesy of HTS, the British-created FSP is now Syria’s national police force. Ever since Assad’s fall, they have acted accordingly, brutally repressing internal dissent, while standing by as the new government’s militants massacre Alawites and other religious minorities in the country. Just as Inter-Mediate’s office in Damascus’ Presidential palace raises grave questions about the extent of London’s control over HTS, we must ask who all past beneficiaries of “moderate opposition service provision” in the country are truly working for.
As The National reported in February, the White Helmets have been formally invited by Syria’s HTS-run Health Ministry to “run the emergency services countrywide.” The creation of such groups years prior to Assad’s ouster is a palpable example of the ability of “hustlers” in British intelligence to “get ahead of events” in Moore’s phrase, and ensure MI6 has the people, organisations and structures in place to effectively take over countries if and when an enemy government falls.
How an Israeli-backed firm spied on US churches to push propaganda
Al Mayadeen | October 15, 2025
A new firm called Show Faith by Works has launched a geofencing campaign targeting Christian churches and colleges across the American Southwest with pro-“Israel” advertisements, a covert operation exposed in a striking investigation by Nick Cleveland-Stout, a Research Associate in the Democratizing Foreign Policy program at the Quincy Institute, and published by Responsible Statecraft.
The operation appears to be conducted without the awareness or consent of many pastors and congregations, some of whom have expressed alarm over the use of such invasive digital targeting by “Israel”.
According to the company’s filing under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), the project aims to “geofence the actual boundaries of every Major (sic) church in California, Arizona, Nevada, and Coloardo (sic) and all Christian Colleges during worship times,” allowing the firm to “track attendees and continue to target [them] with ads” on behalf of “Israel”.
The geofencing component forms part of a broader $3.2 million contract, which also involves recruiting celebrity endorsers and compensating pastors to create pro-Israel content.
No knowledge of campaign
Responsible Statecraft contacted hundreds of churches listed as potential targets in the campaign; none reported prior knowledge of it. “We were not aware of that, no—you are the first to bring that to our attention,” said the press office of Bethel Church in Redding, California.
Project manager Chad Schnitger told RS via email that the advertisements may include “invitations for Christians to visit one of our upcoming Mobile Museum exhibits, or to go to our website to learn more about the program, or to visit Israel with your church.” The firm’s pitch deck reportedly described the ads as “pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian.”
The Mobile Museum referenced by Schnitger is a traveling exhibit housed in a trailer that visits churches and Christian colleges. It displays footage of Israeli occupation forces describing the “difficulty of fighting bad guys in hostile territory with civilians.” Schnitger said the first exhibit will begin touring within a month.
Privacy nightmare
Geofencing, the technology underpinning the campaign, allows marketers to identify and target mobile devices within a defined geographic area. When users enter or leave a specific boundary, they can receive targeted advertisements, texts, or in-app notifications, a tactic long used by commercial brands to reach nearby customers.
Megan Iorio, Senior Counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, described geofencing as a “privacy nightmare”. In an interview for RS, she explained that data brokers collect location data from apps and sell it to marketing firms or use it to deliver hyper-targeted ads. “For example,” she said, “a user might see an H&M ad simply by walking within a certain distance of one of its stores.”
While Schnitger defended the campaign as a “one-way ad push” and said media coverage had been “sensationalized”, Iorio emphasized that the practice remains “incredibly invasive”. She added, “The fact it has become so common and that foreign governments are now using it for targeted, precise influence campaigns shows how much we need regulation to stamp down on the practice. It is so invasive and has national security implications.”
‘Warfare language’
Community members listed as potential targets share those concerns. Micah, a mechanical engineer from Colorado Springs, said he has been warning local pastors and news outlets after discovering that seven area churches appeared in the firm’s geofencing documents. “What jumps out immediately is how the entire document talks about Christians as targets to be manipulated. This isn’t respectful outreach, it’s warfare language,” he wrote in a memo obtained by RS.
Micah also raised concerns about the firm’s plan to pay pastors for producing content. The firm’s proposal includes stipends for “individual guest pastors, bilingual pastors, or pastors who match target demographics to record messages based on content creation targets.” According to Micah, this “creates financial conflicts of interest where religious leaders become financially dependent on foreign government messaging, compromising their independence and integrity.”
