BEIRUT – The recent Israeli escalation in southern Lebanon has brought the Ali al-Tahir heights back to the forefront of the military scene, after the occupation forces intensified their raids on the area amid indicators that observers see as a prelude to a potential ground move. While estimates speak of an Israeli attempt to impose a new field equation, military experts warn that any incursion into these strategic hills could open up a wide confrontation with Hezbollah, given their military importance and the nature of their defenses.
Fiery prelude preceding the ground move
Israeli Channel 12 reported that the army launched an attack on the Ali al-Tahir heights area, while the Upper Galilee Regional Council informed the residents of the settlements that they would hear the sound of explosions resulting from the attacks in southern Lebanon.
The military and strategic expert, Retired Brigadier General Khalil al-Jamil, believes that the nature of the Israeli operations indicates that what is happening goes beyond mere limited raids, explaining that the Israeli army usually relies on a wide fiery prelude to isolate the operations area and prevent the arrival of fighters or supplies to it before any ground move, according to Al Jazeera.
He added that the shelling targeting the villages and towns surrounding the Ali al-Tahir heights falls within this framework, expecting the strikes to continue for hours before moving to a new stage with the onset of night, which is the timing during which Israel is accustomed to executing its ground operations.
He pointed out that the scale of the airstrikes is disproportionate to a limited targeting operation, as it was possible to execute such missions using drones, which reinforces, according to his estimation, the hypothesis of preparing for a ground incursion into parts of the heights.
He noted that the Ali al-Tahir heights extend for about three kilometers, and any incursion at its beginning may be limited to specific parts of them, but the nature of the current movements is consistent with the military method followed by the Israeli army before any field advance.
Hezbollah’s readiness and field complexities
Al-Jamil confirmed that Hezbollah will be ready to defend the area, expecting that the fire support units deployed in Iqlim al-Tuffah and neighboring areas will begin executing support operations to prevent Israeli forces from establishing any presence inside the hills.
He added that Israel tried during previous stages to advance in the area, but faced great field difficulties due to the rugged geographical nature and defensive readiness, making any new attempt more complex and costly.
He explained that the Ali al-Tahir heights constitute the main line of defense for southern Lebanon and the Nabatieh district, suggesting that violent confrontations would break out if the escalation develops into a direct ground operation.
He also pointed out that any advance inside the network of tunnels scattered in the area would place Israeli forces before complex fighting conditions, unless a collapse occurs in Hezbollah’s defensive system, a scenario he said is not supported by any field indicators so far.
Despite Israel possessing military capabilities that qualify it to reach the heights if it makes a decision to do so, al-Jamil stressed that achieving this goal would have a high military and human cost.
The policy of “nibbling” and the possibilities of expanding the confrontation
Al-Jamil considered that Israel relies on a policy of gradual “nibbling” of the heights, by combining airstrikes, fire pressure, and limited ground advance, instead of executing a broad operation all at once.
He explained that the Ali al-Tahir heights grant whoever controls them a great field advantage, as they overlook wide areas of southern Lebanon and the vicinity of Nabatieh, making them a controlling point in managing military operations.
He added that Israel views these hills as being within the areas it believes it had previously controlled, and sees that any military operation in them does not conflict, from its point of view, with existing arrangements, although actual control over them has not been achieved on the ground.
He believed that any ground incursion could push Hezbollah to expand the circle of response by targeting Israeli settlements with rockets, in an attempt to pressure the internal front and impose a new deterrence equation, a matter that could reignite the entire southern front.
This escalation comes at a time when the Lebanese Ministry of Health announced that the toll of victims of the Israeli aggression since the second of March has risen to 4,303 dead and 12,203 wounded, amid the continuation of military tension despite efforts aimed at stabilizing the calm on the border.
In 1959, Ingeborg Bachmann concluded that the truth is something people can be expected to handle, since they are quite capable of enduring it, no matter how uncomfortable it may be. Literature, she argued, should neither conceal nor gloss over the truth.
This is all the more true of the media, which for years have failed to fulfill their duty as the fourth estate. The world is heading toward a new world war, and the majority of humanity is unable to assess the risks and opportunities when the media distort the facts through their propaganda in such a way that the truth vanishes into an ever-thickening fog. The dumbing down has reached such a level that even politicians in the West believe the propaganda of their own media and act accordingly. The falsehoods that politicians spread are no longer perceived by them as lies; for the most part, their intellect is simply not sufficient for that. It must be stated that politicians have first and foremost become “ambassadors” of an ever-declining level of education—and continue to do so—and, as a result, have become victims of their own propaganda.
This article attempts to show that it is still possible to separate the wheat from the chaff, because the truth is hidden amid all the garbage in the news coverage.
Don’t Forget About Evil
In the article “Will Evil Prevail?,” I pondered who actually determines geopolitical events around the world. I discussed the “City of London” and the “Rothschilds” as examples of forces that steer the world from behind the scenes. They are thus also responsible for wars, coups, and other upheavals in our world. Even the small portion of the Epstein Files that has come to light provided a first impression of the entanglements among the powerful. See “Epstein – ‘Concierge of Evil’ – Dangerous Questions.” For example, the Rothschild family was dragged back into the public eye; the very family that has gone to great lengths to convince the world that it has exerted no influence since World War II and merely operates a few private banks, museums, and vineyards. It should come as no surprise that discussion of the contents of the Epstein Files—or their further releases—has completely vanished from the media; one might well wonder who controls the media.
Incidentally, the ‘deep state’ is not a concept peddled by a few crackpots. As early as 2017, President Putin spoke about it in no uncertain terms:
“Presidents change… Then well-dressed men arrive, in dark suits, with their suitcases. They start explaining how things really work… and everything changes instantly.”
Control is exercised either directly by shareholders or indirectly through political or economic influence—for example, by controlling advertising revenue, blacklisting, or manipulating view counts on YouTube channels. Control over the media in the Collective West is, de facto, complete—not a bad achievement.
Consider this: freedom of speech is championed very vocally by politicians and the media at every opportunity, whether appropriate or not. Practically “in tandem,” it is restricted in the very same breath by first denouncing the spread of “fake news” and “hate speech”—that is, the expression of genuine freedom of speech—just as loudly, and then defining and enforcing it as a criminal offense for one’s own political gain.
Ultimately, then, it is the state that defines what “fake news” and “hatespeech” mean. As a result, a right that is no longer absolute but has been relativized collapses under this restriction. In Germany, the desired political direction of judicial decisions is ensured through the political appointment of judges to the Federal Constitutional Court. The process for selecting judges to the European Court of Justice follows a similar procedure.
The consequences of this restriction are deliberate and obvious. Analysts who express even the most well-founded opinions that do not suit the tastes of those in power are stripped of their rights, dispossessed, and portrayed as criminals without due process. The method of choice is, for example, EU sanctions, which were originally enacted to target terrorists but are now—with the support of the general public—imposed on the most objective experts, such as the Swiss citizen (and thus non-EU citizen) Jacques Baud; see our coverage on this. The result of this targeted political influence is reporting in the traditional media that no longer has anything to do with the truth, but often turns it on its head.
All Geopolitical Crises Stem from a Single Source
All military conflicts around the world must be understood as a single package, a comprehensive strategy. The same people who are fueling the war against Iran and the violent creation of “Greater Israel” are also responsible for the conflict in Ukraine and the war between Europe and Russia that will likely unfold soon—and many other conflicts, such as those in Africa, which we have neglected in our blog, are likewise part of this strategy. Everything is interconnected, and it shows a lack of geopolitical understanding when journalists defend the war—waged with genocidal methods—against Iran, Lebanon, and Gaza, while simultaneously supporting Russia’s actions in Ukraine. The forces triggering and fueling these conflicts are identical. Understanding this is very helpful in grasping the overall geopolitical situation.
