COMMENTARY / OPINION
When the Jewish State Turns on the Jew By Mordechai Sones
Targeting Honenu is not a political dispute, but a battle for Israel’s very soul
September 11, 2025 Jewish Home
That the security apparatus of the modern Israeli state has allegedly targeted the legal aid organization Honenu should surprise no one who has observed the state’s philosophical trajectory. This incident is not an aberration or a flaw in the system. It is the system functioning as designed—the inevitable outcome of a state conceived in the shadow of Machiavelli—a secular Zionism that has created a state intrinsically hostile to the very Jewish essence it purports to protect.
Honenu’s work consists of defending Jews—soldiers and civilians—whom the state has deemed inconvenient. These are the individuals who act upon an un-sanitized Jewish identity, one that is not mediated by the sterile rationalism of the High Court or the bureaucratic morality of the state’s managerial class. Honenu represents the very spirit the modern state was created to domesticate: the raw, pre-political Jew who defends himself, his land, and his people without first seeking permission from the proper authorities. This Jew is an intolerable variable in the state’s secular equation.
Therefore, the actions of the Shin Bet’s “Jewish Department” must be understood not as the overreach of a few agents, but as the logical function of the state’s immune system. When its founder, Shmuel Meidad, is warned that the agency will “take Honenu… down,” it is the voice of the totalitarian state itself, which by its nature cannot abide any power center or source of loyalty outside of its own absolute sovereignty. When the state’s interrogators question a man about his legal counsel, they are not merely violating a procedural norm; they are asserting the state’s total authority over every facet of the individual’s existence, dissolving the sacred space between a man and his advocate.
Herein lies the paradox of the Jewish state, a paradox that has now ripened into open hostility. The state was founded on the promise of protecting the Jewish body, but it demanded the Jewish soul as payment. It adopted the Enlightenment’s error—the tyranny of tolerance—which posits a neutral, universalist framework where the particularities of Jewish identity can only be expressed insofar as they do not challenge the supremacy of the secular order.
Honenu’s existence is a direct challenge to that order. It insists that there is a Jewish law, a Jewish solidarity, and a Jewish definition of justice that precedes the state and is not subject to its approval.
In the eyes of the state, this makes Honenu not a legal aid society, but a seditious entity.
The alleged campaign to destroy it is not a political maneuver; it is a philosophical necessity for a regime that must, in the end, crush any remnant of the authentic Jewish sovereignty it was meant to restore.
The conflict between the Shin Bet and Honenu is thus a clear glimpse into the soul of the modern Israeli project—a project now at war with itself.
There’s something odd about Charlie Kirk’s shooter [7:58] Jesus Enrique Rosas
September 10, 2025 The Body Language Guy
Ultra Orthodox WAR FIGHTERS Take Down Terrorists and Prove A Point [14:05] Yishai Fleisher
September 8, 2025 – News Update: Today’s violence against innocent commuters in Jerusalem, ran into unexpected trained and armed religious men. Yishai and Sivan Raviv (ILTV anchor) break down the tragedy as well as positive lessons pointing to improvements for Israel’s future security.
🚨 BREAKING: Charlie Kirk Confirmed DEAD – Shooter Escapes – LIVE Coverage [1:15:33] Mahyar Tousi
September 10, 2025 Tousi TV
Eight months in: What we voted for vs. what we got LEO HOHMANN
Is Trump fulfilling is various promises on war and peace, the economy, draining the swamp and decreasing the size of the federal footprint in our lives?
SEP 10, 2025
We are eight months into the Trump administration so I thought it would be a good time for a few observations.
I did vote for Trump and, like many, I’m suffering buyer’s remorse.
I’ll start off by saying the alternative was a nonstarter. Kamala Harris was not a serious candidate, and I believe the globalists threw her against Trump as part of their master plan to make sure Trump got a second term in office. I would not be a bit surprised if the power elites in this country have at least a 12-year hidden plan where they have their people already selected. That means they already have the next president and likely the one after that in their sights.
When we voted for Trump we voted for a secure border, an end to the foreign wars and Washington’s constant agitation and bullying of other sovereign nations. All of which is causing great instability around the world and prepping it for World War III. We wanted Trump to concentrate on bringing back the American economy, bringing home most of our overseas troops, lowering the debt and the cost of living.