His brother Asa, who attends Scottsdale Bible Church in Arizona, one of the listed churches, agreed, saying the initiative reflects “Israel’s” waning influence among young Americans. “This entire project is an attempt to regain the attention and hearts/support of Gen Z through the use of religious manipulation,” he said. Both brothers requested anonymity for security reasons.
Schnitger, however, expressed confidence that the campaign would help sway public opinion. “For those who dislike Israel, maybe some of these exhibits and materials will change your mind,” he said, adding that the firm’s messaging highlights how “[P]alestinian and Iranian goals are not land-focused, but genocidal.”
‘Project 545’
Not all responses were positive. Timothy Feldman, a software engineer from Plano, Texas, said he was “disgusted” to learn his church was listed among “Israel’s” potential targets. “I am disgusted that a genocidal apartheid state is attempting to whitewash its atrocities by propagandizing the good people of Christ United Methodist Church,” Feldman told RS in an email.
Although churches in Texas were included in the pitch deck, Schnitger clarified that the firm “is not doing anything in Texas at this time.” A church worker in Prescott, Arizona, whose church was also listed, told RS that community reaction is uncertain. “The demographics in Prescott tend to be pro-Israel, so it’s hard to know how the church leadership will react to this. All we can do is make people aware of it,” he said, requesting anonymity.
Oversight of the campaign reportedly falls to Eran Shayovich, Chief of Staff at “Israel’s” Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Shayovich is leading “Project 545”, described as a campaign to “amplify Israel’s strategic communication and public diplomacy efforts.” He also serves as a contact for Brad Parscale, former campaign manager for Donald Trump, who is said to be coordinating efforts to train ChatGPT and integrate pro-“Israel” messaging into conservative media.
Some US states have begun restricting geofencing and the trade of location data. Oregon passed a law in June banning the sale of precise geolocation information, following Maryland’s earlier legislation. At the federal level, former FTC Chair Lina Khan prohibited several major data brokers from collecting or selling location data from sensitive sites, such as churches and military bases, without explicit consent. However, thousands of smaller firms still operate freely, leaving places of worship vulnerable to digital tracking and manipulation.
Jacques Baud: Borderless Israel & Gaza Pause
Glenn Diesen | October 14, 2025
Colonel Jacques Baud is a former military intelligence analyst in the Swiss Army and the author of many books. Baud discusses the temporary pause in the Gaza conflict and the absence of a new status quo and clear Israeli borders.
Hungary cannot meet energy demands without Russia – FM
Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto. © Getty Images / Sefa Karacan; Anadolu
RT | October 15, 2025
Hungary cannot meet its energy needs without Russian oil and gas and has no intention of abandoning supplies, Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has said. Speaking at the Russian Energy Week forum in Moscow, Szijjarto stressed that Hungary’s energy security depends on existing supply routes and long-term contracts with Russian companies.
Brussels has repeatedly demanded that all EU members cut off ties with Moscow and stop purchasing Russian energy. Szijjarto said Hungary has been pressured to refuse Russian deliveries in the name of “diversifying” its imports, but dismissed the argument as “insane” and “completely illogical.” He questioned how abandoning one source of energy could possibly be described as diversification.
The minister warned that if Hungary were cut off from Russian gas supplies, it “will not be able to ensure the necessary fuel supplies.” He said the same applies to Russian crude oil delivered via the southern branch of the Druzhba pipeline. According to Szijjarto, other hydrocarbon routes cannot currently replace the volumes provided through the TurkStream gas pipeline and the Druzhba network.
Szijjarto praised Hungary’s cooperation with Russian energy companies, noting that they have never failed to meet contractual obligations. “If we needed more, they provided more; if we needed less, they provided less. Contract terms have always been honored, so why should we suddenly sever these relations?” he said. The minister added that thanks to its partnership with Russia, Hungary remains in a secure position regarding energy supplies.
The EU has called for a complete phase-out of Russian energy imports by 2027, though several member states, including Hungary and Slovakia, continue to rely on Russian crude delivered via Druzhba. In recent months, Ukrainian attacks on energy infrastructure connected to the pipeline have intensified, worsening tensions between Kiev and Budapest.
Szijjarto has said the strikes on Druzhba amount to an attack on Hungary’s sovereignty and urged the EU to ensure the security of the bloc’s energy supplies.
Moscow has described Brussels’ efforts to abandon Russian energy in favor of more expensive US alternatives as “suicidal.”