The overall picture is not hard to understand: After hundreds of years of colonial rule over the rest of the world, the Collective West has already lost the economic race against the Global South; more on this below. While wars over the past 500 years have been about who in the West would wield the scepter of hegemony over the colonial empire, today’s conflicts are about whether the Collective West can maintain its colonial empire. The odds are against it, as we have already outlined in our series “The War Between Two Worlds Has Begun.” At that time, we anticipated many individual conflicts spanning decades, but without a world war. This relatively optimistic thesis now seems to be faltering, as aggression between the world powers is escalating daily, the Collective West refuses to abandon the arrogance of the colonial master, and completely overestimates itself with spurious arguments.
The Defence Budget as a Measure of Military Strength Is a Fallacious Argument
For decades, the Americans have led the world to believe that they have the strongest armed forces in the world. This claim is backed up by an astronomical figure: the U.S. military budget of no less than 1.5 trillion U.S. dollars. That is 10 times more than the Russian military budget, or even 190 times more than Iran’s military budget, which amounted to 7.89 billion U.S. dollars in 2024. NATO, excluding the US, spent 608 million U.S. dollars.
Nevertheless, the US—along with Israel—suffered defeats in both the 12-Day War and the ongoing war, which has spiraled out of control. NATO, alongside the US, is suffering defeat in Ukraine. The massive budgets in the West are a clear indication that the military there is not designed to defend freedom, but rather to rake in as much money as possible. As a result, a weapons system in the West is considered successful if it can be sold—for as much money as possible—to its own armed forces or those of third countries. In 2024, we compared two combat helicopters that experts deemed equivalent: the Russian Kamov KA-52 and the American AH-64 Apache. The Apache costs 155 million U.S. dollars; the Kamov costs 16 million. On top of that, Western weapons systems are produced in virtually homeopathic doses, and it is impossible to increase production to a level capable of sustainably supporting a protracted conflict—it is too expensive, too complex, and combined with an industrial capacity that simply no longer exists.
In the medium term, the US will not be able to produce high-quality military equipment in sufficient quantities at reasonable costs, as it currently faces a multi-faceted problem: First, there is a lack of will, since profit is the primary goal of the military-industrial complex. Second, due to 30 years of deindustrialization, the US no longer has the industrial base necessary to produce weapons in quantities sufficient for wartime.
Rather, the focus is on making a profit. Objective observers should realize that such a strategy is bound to lead to disaster in a crisis—as has been demonstrated in the Middle East and Ukraine. According to various experts, the West has fallen at least a decade behind its competitors in both missile technology and drones in those regions.
Iran, for example, whose defense spending is about 200 times less than that of the US, possesses hypersonic missiles that are extremely difficult to intercept. In contrast, the Collective West still has no operational hypersonic weapons. Critics attribute this to a combination of profit-seeking, arrogance, and corruption within the military-industrial complex.
If the West wants to operate on an equal footing militarily in the future, it would have to fundamentally reform the military-industrial complex—a task that seems nearly impossible given the existing economic and political balance of power; this industry is controlled by the groups discussed above.
A Lack of Will to Fight in the West
How does the Collective West react to the wars it has lost? — It increases its military budgets without addressing the necessary structural issues. In the West, there is a mistaken belief that everything can be solved with money. In Russia, the defense industry is essentially state-owned, and therefore there is a strong interest in producing high-quality but affordable weapons.
Thus, there will only be a change in the US if the American pursuit of profit in weapons production were seriously called into question—and if society were able to attract the best minds to the defense industry in the interest of American society as a whole, which is not the case today. American missile physicists earn more as analysts at investment banks, and they have no motivation to serve their country, given the poor state of the will to defend the West. In Germany, for example, one figure dashes any hope for greater willingness to serve: out of 300,000 young Germans, 530 are willing to perform military service—that’s 0.17%! (Source: Süddeutsche Zeitung ). This figure stands in stark contrast to statements made by Boris Pistorius, the German Minister of Defense, who announced as early as 2024:
“We must be combat-ready by 2029,” the minister said. “We must provide a deterrent to prevent things from escalating to the extreme.”
The outlook for the Collective West to prepare its armed forces for war is thus bleak. Nevertheless, the Europeans and Americans seem to be charging headlong into a world war with outdated yet overpriced weapons systems and without the necessary will to defend themselves among the population. This not only seems insane—it is insane. The facts speak for themselves. Who would do such a thing? Corrupt politicians, like the ones we described at the beginning.
The Economy as an Indicator of Losing
If we look at the economic data, it is easy to see that the Collective West has already lost the economic race. History teaches us that, in such a situation, war is the only option left.
For years, I have been drawing attention to the devastating national debt and the grotesque valuations in the financial markets. On top of that, the Collective West also cheats when calculating economic power. All of this is done to maintain a narrative that allows the US to continue to be portrayed as number one. If you calculate GDP on a purchasing power parity basis—that is, taking into account the local purchasing power of individual countries—the US has already lost.
According to this calculation, China ranks ahead of the US, Russia ahead of Japan, and Germany.
Furthermore, the Collective West, as the aggressor, finds itself in a domestic political and economic situation that does not allow for a military showdown with Russia, Iran, and China: US debt stands at over 121%—the last time this was the case was at the end of World War II, following an industrial war that brought the US global dominance. After 35 years, and under economic and political conditions that remained favorable to the US, this debt was reduced to below 40%.
In 1945, the Americans reached the height of their power. Together with the Soviet Union, they dominated the course of the war, held 22,000 metric tons of gold, and American industry produced 70% of the world’s manufactured goods. This is what true “full spectrum dominance” looks like: military dominance, industrial dominance, gold—because whoever has the gold sets the rules. Now the US is once again facing a world war, and the situation looks much like it did after the last war, with one major difference: China is at least the US’s economic equal, with far more favorable economic conditions.
These are not the conditions necessary for a military conflict on a global scale—neither financially, nor economically, nor, consequently, politically.
Middle East
It is clear from the text of the MOU that Iran has defeated both Israel and the US militarily; otherwise, the Americans would never have signed such a document. Israel cannot, without risking the collapse of its own delusions of great-power status, comply with the spirit of the document and end the war in Lebanon and Gaza. Therefore, there will be no peace.
Our comments on this topic: “Iran Defeats the US – Thoughts.” In Iran, voices are growing louder claiming that the president and foreign minister are not negotiating hard enough—public pressure in Iran is calling for a tougher stance toward the US and Israel. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, has approved the memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the US to end the regional war under certain conditions. However, in a public statement, he said that he fundamentally held a “different view,” but had agreed to the agreement after receiving guarantees from President Masoud Pezeshkian that Iran’s national rights and the “Resistance Front” would be safeguarded. This is a clear indication that the Iranians are ultimately unwilling to make compromises at the expense of Lebanon and Gaza.
It is to be expected that the conflict in the Middle East will continue: Neither the US nor Israel is willing to accept defeat in the war and deal with its consequences. This stance maintains a state of limbo that could tip in one direction or the other at any moment. However, this strategy is countered by the fact that time is running out for the West because of Hormuz. The dwindling oil reserves were the main reason the US signed this MOU in its current form in the first place. The Americans are thus seeking a state of limbo that allows them to prepare their next military steps in peace; however, this state can only be maintained if the Strait of Hormuz remains open in the meantime. While approximately 130 ships passed through the Strait of Hormuz daily until February 28, 2026, these numbers dropped to practically zero, then stabilized at 5%–10% of pre-war levels, before surging to 70 ships on June 25, 2026. These figures should be treated with caution: It is said that the majority of these 70 ships were exporting oil from Iran after the US lifted the oil sanctions upon signing the agreement. If the Israelis do not withdraw from Lebanon and the Iranians remain steadfast—which is to be expected—then the Strait of Hormuz will remain a congested bottleneck: the time bomb for the West’s supply of raw materials continues to tick.