Let’s look at what we have actually gotten eight months in from an administration that promised to do a lot, “and very quickly,” as Trump likes to say.
On the growing surveillance state
I’ll admit, dismantling the police state/surveillance state was never something Trump seriously campaigned on, but he did make enough vague references about cleaning house in the FBI, ATF and IRS to give people the impression that he wanted to downsize the federal footprint. In reality, Trump has always had an obsession with the military and law and order so we should have seen his expansion of the police state and the whole federal apparatus as a given.
When the government farms a data-collection program out to a private entity like Palantir, to be activated in running all levels of government, including the new Department of War…. then sends the Department of War into our cities…well, Houston, we have a problem. No one is safe. They know all. They see all. They hear all. Who’s watching the watchers? When’s the last time you heard Trump make any sort of reverent comment about the Constitution or the constitutional rights of all Americans? I’ve noticed an eerie silence in that area and when combined with his actions, it looks like martial law could be in our future with the most constitutionally questionable surveillance tactics farmed out to Big Tech. I don’t believe anyone voted for that.
On the border
This is the one area where I give Trump a passing grade. He has delivered fairly well on the border situation, but even here, there’s more talk than action. The number of illegals coming across the border has slowed to a trickle, but the numbers of illegals actually being deported doesn’t line up with the rhetoric.
Trump announced he’s approved 600,000 visas for Chinese students. I don’t believe we voted for that.
And what happened to those 100,000 Chinese men of military age that we were told slipped across the border during Biden’s term? Have they been rounded up? Is there any effort ongoing to find them? Crickets from the administration.
Jacob Thompson at The Winepress notes that:
“Per a recent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, Newsweek reports that since President Trump took office on January 20th, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had deported 145,419 illegal immigrants from its detention centers, peaking in June with a total of 27,970. This number includes self-departures.”
However, Disclose.tv noted that at the current pace, the Trump administration will deport 1.1 million illegals over four years.
Thompson writes:
“Interestingly enough, government data shows President Barack Obama deported more illegals than Trump did during his first term, and even President Joe Biden was executing similar numbers to Trump, save for 2021 and 2022. Based on the current trajectory from the currently reported data, per the most recent FOIA, Trump 2.0 is set to deport even fewer annually than the first time.”
According to Jessica Vaughn at Center for Immigration Studies, under Trump, ICE has removed nearly double the number of aliens with criminal convictions or pending criminal charges, which will result in safer communities across the country. So that’s positive, but the bit about “mass deportations” so far hasn’t materialized.
Inflation and the rising overall cost of living
Next up, let’s look at the economy. Where is this new Golden Age of peace and prosperity that Trump speaks of?
We are eight months in and all I see is growing economic misery. The cost of almost everything is up, but the real killers are food prices, the soaring costs of insurance for homeowners and car owners, car parts and car repairs, and rapidly rising local property taxes, to the point of forcing people out of their homes.
Hiring was moribund under Biden and I don’t think anyone can make the argument that job opportunities have increased since Trump took over. Amazon just announced that it plans to replace almost all of its workers with AI by the year 2030. Is that what the new “Golden Age” will look like?
I voted for a lower cost of living. What did we get? Trump’s Stargate project aims to blanket America with massive AI data centers. Electricity costs are already soaring, and they’ve just gotten started. Trump wants thousands of these power-hogging data centers. Some analysts predict they could cause electricity rates to double or even triple over the next three to five years, as the data centers soak up more and more of the available electric power capacity. The same goes for water rates.
I also voted for lower gas prices. By low, I mean at or below $2 a gallon. I’d settle for $2.25. Where are they? Trump promised to slash energy prices in half. He pounded the slogan, “drill baby drill.” Eight months have passed. Are we drilling? And if so, why haven’t prices come down? Because they aren’t drilling, that’s why. It was all a smokescreen and voters lapped it up.
Oil and gas producers worldwide are bracing for a prolonged downturn, with job losses and investment cuts spreading through the industry, according to a new report from the Financial Times.
ConocoPhillips, Chevron, and BP have all announced large-scale layoffs, while others are shelving or selling projects to conserve cash.