NATO must buy more US arms for Ukraine – Pentagon chief
RT | October 15, 2025
European NATO members should purchase more American-made weapons to sustain Ukraine’s war effort against Russia, US War Secretary Pete Hegseth said on Wednesday ahead of a meeting of the bloc’s defense ministers.
Moscow has repeatedly stated that Western arms shipments cannot change the balance of power on the battlefield, arguing that Ukraine’s chronic manpower shortage, fueled by mass draft avoidance and desertion, undermines any material advantage.
Speaking alongside NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, Hegseth praised the Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List (PURL) initiative and said the European members must spend more funds through it.
“Our expectation today is that more countries donate even more, that they purchase even more to provide for Ukraine,” Hegseth said. Rutte noted there was “firepower coming out of our defense industry” to bolster Ukrainian forces.
US President Donald Trump recently claimed that with European funding for American weapons, Ukraine could still achieve its territorial goals – a reversal of his earlier assessment that the county had “no cards” to play. Trump is expected to soon announce whether the US will approve deliveries of long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles to Kiev, a move Moscow has warned would mark a serious escalation but would not significantly alter the frontline situation.
The Russian government has accused European backers of Kiev of prolonging the conflict at the expense of Ukrainian lives, arguing that the former are unwilling to admit the failure of their strategy.
Meanwhile, European NATO members continue to bear the economic fallout of their sanctions policy against Russia. Having rejected affordable Russian energy, many EU economies have faced surging production costs and widespread industrial bankruptcies, while the US has benefited from increased investment inflows and higher sales of liquefied natural gas to Europe.
Warsaw demands halt to Nord Stream sabotage probe – FT
RT | October 14, 2025
Germany is acting against NATO’s interests by continuing a criminal investigation into the Nord Stream pipeline sabotage, Poland’s national security chief, Slawomir Cenckiewicz, has claimed, urging Berlin to shut down the probe.
The Nord Stream pipelines, which carried Russian gas to Germany under the Baltic Sea, were severely damaged by underwater explosions in September 2022. Russia, which led the pipeline project, called the incident an act of state terrorism, while Western states including Poland applauded the bombings.
German prosecutors have attributed the sabotage to a group of seven Ukrainian nationals who allegedly used a small rented yacht to carry out the attack. Moscow has dismissed that version as “ridiculous,” maintaining that the scale and complexity of the operation point to state involvement.
Several suspects have so far been detained across the EU, including one in Poland and another in Italy, for allegedly blowing up the pipelines. However, Warsaw has refused to extradite the suspect held in Poland to Berlin.
Cenckiewicz told Financial Times it was in Poland’s interest to protect anyone connected to the operation, calling the German probe “a clear contradiction in interests between Poland and Germany.” He said the investigation “doesn’t make sense, not only in terms of the interests of Poland but also the whole [NATO] alliance.”
Cenckiewicz argued that pursuing the cases “serves Russian injustice” and demanded an end to the probe, adding that Poland will not extradite the detained Ukrainian suspects.
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has also opposed extradition, saying “the problem with Nord Stream 2 is not that it was blown up, the problem is that it was built.”
Meanwhile, Russian officials have insisted that a state actor was likely behind the sabotage and have accused Germany of concealing evidence and excluding Moscow from the inquiry.
In 2023, veteran American journalist Seymour Hersh published a report alleging that the US, under then President Joe Biden’s orders, orchestrated the sabotage using Navy divers with Norwegian support during the NATO exercise BALTOPS 22. Washington and Oslo have denied the claim.
Talk of Sending Tomahawk Missiles to Ukraine is Calculated Psy-Op to Pressure Russia
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 14.10.2025
The US won’t allow strikes on Russian refineries, says Alexander Mikhailov, head of the Bureau of Military-Political Analysis.
Psy-op in the Making
“I don’t see any military prospects for using Tomahawks against Russia, except for attempts at informational blackmail and political pressure,” Mikhailov tells Sputnik.
No Tomahawks have been sent or launched, yet Western media frenzy suggests a pressure tactic.
It’s all connected:
- Washington raises the stakes by hinting at sending Tomahawks to Russia
- Western media, aligned with Washington, hype the story — discussing targets, launches, and control
- The impression is the missiles are already on their way
A Tomahawk launcher might even be rolled out at a test range somewhere simply for PR videos, Mikhailov suggests. But it would be similar to the Taurus missiles Germany promised: hyped by the media – yet still absent from Ukraine.