The Iranians can wait—the Americans cannot. When assessing the situation, one should simply disregard Donald Trump’s statements, because Trump speaks of peace one moment and war the next, changing his mind sometimes several times a day. He seems to believe that he can achieve something with the Iranians through this “New York-style deal-making” terror, but that is not the case, since he achieves only one thing: Americans are increasingly proving themselves to be agreement incapable, thereby threatening world peace.
War in Europe
The armed conflict in Ukraine, instigated by the West, began in 2014. Only those who do not classify Ukraine’s years-long artillery shelling of the Donbass as an act of war claim that the Russians started the war in February 2022. This is just one fact that is so obvious that one can only wonder at the West’s arguments that Russia is the aggressor.
Another fact is that this war has completely transformed the technology and tactics of warfare—the parties had to adapt to a new kind of war dominated by drones and missiles. Tank columns and troop concentrations are attacked by inexpensive drones as soon as they are detected—and they are detected very quickly. The warring parties had to undergo migration and learn this new art of warfare. The Russians, in particular, have done this successfully and now dominate the battlefield in a new way: through slow, efficient advances, because massed attacks produce only one thing—heavy casualties. Similar waves of technological advancement have occurred time and again. The machine gun, which was already in use before World War I but whose significance was underestimated at the time, brought an end to maneuver warfare as early as the first year of the war, when large columns of soldiers advanced toward the enemy and were wiped out. Toward the end of World War I, the tank brought some movement back to the front lines. However, comparing the frontline situation in Ukraine to that of World War I is a flawed analogy: Slow movements in small groups seem, so far, to be the only way to survive the drone barrage and maintain mobility.
Recently, Western media have been reporting that the Ukrainians have the upper hand in the war. However, this is fake news that has nothing to do with the reality on the ground. One must distinguish between the fighting on the front lines and NATO’s drone attacks in Russia. On the Donbass front, only a few fortified cities still stand in the Russians’ way; once those are taken, the Donbass will be liberated. Beyond that, there are no longer any fortifications worth taking seriously. Rather than going into details, I refer you to one of the best channels, Military Summary, which has been providing a twice-daily update on the situation at the front since the war began.
The West has not yet recognized the signs of the times. Its experts believe they will be successful in a war against Russia. However, they have not even defined their war aims in any way. Thus, they have no strategic plan against Russia other than to weaken it.
First and foremost, the Germans set the start of the war against Russia for 2030. However, it is now 2026, and the Germans apparently assume that, with Ukraine acting as their proxy, they can send drones and cruise missiles into Russia with impunity until 2030. Europe’s approach is, of course, coordinated with the US. The use of these weapons systems is not possible without American input. President Putin made this very clear a few days ago.
Many observers and experts both inside and outside Russia believe that President Putin will soon decide to launch a strike against targets in Europe—including those outside Ukraine.
There is a wide range of opinions on this topic. We have already published several articles on this subject: In “Will 1914 Repeat Itself? Will War Between Europe and Russia Finally Break Out?,” we also examined the Karaganov Doctrine, which advocates the use of nuclear weapons, and concluded that an attack is necessary, but not with nuclear weapons. Scott Ritter subsequently addressed the “Karaganov fallacy” and also spoke out clearly against the use of nuclear weapons.
Conclusion
In the Middle East, I see no realistic chance of ending the war, because that would mean, on the one hand, the withdrawal of American forces, and Israel would then be left alone as a small, genocidal aggressor. The Israelis are under pressure and are continuing their genocide in Gaza and Lebanon, paying no heed whatsoever to agreements between the US and Iran, because for Netanyahu personally, maintaining the war is the only way to survive politically.
In Russia, pressure is mounting on President Putin to adopt a more aggressive stance toward Europe, which is no longer even attempting to conceal its direct involvement in the war against Russia. Russia is intensifying its attacks on Ukraine, in part by destroying every gas station in eastern Ukraine to paralyze transportation logistics. Ground forces are making visible progress, and once the last fortified cities in the Donbas are liberated—which is likely to happen within the next few weeks—the path to the Dnieper will be clear.
President Putin is thus banking on a military solution in Ukraine and waiting for an energy crisis to unfold in Europe, where many flights are already being canceled under flimsy pretexts.
The concerted media coverage in the West claiming that the tide has turned in Ukraine finds not the slightest confirmation in the reality on the ground in Ukraine. The fuel shortage in Russia is also being exaggerated. In some regions, fuel is being rationed at gas stations. However, this is in no way sufficient to change Russia’s course of action.
Very occasionally, I have the opportunity to speak with someone who lives in Kyiv. According to this person, the situation is catastrophic, and over 90% of the population is against Zelensky. When I asked why the people weren’t rising up, the source replied that people were so intimidated by the terror of the security and intelligence services that the communication necessary for an uprising was impossible. Ukraine, which is portrayed by the West as a shining example of democracy, seems to be a time bomb whose ticking goes unheard out of fear.
My concerns that a war between Europe and Russia might break out—even though Europe has virtually no military power—have never been greater. President Putin will not be the one to take the first step toward a Third World War. Only he knows how much longer he will tolerate the West’s systematic provocations and how he will respond to them.
A family – displaced from Khirbet Samra in July 2025 after years of constant harassment by occupation forces and violent settler Uri Cohen – moved to Atouf, where they purchased a plot of land, determined to defy the occupation’s efforts to destroy their livelihood.
Having to leave their home of more than 20 years was both deeply traumatic and hugely expensive. The 40 dunams in Atouf cost half a million shekels (about 160,000 USD) and transportation costs for all their livestock and belongings were high. Atouf is a primarily agricultural area and there is little grazing land; the family is therefore forced to feed their animals grain and hay. They have also had to spend 150,000 shekels (50,000 USD) on building pens spacious enough to protect their sheep from the heat. The costs of maintaining their flock of 800 sheep have proved unsustainable, and the family has had no choice but to sell 300 of them.
In early December 2025, less than six months after their arrival in Atouf, the family received a demolition order: their property is situated on the path of “Crimson Thread”, a Zionist project that entails the construction of a 22 km long military road with an apartheid fence and a 20m wide “buffer zone” running along eitherside. Stretching from Ein Shibli to Tayasir, the barrier will cut through — and off from one another — the communities of Atouf, Tammoun and Yarza.
On the occupation’s plans, the road cuts almost exactly through the middle of the family property; 36 dunums have already been confiscated, and in January 2026 demolition orders were issued for the remaining 4 dunums, which include the family’s house and the sheep pens.
The family, together with other families and the Tubas municipality appealed the demolition orders, submitting the landowners’ deeds, and the barrier project was temporarily suspended. But then, on June 7, the Israeli court ruled that in 5 of the 7 areas impacted by the project the excavation work could continue (the two sections in which the suspension order still applies are those in the vicinity of Khirbet Yarza). Building demolitions (32 across five sections, 9 of which are residential structures) are still under discussion in court.
Since June 13, the family have had to endure the constant presence of soldiers and bulldozers on their property. The military have installed caravans and tents and dug a trench between the 36 confiscated dunums and the family’s home and pens. Now, the bulldozers are at work preparing for the construction of the barrier; the digging has destroyed the pipes that transport water to the family’s crops and livestock. When a family member went to get water from a well that is situated on the family’s land he was accused by the occupation forces of stealing water.
The family, together with the whole community of Atouf and all the Palestinian villages threatened by “Crimson Thread” are calling for international media and institutional attention in order to expose the brutality of this project which is intended to bisect the Jordan Valley, further isolating Palestinian communities from one another and dramatically worsening their conditions of life.
“during the day they carry out cutting, bulldozing, and destruction works, while at night they fire burning illumination flares over the area. These are dropped near the livestock shelters, creating constant fear, as we worry they might fall onto animal fodder or plastic greenhouses and set everything on fire.” – a family member
Protesters gathered outside the General Medical Council’s headquarters in London to slam the council’s attempt to silence those speaking out about the Israeli genocide in Gaza.