Kirk Edwards of Latigo Petroleum told the Financial Times:
“This isn’t just a Conoco problem. It’s a flashing red warning light for the entire US oil and gas industry.”
Trump also said there would be no CBDC in our future. Yet, he gave us one by another name. It’s called Stablecoin. It will replace the faltering U.S. paper dollar when it finally collapses. That’s a whole other article.
Upgrade to paid
Endless War in Ukraine and Middle East
To get our minds off of the imploding economy, Trump seems to enjoy engaging in threats of war against various sovereign nations, and against various mayors of cities he doesn’t like.
The self-described “Peace President” has become the War President. He even changed the name of the Department of Defense to the Department of War, admitting that he’s enamored with the idea of initiating offensive wars against countries or leaders he doesn’t like.
He’s also putting troops from the War Department on the streets of U.S. cities, starting with Chicago. I didn’t vote for that. Let’s be honest. As much as we don’t like Democrats, this is a dangerous provocation that could lead to civil war. My guess is it’s more rhetoric than actual policy, but why inflame the already gaping divisions in American society, unless the goal truly is civil distress, chaos, confusion and ultimately civil war?
Trump has ordered Putin to stop fighting Ukraine while continuing to send weapons to Putin’s enemy, Ukraine.
Is Trump, or any U.S. president, in a position to dictate the terms of a peace deal to nuclear-armed Russia? I don’t think so. Attempting to do so will some point backfire on Trump and America. Now there’s talk that Trump wants to force the EU into joining his secondary sanctions on countries buying Russian oil, namely China and India, and that Trump wants to see European troops deployed in Ukraine to enforce his proposed peace deal. He’s playing with fire here (as in Russian firepower).
Amid all his demands for other countries to stop fighting each other, there’s one country he tells to keep fighting. That’s Israel, which looks like it has a blank check to attack anywhere in the Middle East anytime it wants. Trump even participated in one of the attacks, that being the one on Iran. I support Israel’s right to defend itself but I think its government has gone off the rails when it feels free to openly hunt its enemies and send missiles into the residential areas of foreign countries. I don’t believe that’s a wise policy for any country as it will only create new enemies as fast as the old ones are wiped out.
Now Venezuela is in Trump’s sights. Does anyone believe that’s all about going after drugs? Venezuela is rich in oil and gas. I think it’s the resources, not the drugs.
I see a lot of war and threats of more. Where is all this peace he talks about?
Col. Douglas MacGregor noted in a recent interview with Judge Andrew Napolitano that, if we continue on our current trajectory with Russia, we are being dragged into a war over a piece of land that is of no strategic value to our country. “That ends in thermo-nuclear war,” MacGregor said.
So Trump has a decision to make. Does he continue down this path to World War III and nuclear war or does he look for an off ramp? We better start praying someone talks some sense into the man.
Gun control
No GOP administration should be talking about restrictions on our Second Amendment, period. Any restriction, even against a hated enemy, can and will be turned around on us at a later date. Yet, the Trump-led DOJ announced last week it is considering banning transgenders from owning firearms. If a GOP administration can ban those on its enemies’ list from owning firearms, why can’t the Democrats do the same thing when they occupy the White House? Are you ready to turn your guns over to Gavin Newsom because you happen to be a conservative Christian? I didn’t think so.
On vaccines and mRNA technology
On vaccines, I didn’t vote for Trump to defend vaccines. Although I did know that Trump was terribly weak on this issue and that his chief of staff Susie Wiles was sold out to Big Pharma, I had some fleeting hope that his choice of RFK Jr. to lead HHS would make Trump at least a little less enthusiastic about poisonous death shots. I was wrong.
Four new mRNA Covid shots have been approved under Trump’s watch with various others in the pipeline.
Trump gave vaccine-obsessed billionaire Bill Gates a seat of honor at a White House dinner last week. Then, during a press conference in the Oval Office last Friday, Trump told reporters that “you have some vaccines that are so amazing. The polio vaccine, I happen to think is amazing. Some people think the Covid vaccine was amazing.”
The president also noted that “you have to be very careful when you say that some people don’t have to be vaccinated … It’s a very tough position.”