Washington Isn’t Suicidal
The Kremlin has repeatedly said Ukraine cannot launch Tomahawks on its own.
“Every Tomahawk fired at Russia from a US-made system by American crews would mark the start of a war between the US and Russia,” Mikhailov says.
- The idea of US-made Tomahawks striking energy infrastructure inside Russia is a fantasy
- Such an act would cross a red line that would trigger a response the US is 100% not ready for
- Russia’s updated nuclear doctrine explicitly states that a massive cruise missile attack (like a volley of Tomahawks) can be met with a NUCLEAR response
- Are the Americans ready to “collectively die” for this? The expert is clear: “I am absolutely sure, no.”
What Does the West Want?
The real target would be the “shadow fleet” moving Russian oil, according to the pundit. To that end, NATO holds provocative Baltic drills and tries to seize Russian ships.
The Nord Stream sabotage exemplifies economic attacks to choke Russia’s energy exports abroad.
West weaponizing laws to silence pro-Palestine activism: Study
Al Mayadeen | October 14, 2025
The right to protest is facing increasing restrictions across the West, The Guardian reported on Monday, citing a new study by the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), which accuses governments of criminalizing pro-Palestine activism and using counter-terrorism and antisemitism laws to stifle dissent.
The report focuses on the UK, US, France, and Germany, accusing authorities in these countries of “weaponizing” national security and anti-hate legislation to silence criticism of “Israel” and suppress demonstrations supporting Palestinian rights in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.
“This trend reflects a worrying shift towards the normalization of exceptional measures in dealing with dissenting voices,” Yosra Frawes, head of FIDH’s Maghreb and Middle East desk, told The Guardian.
Compiled from open-source data, witness accounts, and institutional reports gathered between October 2023 and September 2025, the study was released just one day after a US-brokered Gaza ceasefire that secured the release of all living Israeli captives and around 2,000 Palestinian detainees.
According to FIDH, restrictions on speech and assembly have extended beyond protests, impacting journalists, academics, and public officials who express solidarity with Palestinians.
In the United Kingdom, the organization found that protest rights have eroded under both Conservative and Labour administrations. The report points to the 2024 anti-protest law introduced by the Conservatives, later deemed unlawful, and to what it calls the Labour government’s continuation of “official narratives” justifying support for “Israel”.
It highlights former Home Secretary Suella Braverman‘s branding of pro-Palestine rallies as “hate marches”, arguing that this rhetoric “stigmatized support for Palestine and Palestinian resistance movements” and “worked to discriminate against Muslims and other racialized groups in the UK.”
FIDH says the change in government in July 2024 “did little to change official government narratives,” claiming Labour has linked criticism of “Israel” with “violent antisemitism” while continuing to target Muslim and racialized communities.
The tensions have been further inflamed by the Labour government’s ban on the activist network Palestine Action and its proposal to expand police powers at protests.
FIDH draws parallels across the Atlantic, where US authorities have detained demonstrators and pursued legal actions against individuals expressing solidarity with Palestine. In France, the government has faced criticism for banning pro-Palestine demonstrations in several cities and for dissolving the rights group Urgence Palestine.
Meanwhile, in Germany, protests have drawn thousands, but police tactics and restrictions on slogans deemed antisemitic, for the mere criticism of “Israel”, have been widely condemned as excessive. The report argues that Germany’s actions reflect a “collective discomfort” in balancing free expression with its postwar responsibility to combat what it classifies as “antisemitism”.
Freedom crisis
The federation recommends that the UK establish an independent oversight body for policing demonstrations and amend key legislation, Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and Section 11 of the Public Order Act 2023, to protect political speech and prevent arbitrary searches.
“Ultimately, the crackdown on solidarity with Palestinians reveals a profound crisis, not only of human rights in the occupied territories but of freedom itself, in societies that claim to be democratic,” the report concludes.
FIDH says that while legal frameworks vary among the UK, US, France, and Germany, the trend toward restricting Palestinian solidarity movements represents a global pattern of shrinking civic space, one that calls into question the credibility of Western nations as defenders of democratic freedoms.