Protesters describe the surgeon as one of the world’s leading war doctors and argue that the regulator’s actions amount to an attempt to silence those who speak publicly about the realities of war,
So we are demonstrating in front of the GMC, because the GMC has decided to appeal against the rulings of two of its own tribunals, so that the High Court would allow it to try me for a third time, in order to get the right political result that it wants.
The GMC is conducting a political campaign against, not just myself, but every doctor who’s spoken up against the genocide, in order to silence us, in the service of the genocidal project. – Dr Ghassan Abu Sittah, British-Palestinian Surgeon
Doctors, campaigners, and members of the public traveled to attend the demonstration, asserting that the proceedings are about more than one individual, warning that they could have a chilling effect on healthcare professionals speaking about humanitarian crises.
Actually, there probably were a group of lawyers set up by the Israelis again to pursue highly charged politicized campaigns against professionals and workers in this country who stand against genocide.
So, really, it’s the action of how the British government and the Israelis who are trying to persecute and outlaw speech in support of Palestine in the heartland of Britain.
Actually, from, we know where our government, you know, the British government, the Labour government, and the Tory government before it have been complicit in genocide from bases like RAF Akrotiri, where Keir Starmer went and complimented the troops.
They run the genocide, they send the planes over Gaza, they stream that information live to the Israelis as they’re committing that genocide.
So our government is complicit, and what they’re doing with their complaints is they’re making it illegal for us to oppose it. – Ranjeet Brar, NHS Surgeon
Speakers at the rally urged the GMC to withdraw the appeal; assisting medical professionals should not face professional consequences for raising concerns over civilian suffering in conflict zones.
There’s a clear example here with Dr. Ghassan, where UK law is for Israel, that it is essentially standing up for the rights of a foreign entity, have been pressuring patients, pressuring people to make complaints against Dr. Abu-Sittah, and this is just one example of many other institutions, medical institutions like the Royal Colleges, and even the journals, the medical journals that we publish in, where they’ve been pressured from UK pro-Israel lobby groups to censor and to shut down any form of pro-Palestine activism.
So, I think we’re seeing this now very clearly with Dr. Ghassan, but the reality is it’s much more widespread than any of us think. – Dr Omar Abdel-Mannan, British-Egyptian Pediatric Neurologist
Organizers say they will continue campaigning until the proceedings against Dr. Abu-Sittah come to an end, maintaining that doctors must be free to speak about humanitarian consequences of war without fear or professional repercussions.
Supporters gathered outside the General Medical Council in London to stand behind British Palestinian surgeon Dr. Ghassan Abu-Sittah, accusing the regulators of attempting to silence one of the world’s most prominent war doctors.
Demonstrators say the case is not simply about one medic, but the right of healthcare professionals to speak out on the atrocities of Gaza without professional retaliation.
CNN’s headline included two assertions that have been true for decades: 1) Israel deliberately murders children, not accidentally as so-called collateral damage, but deliberately as part of a de facto national policy; and 2) Israel is committing “an ongoing genocide against Palestinians.” And while it is shocking that any government is pursuing such unbelievably evil policies, and even more shocking that American taxpayers are paying for it, the most shocking thing of all is that American mainstream media are finally admitting the truth after 78 years of systematic Israeli child-killing and genocide.
On April 9, 1948, more than 110 Palestinian men, women, and children were slaughtered in the village of Deir Yassin. The New York Times reported that more than half of the victims were women and children. It was just one of hundreds of massacres by the invading Jews who had long planned to steal Palestinian land and property by way of such a bloodbath.
During the 1948 Nakba (Palestinian holocaust) the Jews raped and murdered girls, tossed babies around with bayonets, and burned people to death with flamethrowers. Unlike the false atrocity propaganda stories invented by these same Jews’ descendants after the heroic October 7 2023 concentration camp breakout by Hamas, the 1948 abominations actually happened.
You can watch one of the Nakba perpetrators, Yosef Diamont, chuckling over his crimes in a viral YouTube video: “Tantura was a rich village and had beautiful houses. And the women in the village used to wear nice clothes. One of the (Israeli) soldiers raped a 16-year-old girl..” (Breaks out laughing.) “The soldiers took flamethrowers, and ran after the villagers and burned them. It was horrible. And no one is allowed to talk about that. I won’t talk about it, because it would be a big scandal.”
The whole Zionist project that created “Israel” is, by definition, genocidal: Its purpose has always been to murder and expel the Palestinians in order to steal their land and property. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the nation whose very existence is an act of ever-expanding genocide deliberately and systematically murders children.
In 2001 Chris Hedges described the way Israeli soldiers routinely hunt children for sport:
“Yesterday at this spot the Israelis shot eight young men, six of whom were under the age of eighteen. One was twelve. This afternoon they kill an eleven-year-old boy, Ali Murad, and seriously wound four more, three of whom are under eighteen. Children have been shot in other conflicts I have covered—death squads gunned them down in El Salvador and Guatemala, mothers with infants were lined up and massacred in Algeria, and Serb snipers put children in their sights and watched them crumple onto the pavement in Sarajevo—but I have never before watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport.”
American media, dominated as it is by Zionist Jews, has long hidden these facts from the American people. Hedges was effectively fired by The New York Times for his honest reporting.
So why is CNN finally telling the truth? Mainly because since 2023, Israel’s atrocities have grown too big to ignore. Tens of thousands of children have been murdered in just a few years.
CNN’s story covered the June 18 UN Report “‘The essence of childhood has been destroyed’: Israel’s deliberate targeting of Palestinian children in the Occupied Palestinian Territory since 7 October 2023.” The report estimates that at least 20,179 children have been killed and 44,143 children injured since that date, while 5,160 children are still buried under the rubble of what used to be their homes.
The UN report details systematic sexual violence against children. It describes Israel hunting children with drones and rifles, and deliberately blowing up whole apartment buildings and city blocks full of civilians, using the excuse that someone in the area had a tenuous link to Hamas. Israel’s wide-impact blasts are intended to disproportionately target children: “Research indicates that children are seven times more likely to die than adults from the impact of explosive weapons due to their physiological vulnerability, that is, proportionally larger body surface area, pliable bones, smaller limbs and thinner skin. Due to their smaller size and lighter weight, children are also at a greater risk of being thrown from the impact of blasts.”
The horrific descriptions of maimed and murdered kids make this UN report unpleasant reading. But Americans need to face the truth—and stop funding genocide.
The European Commission is refusing to release 17 secret reports on EU-funded infrastructure in Gaza, which could reveal further evidence of Israel’s destruction of European-backed civilian projects and increase pressure on Brussels to confront whether its continued partnership with Israel violates the human rights obligations underpinning EU-Israel relations.
The refusal came on the same day that a UN inquiry said Israel continues to commit genocide in Gaza by deliberately targeting Palestinian children, raising questions over whether the EU is concealing evidence that could strengthen calls to suspend or review its agreements with Israel.
According to EUobserver journalist Nikolaj Nielsen, the refusal was signed on 23 June by Michael Karnitschnig, acting head of the Commission department dealing with the Middle East. Nielsen had requested the documents under freedom of information rules in February, seeking reports covering EU-funded infrastructure projects in Gaza from 2020 to the end of 2023.
“We have examined whether there could be an overriding public interest in disclosure, but we have not been able to identify such an interest,” Karnitschnig wrote, according to EUobserver.
The claim is likely to provoke outrage. The documents relate to EU-funded infrastructure in Gaza, including solar panels, water desalination projects, renewable energy schemes and potentially other civilian facilities such as hospitals and schools. Many of these projects are believed to have been destroyed during Israel’s military assault on the besieged enclave.
Their disclosure could reveal not only the financial cost to European taxpayers but also the extent to which Israel has targeted or destroyed civilian infrastructure in Gaza. Such findings would increase pressure on Brussels to act under the human rights clauses which form the basis of EU cooperation with Israel, including the EU-Israel Association Agreement.