After pissing off his base and taking a lot of heat, Trump, in typical fashion, flipflopped two days later and said all vaccines are poison. I don’t think anyone with a brain takes this seriously.
Before it’s all said and done, I think Trump will throw RFK Jr. under the bus, sidelining him from facilitating any meaningful change in the government-Big Pharma-biosecurity-corporate media complex.
On dissolving the IRS
I voted for defanging the IRS. Trump said he would eliminate the federal income tax and drastically reduce the role of the agency that collects this tax, if not outright eliminate it. Instead, he’s expanding it. The news hit last week that Trump is rehiring the IRS agents that Biden hired and he initially fired. You can’t make this up, folks. Ending the federal income tax? I’m still waiting.
All else aside, there are some other nagging questions.
What happened to the Fort Knox gold that Trump said he would personally go in to inspect?
What happened to the arrests of Fauci, Mayorkas, James Comey, Brennan, Clapper and the Russiagate collaborators?
What happened to those Epstein files Trump promised he would release to the public? We are sick of being gaslit and told we are stupid and weak for not wanting to memory-hole the Epstein files.
What ever happened to DOGE and all those budget cuts it recommended?
What happened to draining the swamp and closing down the Department of Education, the IRS and FBI? Instead, we got an enthusiastic endorsement of Lindsey Graham, the prince of the Swamp Creatures!
BOTTOM LINE: We aren’t going to change Washington or the man supposedly in charge of running it. He is who he is. Gerald Celente, publisher of the Trends Journal, described Trump, accurately in my view, as “a spoiled daddy’s boy with a bad attitude,” adding that Trump “was born on third base and told he hit a homerun.”
The government is what it is. But it’s time we start looking at things as they are, as opposed to how we’d like them to be.
[Ed.: In the last two days, there have been two Secret Service failures. The restaurant affair, and the Glock found at a Trump golf course. Two more Secret Service failures. Yet, Trump persists in entrusting his life to the Secret Service. What’s up with that? The list of questionable Trump behavior has been getting longer. Recently sending nit-Witkopf as emissary to the Middle East and having Hamas’s backer, Qatar, as the negotiator to end the fighting with Israel. As the list grows longer by the day, so too, does my distrust. I thought I was the only one. But, apparently, I’m not the only one.]
They’re lying to you about Israel’s attack in Qatar. JOSHUA HOFFMAN
Folks want you to believe that Israel committed a great sin by striking Hamas in Qatar. The truth is: Israel shattered an illusion. Qatar can’t sponsor terror and play peacemaker at the same time.
SEP 10, 2025
The international reaction to Israel’s airstrike in Doha on Tuesday against Hamas’ senior leaders was swift and predictable.
Headlines across major outlets characterized it as a “reckless escalation.”
Governments expressed shock, nongovernmental organizations invoked international law, and commentators warned that the attack undermined sovereignty and regional stability.
Yet much of this discourse sidesteps the central truth: Qatar has, for more than a decade, served as the primary patron and safe haven of Hamas. By hosting the group’s leadership in luxury hotels, financing its operations, and portraying itself as both “peace mediator” and enabler of terror, Qatar created the very conditions that made this strike inevitable.
Israel’s operation inside Qatari territory did not occur in a vacuum. It was the culmination of years of duplicity tolerated by the international community, and it marks a turning point in the way states may deal with those who host terrorist leadership under the cover of diplomacy. To understand the gravity of this moment, one must examine Qatar’s role, the international responses, and the strategic meaning of the operation for Israel and the region at large.
Qatar’s Longstanding Duplicity
Qatar has for years balanced two identities: a close Western ally that hosts the largest U.S. military base in the Middle East, and a financier and political sponsor of groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and the Taliban. On one hand, it invests billions in Western economies, cultivates ties with European capitals, and positions itself as indispensable to U.S. regional strategy. On the other, it funnels funds to militant organizations, offers their leaders safe haven, and grants them media legitimacy through platforms like Al Jazeera.