How Zionist Influence in New York Gave Rise to Zohran Mamdani
By Matt Wolfson | The Libertarian Institute | October 14, 2025
Coverage of Zohran Mamdani’s run for New York City mayor is focused on the outsized politics at play in the race: democratic socialism, Islam, state-owned grocers, former Governor Andrew Cuomo, until recently incumbent Mayor Eric Adams, and President Donald Trump. But this risks missing the real story in New York, which is the decades-long creation and maintenance of a financialized, factionalized city of free market distortions and middle class displacement at the hands of powerful Zionists and their allies that led to backlash and Mamdani’s rise. Rewinding Mamdani’s catapault to politcal stardom reveals that New York’s current situation—its transition from a city hospitable to the working and middle classes and genuine free exchange of goods and services to a feudal one of government-backed financiers and service workers—is in many ways the work of a little more than a dozen Zionist financiers who twisted government to their ends.
Zionism in New York was part of a shift in the city begun by establishment-connected WASPs away from government by wards and organizers and toward rule by government-connected finance. The originator was Nelson Rockefeller, John D. Rockefeller’s grandson and the governor of New York from 1959 to 1973, who floated New York City’s bills by arranging for banks like Chase Manhattan (run by his brother David) to buy bonds. These new bonds covered the old bills even though the bonds were not backed by actual assets of the city’s but by anticipated returns; e.g. “tax anticipation bonds,” “bond anticipation notes,” and “moral obligation bonds.” This meant the city borrowed from the bankers, paid a portion of the interest, and borrowed again, while having no long-term way to pay back the full amount of ever-increasing debt.
The fix to this problem created by financiers came from financiers: a consortium set up in 1975 by Nelson Rockefeller, now vice president, to “solve” the city’s $6 billion debt. The consortium operated through various vehicles with names like the Municipal Assistance Corporation and the Emergency Financial Control Board and it achieved this “fixing” in a predictably self-interested way. It cut out of influence the city’s old political power brokers—Jewish, Irish, Italian, Puerto Rican, and black politicians with connections to their communities. It then executed a bait-and-switch. It cut city funds from supporting welfare and unions in the name of small government while actually redirecting those funds to support financial development via investing in a real estate boom driven by a handful of connected players that attracted new “talent” to the city.
The main beneficiaries were rising Wall Street power brokers, the most notable ones Zionist, for whom the 1980s was a kind of heyday. The roster included Laurence and Robert Tisch, Maurice “Hank” Greenberg, Michael Steinhardt, the Bronfmans, Michael Milken, Stephen Schwarzman, and high-end retailers like Victoria Secret’s Leslie Wexner and Leonard and Ronald Lauder, the sons of Estee Lauder and heirs to her fortune. One difficulty of critiquing a cohort like this is that the conflation of “Jewish power” and New York is an old trope, in part because New York has been, since the early twentieth century, a Jewish city. So it should be emphasized that this cohort was small and highly specific. It was distinct from older generations of New York Jews—not just Jewish ward players like Abraham Beame, New York’s last mayor under its old power dispensation, but Jewish financiers like Felix Rohatyn, who played a major role in stabilizing the city’s debt in the 1970s.
Players like Beame and Rohatyn had planted their stakes firmly in America and nowhere else. Having experienced the rise of the Nazi Party in an economically cratered Germany as a childhood reality, they were committed to creating the conditions for what they hoped would be lasting social peace. Zionists, by contrast, had their eye on the military-corporate apparatus and its ties to Israel, and they were not especially concerned with the effects of their actions on the ground. They also rejected what would become the mores of the majority of Jews and especially Jews of a later generation: intermarriage, mixing, diverse assimilation. Their style was self-consciously distinctive and gloves off, and beginning in the 1980s they executed an aggressive reinvention not just of the financial markets but of New York.
Part of this reinvention was done, much as the Rockefellers’ rise to influence in New York had been done, through philanthropy, but at a much greater scale. Among these Zionist players’ direct bequests were the Steinhardt Conservatory at the Bronx Botanic Gardens, the NYU Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development, the NYU Tisch School of the Arts, NYU Langone’s Tisch Hospital, the Tisch Galleries at the Metropolitan Museum, the Tisch Children’s Zoo in Central Park, the Leonard Lauder Galleries at the Metropolitan Museum and the Museum of Modern Art, Ronald S. Lauder’s Neue Museum, and the NYU Bronfman Center.