The Commission also invoked the protection of international relations as a reason for withholding the documents. EUobserver reported that some of the projects were either suspended or completed, with implementing partners including Germany’s KfW development bank, Oxfam Novib and WE WORLD.
One project cited by the Commission reportedly sought to support water treatment in Khan Yunis, a city in southern Gaza which has suffered widespread devastation following Israel’s ground invasion.
The refusal has raised fresh questions about EU transparency and accountability, especially as EU taxpayers have funded many of the projects damaged or destroyed by Israel. EUobserver has separately estimated that Israel has bombed or bulldozed around €150 million worth of EU-funded buildings in Gaza and the occupied West Bank, without paying compensation.
Earlier this month, EU Commissioner Dubravka Šuica told members of the European Parliament that the bloc has requested Israel to return or compensate for EU-funded assets whenever they are demolished, dismantled or confiscated.
The Commission’s refusal to publish the reports came as UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel concluded that Israel continues to commit genocide and other atrocity crimes by deliberately targeting Palestinian children.
“Israeli authorities and security forces have deliberately targeted Palestinian children resulting in genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in the Gaza Strip and war crimes in the West Bank,” the UN report stated.
The UN Commission said the “deliberate targeting of children” forms one of the key elements establishing genocidal intent by Israeli authorities and security forces to destroy Palestinians, in whole or in part, in Gaza.
Srinivasan Muralidhar, chair of the Commission of Inquiry, said Palestinian children “have been deliberately targeted and killed by the Israeli security forces,” adding that even after the October 2025 ceasefire, children have continued to be killed and seriously injured.
The report also accused Israeli authorities of arresting Palestinian children and subjecting them to torture and other forms of mistreatment in prisons and detention facilities. It further said Israeli security forces used sexual violence against children as part of a broader pattern of collective oppression under occupation.
As Iran prepares for the funeral ceremonies of Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, the former Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, the scale of anticipated public participation indicates that they are set to become one of the most significant mass gatherings in contemporary Iranian history. Reports indicate that vast crowds are expected to arrive from across the country, alongside official delegations from numerous states. This moment offers a clear opportunity to assess the U.S. and Israeli decision to assassinate him in February 2026. The operation rested on a flawed assessment of Khamenei’s real role and standing within Iran’s social and political structure. In this regard, the United States was shaped largely by Israeli media narratives and intelligence assessments—accounts that substantially underestimated Ayatollah Khamenei’s popularity, institutional influence, and capacity for social mobilization. The preparations already underway and the expected scale of the turnout make this analytical failure harder to ignore. They show how far American policymakers relied on an incomplete and one-sided picture of Iranian reality.
To understand this miscalculation, it is necessary to return to the framework that had cast a long shadow over analyses of Iran before the attack. For years, Israeli media outlets and a number of research institutions close to Israel’s political and security establishment portrayed Khamenei as a leader with limited social backing, governing a society marked by deep divisions, economic discontent, and generational distance. These narratives repeatedly suggested that removing him could trigger serious instability, or even a fundamental transformation of Iran’s political system. Such an image aligned with the stated purpose of the joint U.S.-Israeli operation: weakening and destabilizing Iran’s political order. Yet this analysis ignored the more complex realities of Iranian society and politics. In assessing Khamenei’s structural position and the attachment of significant parts of society to ideas such as independence, security, and resistance to external pressure, Washington effectively accepted a narrative that minimized decisive factors. The result was an expectation that his removal would rapidly expose internal fractures. Developments since then—including a relatively orderly leadership transition and the continued functioning of core institutions—have pointed in the opposite direction.
Khamenei’s position in Iran went far beyond that of a conventional head of government. For more than three decades, he stressed national self-reliance, scientific and technological development despite external constraints, and sustained resistance in foreign policy against outside pressure.
These priorities helped produce a measure of institutional resilience and measurable progress in certain sectors. Iran has, of course, faced genuine social discontent, economic pressure, and political divisions. But that did not mean Khamenei’s role had been reduced to personal isolation, nor that his removal would necessarily paralyze the country’s political machinery. Israeli media coverage generally emphasized critical currents and visible signs of dissatisfaction while downplaying evidence of broader attachment to ideas such as independence, national sovereignty, and security. This selective emphasis produced an image of fragility and isolation that did not correspond to the durability of Iranian structures after his assassination. America’s acceptance of that image represented a serious intelligence and analytical failure in understanding the depth of Khamenei’s place within Iran’s political structure.
The February attack was accompanied by public statements from American and Israeli officials describing it as a decisive blow. The initial expectation appears to have rested on the assumption that the vacuum created by eliminating the leader would intensify internal divisions or create opportunities for greater outside leverage.
In practice, Iran preserved the functional continuity of its core institutions and its broad policy direction. This outcome showed that Khamenei’s influence was not merely personal. It had taken root in institutions, political networks, security structures, and the political culture of the Islamic Republic.
Washington’s error was to imagine that the base of support around him was narrower and more brittle than events ultimately showed it to be. The upcoming funeral ceremonies, scheduled to unfold over several days and across major cities, are set to draw exceptionally large crowds and will provide further tangible evidence against those earlier assumptions. The anticipated presence of mourners and foreign delegations will demonstrate a degree of recognition, respect, and social connection that earlier reporting and assessments had treated as marginal.
From a broader policy perspective, this episode reveals the dangers of excessive reliance on particular intelligence and media sources. In Iran’s case, cultural, religious, and historical forces shape political loyalties and behavior in ways that demand a more precise understanding of the country’s internal realities—not broad, externally produced narratives. Analyses that overlook these factors are vulnerable to strategic error. What was supposed to weaken Iran’s political structure instead reinforced commitment to established principles, heightened sensitivity to foreign intervention, and underscored the perceived necessity of institutional continuity. The forthcoming ceremonies, with their extensive organization, will serve as a visible corrective to assessments shaped by one-sided reporting.
By relying on Israeli media narratives and intelligence assessments of Khamenei’s position and the level of support surrounding him, American decision-makers arrived at a conclusion that developments since the assassination have not borne out.
In conclusion, the assassination of Ayatollah Khamenei and the domestic and international response to it expose the limits of policymaking built on incomplete information and politically shaped interpretations. The forthcoming funeral ceremonies and the anticipated exceptional public turnout will offer a vivid illustration of social cohesion in Iran—one that stands in clear contrast to earlier predictions of rapid collapse or internal rupture. This expected turnout suggests that America’s assessment of Iran’s Supreme Leader and the degree of public support he commanded was significantly influenced by Israeli media and intelligence narratives, and ultimately proved mistaken. Rather than producing the disruption that had been anticipated, the process has highlighted Iran’s institutional continuity and social resilience.
Senator John Kennedy, the Democrat turned Republican from Louisiana, came up with a whopper during an interview with a comedian slash podcaster. It is a take on Netanyahu’s perennial claim Iran is five minutes away from having nuclear weapons that maniacal mullahs will use to bomb New York, London, Berlin, Brussels, in addition to all Arabs and Muslims in West Asia.
Kennedy told Theodor Capitani von Kurnatowski III, aka Theo Von, US intelligence informed him Iran is “stacking ballistic missiles and killer drones like never before” and will rain them down on London, Paris, and Germany. The culprit here is Iran’s Khorramshahr medium-range ballistic missile with a range of 2,000 kilometers, said to be derived from the North Korean Musudan (BM-25) missile. London is over 5,000 kilometers from Iran, while Paris is over 4,000 kilometers, and Berlin 3,000 kilometers.
Trump to the rescue, according to Kennedy. The president faced a “nightmare decision: Let them arm up until they could rain fire on our allies and threaten the homeland… or strike first and save the world? He chose to bomb their nuclear sites and stop the madness.”