The Hamas leadership in Doha has long been an open secret. Senior figures such as Ismail Haniyeh and Khaled Meshaal have lived openly in the Qatari capital, coordinating operations in Gaza while their own constituents endure devastation. This arrangement is not incidental; it is central to Doha’s self-fashioned role as a broker of negotiations. By hosting Hamas leaders, Qatar presents itself as the indispensable middleman — the only actor with access to all sides. Yet this arrangement makes Qatar less a neutral mediator and more an active participant in sustaining Hamas’ capacity to wage war.
For years, the international community has indulged this duplicity because it was convenient. European states prioritized Qatari natural gas, particularly after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The United States, while uneasy with Qatar’s patronage of Islamist groups, relied on its air base and diplomatic reach. The fiction was maintained because it served multiple interests.
Israel’s strike shattered that fiction. By targeting Hamas leaders in Doha, Israel forced the world to confront what it had long ignored: that Qatar’s hospitality for terrorists undermines its claims to neutrality and peacebuilding.
International Outrage and Its Limits
The reaction to the strike followed a familiar script. The United Nations Secretary-General condemned a “flagrant violation of sovereignty.” The European Union declared solidarity with Qatar, a “strategic partner.” Japan warned that the attack jeopardized ceasefire negotiations. Religious leaders such as Pope Leo XIV urged renewed commitment to peace, while Western commentators fretted about the risks of escalation.
Each of these responses highlights the gap between rhetoric and reality. Sovereignty is indeed a principle of international law, but it was never intended as a shield for states that harbor terrorist organizations. The notion that a country can host genocidal actors without consequence is a distortion of the very order critics claim to defend. Similarly, appeals to diplomacy ring hollow when negotiations involve leaders who orchestrated massacres and kidnappings, most recently the atrocities of October 7th.
Even in Washington, public criticism obscured private calculations. Some reports suggested President Trump was blindsided, while others indicated the U.S. was informed of Israel’s intentions, if not the specific target. Regional actors, including Jordan and Saudi Arabia, are believed to have tacitly permitted Israel to use their airspace. The disparity between public condemnation and private acquiescence underscores a broader reality: While governments cannot openly endorse strikes on a supposed Western ally, they increasingly recognize that Hamas cannot be allowed to operate with impunity.
Media Narratives and Selective Outrage
Media coverage reinforced the same pattern. The New York Times lamented that Israel undermined Qatar’s role as a Gaza mediator. The Atlantic framed the strike as an attack on Qatar’s global relevance. Al Jazeera, predictably, declared that Hamas leaders had survived the attack, casting it as an assault on Qatari sovereignty rather than a targeted blow against one of the world’s most notorious terrorist groups.
These narratives illustrate how language can obscure reality. Israel did not “attack Qatar”; it attacked Hamas leaders who had chosen Qatar as their refuge. The distinction is not semantic but moral. To collapse the two is to conflate a sovereign state with the terrorists it shelters — an error that only benefits Hamas and its patrons.
The Strategic Message
Beyond the immediate elimination of Hamas leadership, the strike carried profound strategic significance. It signaled that Israel will pursue its enemies wherever they find sanctuary, even in capitals once deemed off-limits. As IDF Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir stated, Israel will “settle accounts with our enemies anywhere in the world.”
This is not unprecedented. Israel has a long history of pursuing terrorists beyond its borders, from the assassins of the 1972 Munich Olympics to Hezbollah operatives in Syria. Yet striking in Qatar — a state considered central to Western strategy and host to major American military infrastructure — raises the stakes considerably. It demonstrates both Israel’s resolve and its growing confidence that regional actors will not obstruct, and may even tacitly support, its pursuit of Hamas.
Indeed, the relative silence of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates is telling. A decade ago, such an operation might have provoked a firestorm across the Arab world. Today, Gulf monarchies increasingly view Hamas not as a champion of Palestinian rights, but as a destabilizing force aligned with their rival, Iran. Their muted response reflects an emerging regional consensus: The defeat of Islamist militancy is a shared interest, even if few will say so openly.
Moral Clarity and International Law
At the heart of the controversy lies a deeper question: What does international law mean in the context of terrorism? Critics claim that Israel violated norms of sovereignty. Yet sovereignty is not absolute. States have both rights and responsibilities. When a nation becomes a sanctuary for terrorist leaders who orchestrate mass killings, it abdicates its responsibilities to the international community and undermines its own claim to inviolability.