Another part of this reinvention was done through real estate, which, like Wall Street, was increasingly dominated by Zionists. Perhaps most notable among them was Lawrence D. Ackman of Ackman-Ziff, the firm which redeveloped West 34th Street, West 42nd Street, and Madison Avenue on the Upper East Side in the 1970s and 1980s and turned portions of 9th Avenue into the high-end Chelsea market in the 1990s.
So far, government had been indirectly incentivizing development; then, in the 2000s, government got directly involved. Philanthropy and real estate became direct tools of government with the mayoralty from 2002 to 2014 of Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire financial services provider and the man most connected to this class by Zionism and finance. Bloomberg’s projects pushed in one direction: using government policy and finance capital to redevelop the city to create a tourist and tech mecca. His opening gambit was re-zoning 40% of the city. He then filled those rezoned spaces with public-private projects—parks, high-rises, high-end department stores—displacing middle and working class New Yorkers and driving up rents for everyone else.
This was not a free market experiment, where the best contractor gets the development job or the philanthropic bequest. This was explicitly a project of wealthy and connected Zionists with ties to the mayor. As Leonard Lauder told it to The New York Times some years later, “When Mike Bloomberg was the mayor, he was the ultimate power broker. He would call me up on the phone and say, ‘I need this and this and this, OK?’” Hollywood Zionists who came East were mobilized too, notably the media executive Barry Diller and his wife, the designer Diane von Furstenburg, and the music producer David Geffen. So was a new generation of real estate Zionists like Steven M. Ross of Related Companies, the developer of Columbus Circle, and Gary Barnett of Extell Development Company, the son of a rabbi and former diamond trader with significant holdings in Israel. So, finally, was a new generation of Zionist financiers like the hedge fund operators Daniel Loeb and Bill Ackman, Lawrence Ackman’s son.
Development proceeded from there. Bill Ackman’s first wife Karen Herskovitz and Laurence Tisch’s niece Laurie Tisch were major backers of the public park The High Line and the High Line’s anchor building, the relocated Whitney Museum of American Art. This was Bloomberg’s pioneer re-development project: a park built on former railway lines that cut through the Lower West Side to Midtown West, from 4th to 34th Street. Barry Diller and Diane von Furstenberg provided the funds for Little Island off West 13th Street west of the High Line, which “replace[d] the dilapidated Pier 54, envisioning an extraordinary new pier combining public Park and performance space.” Stephen M. Ross, facilitated by Bloomberg and later backed by an infusion from the Saudi Public Investment Fund, developed Bloomberg’s culminating project: the mega-mall Hudson Yards on West 34th Street at the top of the High Line. Stephen Schwarzman donated $100 million to the New York Public Library. David Geffen donated $100 million to refurbish the New York Philharmonic, with the help of Leonard Lauder and Bloomberg confidante (and Zionist) Barbara Walters.
Then there was real estate. A bevy of “supertall” skyscrapers which cast shadows over the surrounding buildings and streets were developed by Gary Barnett’s Extell, among the most prolific developers in Manhattan. (The occupants of Extell’s and other supertall developments were mostly financial workers and Saudi princes, who complained when the buildings leaked from the inside and swayed in the wind.) Smaller versions of Extell’s developments appeared in Brooklyn neighborhoods, built with cheap materials and generally agreed by locals to be eyesores meant for purchase by out-of-towners. Imitators of these projects abounded, thanks to Bloomberg’s largesse via not just re-zoning but also his provision of incentives to developers and his personnel intercession to make some projects happen. During his mayoralty, seven of the twenty tallest buildings in the city were built, along with smaller towers in areas ranging from downtown Manhattan and Brooklyn to Harlem.
In all of these spaces, the natural circulation of neighborhoods, which depends on small businesses and schools and places of worship, was replaced by “excursion destinations” constructed with enormous capital investment from powerful financiers with access to government. These high rises, parks, and cultural centers and the luxury apartments surrounding them also functioned as surveillance spaces, with manicured lawns for “relaxation” flanked by buildings which were easy to watch and patrol. And they functioned as class filters, siphoning from Manhattan the middle income earners priced out by rising rents and replacing them with finance workers or wealthy foreign nationals looking for second apartment homes. These new arrivals, in turn, relied for their needs on a growing number of service workers working low-wage shifts in restaurants or at Doordash—many of them undocumented.