I thought the illegal sneak attack on Iran, including the assassination the Supreme Leader of Iran, the 86-year old Ali Khamenei, eliminated Iran’s supposed nuclear threat, or that’s what Trump told us, ad nauseam. Iran has never possessed nuclear weapons and remains a non-nuclear-weapon state under international treaties, specifically the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). US intelligence agencies have assessed that Iran is not currently building a nuclear weapon.
Trump’s former (now persona non grata) Director of National Intelligence (DNI), Tulsi Gabbard, told a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing in March Operation Midnight Hammer had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear enrichment capability. No mention on the obliteration of the Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary School in Minab, Iran, murdering 156 civilians, 120 of them school girls. That collateral damage is 1,200 kilometers from the Fordow Uranium Enrichment Plant.
Anyway, anything Mr. Kennedy says should be taken with a boulder of salt and a fistful of antacid. He has benefited from $113,680 donated by the Israel lobby. He co-sponsored the Taylor Force Act (legislation prohibits American funds from being given to Palestinian entities), the Israel Anti-Boycott Act (making “economic speech” illegal), the Combating BDS Act of 2017 (making Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions illegal), and the United States-Israel Security Assistance Authorization Act (providing and additional $3.3 billion to Israel for “self-defense,” that is to say abducting, torturing, raping, and murdering thousands of Palestinians).
Abelardo de la Espriella’s razor-thin victory over leftist Iván Cepeda on June 21, 2026 represented the most recent rightward shift in Latin America’s politics. The defense attorney from Barranquilla captured 49.66 percent of the vote against Cepeda’s 48.7 percent—a margin of roughly 250,000 votes in what Al Jazeera called one of Colombia’s closest elections. Within hours, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar called to congratulate him, and de la Espriella posted his response publicly.
“Colombia will restore and strengthen its relationship with the State of Israel like never before. Israel can count on Colombia as a loyal friend and steadfast ally,” de la Espriella declared. Sa’ar called him “a true friend of the Jewish people and the State of Israel,” adding that he looked forward to “revitalizing relations between Israel and Colombia and taking them to their highest level ever” and that he had already invited the incoming president to visit Israel.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu offered his own congratulations, saying he looked forward to “working with you to strengthen the bond between Israel and Colombia.” De la Espriella has pledged to reverse Petro’s 2024 decision to cut ties with Israel and has promised to relocate the Colombian embassy to Jerusalem.
No figure looms larger in this transformation of Latin American politics than Argentine President Javier Milei. The libertarian economist who took office in December 2023 has positioned himself as Israel’s most devoted ally anywhere on earth.
“I am sincerely proud to be the most Zionist president in the world,” Milei declared at Yeshiva University in March 2026. At the Western Wall in June 2025, he proclaimed that “My support for Israel comes from the heart, because I believe this is a just cause—the cause of the West. I will always stand by your side.”
Milei personally studies Torah with Rabbi Shimon Axel Wahnish from the Moroccan Jewish community in Argentina and has said he intends to convert to Judaism after leaving office. In June 2025, he became the first non-Jewish head of state to receive Israel’s Genesis Prize, known as the “Jewish Nobel,” awarded for his “unequivocal support” of Israel.
He directed his entire $1 million prize toward creating the American Friends of Isaac Accords, the vehicle through which Argentina and Israel formally signed the Isaac Accords on April 19, 2026 in Jerusalem. The framework explicitly mirrors the Abraham Accords that normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states, but targets the Western Hemisphere instead.
The goals are clear. Partner countries should move their embassies to Jerusalem, designate Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations, shift anti-Israel voting patterns at the United Nations, and create frameworks for trade in technology, agriculture, water, health, and cybersecurity.
At least one nation had embraced the embassy mandate well ahead of the Accords. Paraguay’s Santiago Peña reopened his country’s embassy in Jerusalem on December 12, 2024, making Paraguay the sixth country in the world—after the United States, Guatemala, Honduras, Kosovo, and Papua New Guinea—and the first since the October 7 attacks to establish diplomatic presence in the contested city.
“Mr. prime minister, on behalf of all the Paraguayan people, we were with you, we are with you, we will stay with the people of Israel forever,” Peña declared at the ceremony with Netanyahu present. He called the move “a tipping point in our own history” and “a moral obligation that the Paraguayan people have asked us to fulfill.”
Paraguay was not alone in courting Tel Aviv. Ecuador’s Daniel Noboa, the banana fortune heir who won re-election in 2025, traveled to Jerusalem in May of that year for meetings with Netanyahu, at which Noboa declared that “Israel and Ecuador have the same enemies” and pledged to fight poverty, terrorism, and suffering “until the end.” Israeli diplomatic sources confirmed to Jewish Insider that both Ecuador and Paraguay are expected to formally join the Isaac Accords framework.
Nowhere did the shift register more dramatically than in Chile. José Antonio Kast’s victory in Chile’s December 2025 election delivered perhaps the most symbolically significant prize. Kast overturned four years of Gabriel Boric’s more pro-Palestinian governance. After Iran’s 2024 drone attack on Israel, Kast had warned that “Iran launches a drone and missile attack on Israel. They could be the same drones that it gifted to Bolivia to monitor our borders. Chile has a serious national security problem.”
In May 2026, Kast met with Israeli President Isaac Herzog and pledged to return Chile’s ambassador to Israel, ending a lengthy vacancy by naming Gabriel Zaliasnik as ambassador. He promised expanded cooperation in agriculture, health, artificial intelligence, technology, and security. Notably, Kast achieved this while governing a country home to the largest Palestinian diaspora outside the Arab world, estimated at 500,000 people.
The same paradox surfaced again, more sharply still, in Central America. Nasry “Tito” Asfura won Honduras’s late 2025 election with Trump’s endorsement, becoming president on January 27, 2026. Despite his Palestinian Christian ancestry, the conservative former mayor of Tegucigalpa made Israel one of his first international destinations after being elected, traveling there alongside the United States.
“It is a great honor for me to be in Israel again and to strengthen the ties which have been in existence over the last 77 years,” Asfura stated in Jerusalem. “I hope we are entering a new era where we can improve our relations, relations of brotherhood, and prosperity, of investment.” Israeli Foreign Minister Sa’ar told the Jerusalem Post Magazine that Asfura “has a clear worldview that is pro-Western, pro-American, and pro-Israeli,” and characterized the broader regional shift as a “Blue Wave” of right-wing governments aligning with the United States and Israel.
Bolivia’s Rodrigo Paz ended nearly 20 years of socialist MAS party rule by winning the October 2025 election. Within weeks, he restored diplomatic relations with Israel—ties the prior government had severed in 2023. Netanyahu congratulated Paz personally, and the two agreed to “promote cooperation in various fields, with an emphasis on security, and to restore the vibrant tourism of many Israeli travelers to Bolivia’s natural landscapes and rich cultures.”
Not every convert to the cause fits the expected profile. Nayib Bukele represents the most curious figure in this constellation. The Salvadoran president, who has Palestinian ancestry on his father’s side, has become an ardent Israel supporter despite his Palestinian Christian heritage. After October 7, 2023, Bukele posted that “As a Salvadoran with Palestinian ancestry, I’m sure the best thing that could happen to the Palestinian people is for Hamas to completely disappear. Those savage beasts do not represent the Palestinians.” El Salvador voted against the UN General Assembly resolution calling for a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza in December 2023.
To the south, another government moved along the same axis. José Raúl Mulino, Panama’s security-focused former defense minister, won the 2024 elections and tilted the country firmly toward Washington and Jerusalem. In May 2026, Israeli President Herzog made the first official visit by an Israeli head of state to Panama. Mulino issued a joint declaration pledging expanded cooperation in security, commerce, technology, agriculture, and water management. Panama remains the only Latin American country that has never recognized a Palestinian state.