The October 7th massacre, in which Hamas militants slaughtered over 1,200 Israelis and kidnapped hundreds more, was itself a flagrant violation of international norms. To demand that Israel respect the sanctuary of those who masterminded that attack, while ignoring the crimes that precipitated it, is a distortion of justice. International law must not become a tool for shielding impunity.
A Turning Point
The strike in Doha marks more than a tactical success. It represents a turning point in how states may respond to the phenomenon of terrorism sheltered by sovereign hosts. For too long, Qatar has enjoyed impunity, leveraging its wealth and strategic partnerships to obscure its role in sustaining groups like Hamas. Israel’s operation pierced that veil, forcing the international community to confront a reality it preferred to ignore.
For Israel, the message is clear: No sanctuary is beyond reach. For Qatar, the lesson is equally stark: Playing both sides carries costs. And for the broader international system, the event poses a challenge: Will sovereignty continue to be used as a shield for terrorism, or will accountability finally apply to those who sponsor violence while claiming neutrality?
Israel’s strike in Doha was not a reckless gamble, but a calculated assertion of necessity. It exposed Qatar’s duplicity, highlighted the limits of international posturing, and reaffirmed a principle that too many have forgotten: Sovereignty entails responsibility. By targeting Hamas leaders in their Qatari sanctuary, Israel delivered both a military and a moral message. The operation has unsettled global politics not because it was wrong, but because it revealed truths too long ignored.
In the end, the attack was not a crime against peace. It was a reality check — one that the world, however reluctantly, will have to face.
The Shadow Government, Mask Plague, Nepal Uprising Topples Government [25:51] Maria Zeee
September 9, 2025
A chilling White House secret about unelected advisors controlling presidents, questioning every President’s independence, disposable face masks unleash a chemical timebomb, and Nepal has erupted in an uprising, with Gen Z’s fury over a social media ban resulting in the burning of Parliament and toppling the government.
Qatar: The Jihad State in Designer Camouflage AYNAZ ANNI CYRUS
This is the real Qatar that the West keeps protecting
SEP 09, 2025
Qatar dresses itself as a modern ally wrapped in glass towers and luxury, but beneath the fabric lies the uniform of jihad. Its camouflage is stitched not in secrecy but in plain sight, tailored by Washington and Brussels, admired by the very West that pretends not to see the lies.
The Strike That Exposed Doha
On September 9, 2025, Israeli jets struck a Hamas headquarters in Doha, Qatar. Inside the building were senior Hamas members, meeting openly in the Qatari capital. This is the same city that has served as Hamas’s command hub for hostage negotiations since the October 7 massacre.
For Israel, the fight is not limited to Gaza; it is a war with Hamas wherever its leaders are found. Israel is framing its campaign around one objective: “complete victory” over Hamas.
Instead of condemning Hamas for orchestrating war from its capital, Qatar’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Majed al-Ansari accused Israel of a “cowardly criminal assault.” That reaction says everything.
“This was a blatant violation of international law and an assault on Qatar’s sovereignty.”
Majed al-Ansari, Qatar’s Foreign Ministry, Sept. 2025
Qatar revealed its true face that day, and it was not the first time. Its record is a timeline of open doors for jihad from Hamas to the Taliban to al-Qaeda’s financiers.
For anyone paying attention, Qatar is not a mediator and not a neutral broker. It is a glittering sanctuary where jihad wears a suit, where terrorists sit as statesmen, and where the world’s deadliest plots are planned in plain daylight.
Qatar’s Double Life
Qatar’s rise as jihad’s concierge began in 2012, when the emir invited Hamas’s political bureau to relocate from Damascus to Doha. Khaled Mashal moved into a lavish villa, followed by Ismail Haniyeh, who has traveled freely between Gaza and Doha ever since. Khalil al Hayya, the man Israel just targeted, was also granted safe haven under Qatari protection.
In 2013, under the Obama administration, Qatar cut the ribbon on the Taliban’s official political office. The flag of the Taliban was raised in Doha, a public relations victory for jihadists that was broadcast around the world. That office became the stage for the 2020 Doha Agreement, the deal that legitimized the Taliban as a negotiating partner and paved the way for the U.S. withdrawal. Two years later, under President Biden, Afghanistan collapsed back into Taliban hands, completing the circle that began in Qatar.