This finance-and-philanthropy-based surveillance-and-extraction model is quite similar to the fundamentals of the “Raze-and-Rebuild” program being pushed by prominent Zionists for Gaza: a space meant to be serviced by undocumenteds and inhabited by financiers and tourists once the “locals” are “relocated.” It is also quite similar to the cities of authoritarian regimes in West Asia and the Gulf States that rose in the 2010s. And there is past precedent for it in the developments of Paris and Berlin at the hands of authoritarian regimes of the nineteenth century—developments which immiserated the working and middle class of these cities and seeded the ground for the cycle of revolt and reaction that created fascism.
But these explicitly feudal parallels have gone almost completely unremarked on in New York, probably because Zionist financiers have also assumed positions at the helms of the city’s education system and media nexus.
At the hands of Laurence Tisch’s daughter-in-law Merryl Tisch, as Chair of the Board of Regents (in charge of education in New York state) she and her allies Andrew Cuomo and Michael Bloomberg put a focus on standardized testing in the name of “merit.” This functioned to place “high achieving” outer borough students into private or “special” schools in Manhattan rather than giving outer borough schools the resources to help these students represent their communities. At the hands of the longtime presidents of New York University and Columbia, the city’s two most powerful universities have expanded their footprints off the real estate boom and muted critiques of the crony corporatism behind it. Successive Zionist executives and op-ed editors of The New York Times and Conde Nast, which is owned since the 1980s by the Zionist Newhouse Family and publishes Vogue and Vanity Fair and The New Yorker, media coverage of New York has celebrated expansion, “modernization,” modernizers, and the celebrities and fashion innovations these shifts bring to the city. So has CBS News, owned by first the Tisches in the 1980s and 1990s and then the Redstones, another Zionist family, from the 1990s to the 2020s. Despite the quiet admonitions of older players like Felix Rohaytn against the dangers of this insularity, the fantasy of empire management has turned New York into something closer to nineteenth century Europe than anything Americans might recognize.
This project only continues faster today. Zionists like New York Times columnists Thomas Friedman and Ezra Klein are backing the “Abundance Agenda,” a spate of policies to fast-track building permits in urban areas across the nation to combat housing scarcity, which will accrue to the benefit of governmentally connected developers and financiers able to manage large-scale projects. Academics from MIT, the site of lavish donations from New York Zionist financiers like Jeffrey Epstein and Stephen Schwarzman, have been calling for New York to become a “leisure city” catering to tourists and younger workers in the finance industry.
Of course, just as there is backlash to colonization abroad, there is backlash to it at home. In the 1980s and 1990s, the backlash came in the form of crime, boycotts, and riots, and protests from leftwing activists and the leadership of black and Hispanic communities whose influence had waned after the 1970s. In the 2010s, these marginalized figures received a new infusion of outside energy from political progressives who had built up their power in universities and the arts using state grants, in effect commandeering parts of the institutions Zionists had funded to enhance their own control. These players brought media sophistication and an ideological agenda to the on-the-ground communal left which had been rudderless. Meantime, the on-the-ground left brought to the table a close connection to the communities at the stick end of Zionists’ policies. The realization of the success of this synthesis was the mayoralty of the progressive Bill De Blasio, who within three months of beginning his first term was publicly criticized by allies of Zionist philanthropists for failing to give them the attention they felt they were due.
Then, in the 2020s, came De Blasio’s successor, Zohran Mamdani, a more effective progressive (as De Blasio freely admits) on every level. Where De Blasio talked about a “tale of two cities” and universal Pre-K, Mamdani talked, over and over and in original ways, about affordability, and took direct aim at the enemies of affordability in New York, finance, and Zionism. Historically, as I have reported elsewhere, socialism and its ideological cousin redistributionism have occurred in America after long periods when finance twisted around the state and distorted its functions. At a certain point in these processes, Americans respond to a program pushing for government money to flow not toward financial firms or weapons contractors but directly to them. Indeed, Mamdani’s victory speech when he won the primary, which emphasized returning the city to serve the interests of the working people who make New York run, was an emblem of exactly what New Yorkers appear to be looking for.