The October 2026 Brazilian presidential election represents the next battleground. President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who compared Israel’s actions to the Holocaust and withdrew Brazil’s ambassador in 2024, faces Senator Flávio Bolsonaro in what polls show as a statistical tie—the BTG/Nexus survey of late March 2026 showed them tied at 46 percent each in a simulated runoff, with the race narrowing from a 12-point Lula lead in December 2025. The first round is scheduled for October 4, 2026, with a runoff on October 25 if no candidate clears 50 percent.
Flávio Bolsonaro, whose father Jair Bolsonaro was imprisoned for the January 8, 2023 coup attempt and barred from office, has positioned himself as the conservative consolidation candidate. A Bolsonaro victory would add the hemisphere’s largest country to the pro-Israel bloc. The Brazil-Israel Parliamentary Caucus signed the Isaac Accords “Declaration of Shared Principles” in April 2026, demonstrating legislative support even while Lula governs.
Behind each of these realignments lay forces larger than any single election. Trump’s return to the presidency in 2025 directly tied American financial and political backing to right-wing candidates. The region’s growing evangelical Christian population, with its theologically driven support for Israel, has provided an important voting base. As the Jerusalem Post observed, Israeli officials have declared 2026 “the year of Latin America.” With more than a dozen countries having restored or strengthened ties with Israel, the Isaac Accords and the broader rightward shift have fundamentally redrawn the hemisphere’s diplomatic map with direct implications for Israel’s global standing, American regional strategy, and the future of Palestinian diplomacy in the Western Hemisphere.
The latest boondoggles in Eurasia—from the Russo-Ukrainian war to the Iran war—have forced the Judeo-American project to seek softer targets. Latin America, with its fractured polities, corrupt elites, and vast resources, is the obvious prize. The so-called right-wing resurgence is not a recovery of national pride but rather a vassalage dressed in conservative robes. Each new president who rushes to Tel Aviv is a tool, not a leader. Pace some naive nationalist minds in the West, Zionism is not nationalist in nature, but rather an expansionist movement with global ambitions. The illusion that it respects sovereignty must be shattered by serious political movements. A coordinated multi-national resistance is the only force that can stop this hemispheric takeover and other Jewish supremacist endeavors from consolidating across the globe.
The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) continues to do a disservice to its stated mission and is now actively aiding Israel in killing Palestinian journalists instead of protecting them.
The CPJ has removed eight names from its list of slain Palestinian journalists because “Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) published obituaries identifying them as members of their armed groups” and over baseless claims that they “had participated in combat”.
But as Quds News Network noted , “CPJ has not disputed that these individuals were doing journalism work at the time they were killed. What CPJ cites instead is their prior affiliation with the media departments of Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad, known in Arabic as al-i’lam al-harbi, or military media, a distinction between media relations work and combat that the organization’s own new criteria appears to collapse.”
It added that “Under the Fourth Geneva Convention and Additional Protocol I, specifically Article 79, journalists conducting dangerous professional missions in armed conflict are protected as civilians. The legal threshold for losing that protection is direct participation in hostilities at the moment of the attack, not past employment, political affiliation, or membership in a media relations unit. Working in a media department for a political or armed movement is not equivalent to bearing arms or planning attacks. None of the individuals removed from CPJ’s count have been shown by Israel or by CPJ to have been carrying weapons or engaged in combat operations at the time they were killed. To date, Israel has never produced verified evidence proving it killed a single Palestinian journalist while that journalist was carrying arms.”
In other words, the CPJ seems to be suggesting that any Palestinian journalist who at any time was affiliated with armed resistance groups, even in the media department, will now be labeled as a combatant.
Furthermore, as journalist Tareq S. Hajjaj noted, this same standard is not applied by the CPJ to Israeli journalists.
As he noted:
But if these standards are to be applied, do they apply only to Palestinian and Lebanese journalists? What about Israeli journalists, all of whom served in the Israeli military? Does military service in an army carrying out a genocide raise no comparable questions? These journalists continue their work after receiving military training alongside other soldiers. And as journalists, they actively incited genocide against Palestinians around the clock.
And there’s more. Some Israeli journalists even participated in war crimes while they were covering them. In October 2024, Israeli journalist Danny Kushmaro participated in the demolition of a home in a village in Southern Lebanon while filming himself doing it for a Channel 12 report. After pressing the button that blew up the house, he signed off by saying, “Don’t mess with the Jews.”
Palestinian journalists documenting the suffering of an occupied people are portrayed as suspects, while the perpetrators escape meaningful scrutiny.
This stunt by the CPJ to appease Israel and its lobbyists was used by Israel to justify its mass slaughter of Palestinian journalists.
The official account of the IDF posted a message to the CPJ saying “We hate to be the ones to say ‘we told you so’”, above a meme saying “The CPJ after finding out that the ‘journalists’ on their list are actually terrorists”.
As Quds News Network noted, “Israel has never proven that it killed a single Palestinian journalist while that journalist was armed or engaged in combat. What the latest CPJ decision does is hand Israel a tool to claim retroactive legitimacy over killings it was never required to justify in the first place, while the broader, undisputed, and overwhelming record of journalists killed simply for doing their jobs remains unanswered.”
In reality, Israel has repeatedly lied about journalists being engaged in combat to justify slaughtering them.
In the most high-profile case, Israel released fabricated documents to portray the well-known Palestinian journalist Anas Al Sharif as a combatant to justify his murder, but a closer look at the documents shows they were badly fabricated by Israeli intelligence.
In the case of Al-Sharif, Israel released three documents that contradict each other. One, dated 2023, lists him as a “combatant” with his status described as “suspended” and “unassigned.” It highlights that he suffered incapacitating injuries in a training explosion that left him with “extremely weak hearing in the left ear, weak eyesight” and constant migraines and headaches.
Another from 2019 describes Al-Sharif as a “group leader” but lists his 17th birthday as the day he joined Hamas, despite the minimum age for membership being 18. And a third undated document suggests Al-Sharif was a member of Hamas’ Nukhba unit, the most elite combat division of the Al-Qassam brigades. But it is nearly impossible that someone with incapacitating injuries could join this unit, or would have previously been a member and then demoted to a foot soldier.
If Al-Sharif was part of Hamas, why did Israel release him after detaining and interrogating him in al-Shifa hospital, per Israeli journalist Amit Segal? Or why wasn’t he taken out earlier? For 22 months, Al-Sharif lived in the open, reported from the streets of Gaza, slept in tents in public spaces, and had his phone on him at all times — a far cry from the behavior of a dangerous militant, who would be under strict orders to operate under the radar.
As Shehada noted, the Likud-friendly journalist Amit Segal admitted that Anas Al Sharif “was also detained by the IDF during the takeover of Shifa Hospital, but was later released,” disproving any notion that he was a combatant.
In reality, Israel killed Anas Al Sharif to silence his factual reporting on Israel’s crimes. After his murder, his brother revealed that “Days before being killed in a targeted attack by Israeli forces, Anas al-Sharif was offered a deal: stop covering Gaza, and he and his family could leave safely.”
Israel ran similar deception campaigns against countless journalists in Gaza to justify slaughtering them.
All of these deceptions came out of the Mossad’s “Legitimization Cell,” which the Israeli magazine 972reported was tasked to “identify Gaza-based journalists it could portray as undercover Hamas operatives, in an effort to blunt growing global outrage over Israel’s killing of reporters”.
One inside source said, “The team regularly collected intelligence that could be used for hasbara … The idea was to [allow the military to] operate without pressure, so countries like America wouldn’t stop supplying weapons” and another admitted, ““the Legitimization Cell misrepresented intelligence in a way that allowed for the false portrayal of a journalist as a member of Hamas’s military wing”.
The Gaza Government Media Office has documented that Israel has killed 262 journalists and wounded 420 since the start of the genocide in Gaza.
These murders often included intentionally killing family members of the journalists, including children.