And while Qatari royals smiled for photographs with U.S. envoys, their Al Jazeera network pushed Muslim Brotherhood talking points into millions of homes.
“Al Jazeera is state funded and editorially aligned with Qatar’s foreign policy goals.”
Reporters Without Borders, 2021
The double life extended further east. Doha quietly backed Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps through money channels, prisoner swaps, and regional deals, even as it posed as a neutral broker in nuclear talks.
In 2015, while Iran’s proxies were killing Americans in Iraq, Qatar presented itself in Vienna as a partner to the P5+1 negotiations that produced the JCPOA. When the deal collapsed, Doha returned to the spotlight in 2021 and 2022, with Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani shuttling between Tehran and Washington. Doha hosted secret U.S.–Iran meetings, giving the IRGC diplomatic cover at the very moment Qatari cash and fuel were flowing into Hamas and Hezbollah networks.
In 2023, the duplicity deepened. Qatar handled the $6 billion U.S.–Iran prisoner swap, holding the funds in Doha while Tehran celebrated the cash infusion as a victory for the regime. The same emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani, personally lobbied Washington, presenting Qatar as a peace broker even as its money lanes kept Iran’s terror machine alive.
At the very table where Iran’s Revolutionary Guard was being indirectly shielded, Western powers pretended to negotiate for peace.
Neutral broker? No. Qatar built a revolving door where terrorists entered as politicians, militias entered as negotiating partners, and every enemy of the West left with a Western signature.
The Money Trail
Qatar’s money has flowed across decades and continents, reaching every corner of jihad. The trail is long, documented, and undeniable.
2008 — Khalifa Muhammad Turki al-Subaiy, a former official at Qatar Central Bank, was designated by the U.S. Treasury for moving hundreds of thousands of dollars to al-Qaeda’s senior leadership in Pakistan. Even after designation, he lived freely in Doha.
2013 — Abdulrahman bin Umayr al-Nu’aymi, a Qatari history professor and charity director, was sanctioned for funneling millions to al-Qaeda affiliates in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia. Treasury described him as a “facilitator and financier” moving money on a global scale.
2015 — Sa’d bin Sa’d Muhammad Shariyan al-Ka’bi and Abd al-Latif bin Abdullah al-Kawari were blacklisted for funding Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria and al-Qaeda’s regional operations. Both operated openly from Doha.
2017 — Eleven Qatari royals were genuinely kidnapped in Iraq during a falconry trip in Muthanna Province. The abduction was real, but the way it was resolved turned into a payoff for jihad. The kidnappers were Kata’ib Hezbollah, a militia backed by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. Negotiations stretched on for more than a year, during which Doha funneled enormous sums through Baghdad as ransom. Intelligence officials estimated the total at close to one billion dollars, routed across multiple networks, Kata’ib Hezbollah, IRGC intermediaries, and al-Qaeda-linked brokers. When the hostages were finally released, Iraq’s prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, admitted publicly that his government had intercepted five hundred million in Qatari cash at Baghdad airport, money delivered in suitcases.
2014–2018 (Europe) — Investigations into the FIFA World Cup exposed how Qatari money moved not only into sports diplomacy but also into Qatar Charity networks funding mosques across France, Belgium, and Switzerland. French intelligence tied these transfers to Muslim Brotherhood-linked preachers who used the World Cup as cover for broader influence operations.
2020–2022 — Qatari “aid packages” of cash and fuel worth hundreds of millions were delivered to Gaza, advertised as humanitarian relief but acknowledged by Israel’s Ministry of Defense as direct support for Hamas’s survival.
The money trail did not stop at the Middle East or Europe. Qatar Charity, one of Doha’s largest “humanitarian” organizations, was repeatedly flagged by Western intelligence and French investigators for funding jihadist cells in Sudan, Mali, and Somalia. In Mali, its transfers were tied to Islamist factions that seized the north in 2012. In Somalia, it was linked to al-Shabaab networks under the cover of aid.