Bill Ackman, Dan Loeb, and other members of the club of Zionist financial elites have sounded the alarm of creeping socialism since Mamdani’s victory, but they have not blamed themselves for creating the distortive conditions that led to it. In fact, they’ve done the opposite. They’ve turned to a characteristically Zionist—which is to say colonialist—solution to rising discontent. This is a solution which they’ve slowly been developing since the 1990s and which had its antecedents or parallels in nineteenth century Europe and the twenty-first century Middle East: techno-military law enforcement to control “restive populations.” As I will show in a coming report, if Andrew Cuomo wins on November 4, the militarist play being run by Zionists will continue without any meaningful check, since Cuomo is both a close Zionist ally and not known for his concern for civil liberties. If Mamdani wins, there may be checks on this militarism, but these checks will not be absolute. Instead, some measure of militarized law enforcement will coexist with socialist government expansion. Together, these could lead New York on a path toward government control across sectors: security, economy, politics, society.
Featured Video
When Israel Is Mighty
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
US murdering 1 million Iraqis is democracy, Iran giving yogurt to Iraq is “domination”
By Ali Salaam | American Herald Tribune | July 31, 2017
The New York Times, owned by the Zionist Jewish supremacist Ochs-Sulzberger family, has no problem with Iraqi suffering as long as Iran is not the one behind it.
The Iraq War was a genocide of the Iraqi people by Zionist supremacists in the Bush administration. Over 1 million innocent people were killed based on a lie. American soldiers died in an Israeli war and now an average of 22 soldiers commit suicide every day because their consciences cannot cope with the fact they committed crimes in an illegal war that served no purpose other than to benefit Israel, not America.
Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of the Zionist regime, once said “We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq.”
Paul Wolfowitz had his sights on Iraq since his time in the first Bush administration. Former Israeli official and Bush administration official Richard Perle had his eyes on Iraq since at least his authorship of the Clean Break white paper. The Zionist regime had their eyes on Iraq since the 1980s when strategist Oded Yinon wrote his white paper in support of dividing the Arab-Muslim world along ethnic and sectarian lines. The global Zionist lobby has had their eyes on Iraq since Theodor Herzl stated that Eretz Israel’s true borders go from the Nile River in Egypt to the Euphrates River in Iraq. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- When Will This White House Madness End?
- Huckabee aide goes to ‘unusual lengths’ to portray ‘Israel’ positively
- Trump Announces Diesel Supply Deal With Putin Following Phone Call
- MEP blasts ‘Euro-Gestapo’ for lecturing Russia on democracy
- Syria May Send Troops to Saudi Arabia Amid War with Ansar Allah
- UK whines about losing billions to ‘Putin tax’
- Baghaei to Rubio: Distorted narratives cannot erase US record of broken commitments
- Houthis Don’t Have to Conquer Saudi Arabia to Make It Pay
- MOE: Nearly 22,000 Students and Education Workers Killed
- Guterres in Islamabad: Genocide, cowardice, and the cage of Imran Khan
- If Americans Knew
- Gaza ceasefire exists in name only, say more than 100 organizations
- Nearly 2 Million in Gaza Need Urgent Shelter Assistance as Winter Looms: IOM Chief Warns
- Suppressing Palestinian resistance: US charity under fire for AI monitoring of Gaza classrooms
- Thousands Are Held in Israeli Torture Camps. This Is What Happens Inside
- Israel puts Gaza’s sick, injured, newborn in peril – Daily Update
- Report claimed Mark Levin used by Israeli government to influence Trump
- Over 2,000 Gazans have died awaiting medical evacuation amid Israel’s continued siege
- How a U.S. Diplomat Suppressed and Altered Reports Critical of Israel
- 5 Palestinians Die from Israeli Strikes in Gaza as Relentless Attacks Continue
- Report: Ceasefire Slows Killing but Leaves Devastation Intact
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: 50 Years Of The Most Aggressive ‘Net Zero’ Policies Can Only Affect The Global Climate By 0.03°C
- US September “Heat” Was No Record…Many Records Set Decades Ago
- Latest European Green Energy Debacle; Portugal’s Largest Flagship Solar Park Insolvent!
- Green Energy Debacle: German Expert Professor Fritz Vahrenholt Warns Of Severe Economic And Social Consequences
- Two More Paleo Reconstructions Affirm Meters-Higher Sea Levels Across Ireland, Brazil 7000-6000 Years Ago
- New Study: Earth And Venus Surface Warmth Largely Explained By Convection And Lapse Rate, Not CO2 Or Radiation
- 2025 Nature Paper Claiming Worsening Global Drought Gets RETRACTED …Heavily Flawed
- 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