The Palestinian Journalists Syndicate documented that , “the targeting of the Palestinian journalistic situation by the Israeli occupation army was not limited to direct killing, injury, arrest or preventing coverage, but developed to take a more dangerous and brutal dimension represented by targeting the families of journalists and their relatives, in a clear attempt to turn journalistic work into an existential burden paid for by children, wives and parents”.
It added that, “Based on the monitoring and documentation of the Freedoms Committee in the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate, the targeting of journalists’ families has become a systematic and repeated pattern during 2023, 2024 and 2025, killing about 706 families of journalists in the Gaza Strip. All indicators prove that the targeting is not accidental incidents resulting from the conditions of war”.
This was as attempt to scare Palestinian journalist into silence, the organization noted, writing, “The effects of these crimes are not limited to human losses, but extend to deep psychological traumas among journalists who lost their children, wives or parents, the disintegration of families and the loss of a sense of security, the forcing of journalists to flee or temporarily stop working, the journalist with a harsh sense of guilt, within the framework of an organized psychological war, and the Freedoms Committee confirms that this psychological dimension is an integral part of the system of repression”.
To help cover up this genocidal campaign, Israel no longer needs to solely rely on the Legitimization Cell; it now has the CPJ as well.
Israel’s land registration drive in the occupied West Bank has taken shape without a formal declaration. It has moved through budgets and ministries, driven by routine administrative decisions that rarely draw sustained attention.
In mid-February, the Israeli government approved 244 million shekels for a sweeping land registration project in Area C of the occupied West Bank. Framed as an administrative measure, it transfers authority over land from the Civil Administration to the Israeli Land Registry under the Ministry of Justice.
Map of Areas A, B, and C established under the Oslo Accords.
That transfer folds large parts of the occupied West Bank into Israel’s legal system, advancing annexation through procedure rather than proclamation. The change appears technical on paper and carries clear political consequences.
More than 58 percent of Area C, nearly 1.9 million dunams (roughly 1,900 square kilometers), remains unregistered, according to the Israeli anti-settlement group Peace Now. That unresolved legal status is now at the center of Israel’s latest initiative.
The roots of the issue stretch back decades. Under Jordanian administration between 1949 and 1967, only a portion of land was formally registered, following older British Mandate practices. After 1967, Israeli military orders froze settlement processes, leaving wide areas governed by customary ownership and inherited documents.
That legacy now carries forward into the present. What was left unresolved is now being brought under a new legal framework.
Land registration as control
The plan sets out to survey and register about 15 percent of these lands, roughly 290,000 dunams (around 290 square kilometers), before the end of the decade.
For Palestinian landholders, claims require detailed documentation and precise maps, often stretching back generations. In many cases, those records are incomplete or no longer available.
Where proof falls short, land can be classified as state property. Once registered that way, it can be redirected toward settlement construction or agricultural outposts, while former owners lose access.
Legal ground shifts
Recent cabinet decisions have reshaped the legal terrain that governed land for decades.
Pre-1967 Jordanian restrictions that once limited property sales to Palestinians are being overridden, opening the door for companies and settler groups to acquire land inside densely populated Palestinian areas.
At the same time, prior approval requirements for transactions have been lifted. These procedures once allowed authorities to review claims and flag irregularities. Their removal speeds up transfers and reduces oversight.
Land records have also been opened for public review. For settlement groups, this offers a clearer path to identifying absentee ownership and pursuing contested claims.
These measures do not stop at Area C. They reach into Areas A and B, where the Palestinian Authority (PA) holds administrative powers under the Oslo framework. Israeli agencies are now positioned to intervene more directly, including demolishing Palestinian buildings and structures, under the guise of enforcing environmental standards, heritage protection, and water management.
In Hebron (Al-Khalil), planning authority in key areas has been transferred from the municipality to Israeli military control. In Bethlehem, a dedicated body now oversees the area around Rachel’s Tomb, channeling resources into nearby religious infrastructure.
Expansion on the hills
Legal change has moved in tandem with accelerated settlement activity.
A new plan outlines the establishment of outposts across dozens of strategic hilltops, each designed to establish a permanent presence through mobile homes and basic infrastructure.
More than 1 billion shekels have been allocated for roads linking the new outposts to existing settlements, folding them into the wider settlement network.
Settlement construction has risen sharply in recent years, with Peace Now reporting an 80 percent increase since 2022. Many outposts once considered unauthorized have since been retroactively approved.
Pastoral outposts form part of this expansion. Herds are used to assert control over grazing land, limiting Palestinian access, and extending the reach of settlement activity beyond built structures.
The E1 corridor east of Jerusalem remains central to these plans. Tenders have been issued for more than 3,400 housing units in the E1 area, linking Ma’ale Adumim to Jerusalem. If built, the project would sever the territorial continuity between Ramallah, occupied East Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, effectively dividing the West Bank into two disconnected parts
A joint report by Peace Now and Kerem Navot found that shepherding outposts now give settlers control over around 14 percent of the occupied West Bank, or at least 786,000 dunams (786 square kilometers).
Displacement under pressure
On the ground, these changes are accompanied by rising pressure on Palestinian communities.
According to UN OCHA data, cited by Amnesty International, 117 predominantly Bedouin and herding communities in the occupied West Bank experienced full or partial displacement between January 2023 and April 2026 following settler attacks and related access restrictions.
In parts of the Jordan Valley and the hills around Ramallah, attacks by settler groups have led to the destruction of homes and infrastructure. In some cases, entire communities have left overnight.
In one case, a community in Al-Mu’arajat was completely displaced after homes were demolished and infrastructure looted. In Ras Ein al-Auja, near Jericho, Bedouin families were forced to leave after settler outposts cut off access to grazing land and undermined their livelihoods.
Accounts from affected areas describe vehicles entering at speed, property damage, and the seizure of basic resources. Fatal incidents have also been reported, with residents killed during confrontations.
For many, remaining on the land has become increasingly difficult. Pressure builds through legal, economic, and physical channels.
A system, not incidents
Evidence suggests that settler violence is not random but operates within an organized framework supported by state institutions.
Figures from the Israeli rights group Yesh Din show that the vast majority of complaints related to settler violence are closed without charges.
Oversight of the police sits with extremist National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir. Field reports from within the Israeli military describe coordination at times between soldiers and settler elements, or a lack of intervention during incidents.
Support has also taken administrative form. Dedicated units have been established to work with settler youth groups, alongside funding for equipment used in remote areas.
Political rhetoric has also drawn criticism. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly described violent settlers as “a handful of extremists.” The cumulative effect is a system that allows these dynamics to persist, operating with continuity rather than disruption.
Regional fault lines
The developments have drawn responses from regional and international actors, grounded in legal frameworks.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ), in its 2024 advisory opinion, found that Israel’s policies and practices in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem violate international law. Land confiscation and population transfer were identified as unlawful.
Land confiscation and the transfer of population are prohibited under the Fourth Geneva Convention and affirmed as unlawful in UN Security Council Resolution 2334.
Governments in Jordan, Egypt, Qatar, and Turkiye have described current policies as a form of annexation that undermines the basis for a political settlement.
For Jordan, the issue carries additional weight, touching on the foundations of its 1994 peace agreement with Israel.
Western responses have remained largely declarative. Opposition to formal annexation has not translated into a halt to settlement growth or infrastructure expansion.
The changes continue through administrative channels, each step building on the last. What began as a registry project now runs through land, law, and control across the occupied West Bank, carried forward through procedure and fixed on the ground.
Across legal files, hilltops, and emptying villages, the map is being redrawn without a formal declaration.
By Jamal Kanj – Intifada-Palestine.com – January 14, 2011
Israel’s survival kit is: perpetuate conflict, insecurity to rationalize collective hate and finally playing victim.
Devoid of conflict, Israel implodes internally; without hate, Zionism loses its justification; and playing eternal victim to continue blackmailing the West. Absence of this holy trinity, Israel ceases to exist. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.