Yet despite this record, Qatar Charity remains fully operational today. Its offices were never shut down, its networks never dismantled. It continues to raise and move money under the same banner of “relief,” shielded by Qatari royal sponsorship and Western indulgence.
“Abd al-Rahman al-Nu’aymi provided financial support to al-Qaeda in Iraq and served as a communication conduit between al-Qaeda leaders in Iraq and donors in Qatar.”
U.S. Department of the Treasury, Dec. 2013
This is not a single scandal. It is a record of more than fifteen years: al-Qaeda in Pakistan, al-Nusra in Syria, al-Qaeda in Yemen and Somalia, IRGC militias in Iraq, jihadists in Mali, mosques in Europe, and Hamas in Gaza, all financed from Doha.
The trail was never hidden. It was wired through banks in Doha, London, and New York. It was carried in suitcases, funneled through charities, and protected by royal connections. Qatar turned itself into the treasury of terror, and the world let it.
Gaza’s ATM
From 2014 onward, Qatar became Hamas’s lifeline. After Israel’s Operation Protective Edge, Doha pledged $1 billion for Gaza’s reconstruction. By 2018, Qatari envoy Mohammed al-Emadi was personally hand-delivering $15 million in cash across the border in suitcases, escorted by Israeli security and handing it directly to Hamas-linked officials under the eyes of officers desperate to avoid another war.
The arrangement was not humanitarian. It was political. The cash went straight into Hamas’s payroll system, bypassing the Palestinian Authority and cementing Hamas as the sole power in Gaza. Palestinian Authority leaders complained openly that Qatar was propping up Hamas at their expense, but Doha ignored them.
Between 2019 and 2020, Israel repeatedly allowed Qatari cash deliveries to continue under a quiet “calm-for-cash” policy. The money was supposed to buy temporary quiet at the border, but it also gave Hamas the breathing room to rearm and expand its arsenal.
In March 2019, Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh publicly thanked Qatar for its direct role:
“We thank the State of Qatar for standing firmly with the resistance and providing the funds that allow us to endure.”
Ismail Haniyeh, Gaza, March 2019
By 2021, Qatar was providing $360 million annually in cash, fuel credits, and salary payments. Investigations confirmed that the funds were distributed through Hamas-run ministries, police forces, and stipends for the families of fighters killed in clashes with Israel. Even when the optics drew criticism, the pipeline never closed. Some transfers were briefly routed through the United Nations, but control still remained in Hamas’s hands.
Khaled Mashal echoed the same in May 2021, after the Gaza war, praising Doha for sustaining Hamas’s rule:
“Qatar’s steadfast support to our people and our fighters will never be forgotten.”
Khaled Mashal, Doha, May 2021
Both the Trump and Biden administrations approved the arrangement, preferring Qatari money to Israeli re-occupation, even though Washington knew Hamas controlled the flow.
“Qatar provided $1.8 billion to Hamas between 2012 and 2021.”
Israel’s Ministry of Defense, 2022
The message is clear: without Qatari money, Hamas would have collapsed. With it, they ruled Gaza as victors.
Qatar calls it aid. Hamas calls it a victory.
The Clerical Engine
No state sponsorship of jihad is complete without an ideological pulpit. For Qatar, that pulpit was Yusuf al-Qaradawi.
Exiled from Egypt in the 1960s, Qaradawi found sanctuary in Doha, where he rose to become the Muslim Brotherhood’s chief jurist and one of the most influential Islamic clerics in the modern era. From Qatar, he chaired the International Union of Muslim Scholars, headquartered in Doha, which spread Brotherhood doctrine and jihadist rulings across the Muslim world.
His fatwas were explicit. Qaradawi endorsed suicide bombings against Israelis, demanded the death penalty for apostates, justified wife-beating, and called for global jihad. In 2004, he declared that those who died in suicide operations against Israel were martyrs whose reward was with God.
Qatar amplified him, not just sheltered him. Al Jazeera gave Qaradawi a weekly program, Sharia and Life, which ran for nearly two decades and reached an estimated 60 million viewers worldwide, according to Reporters Without Borders. Through that platform, his rulings on jihad, Sharia punishments, and the delegitimization of the West were broadcast into living rooms from Cairo to London.
“Those who die fighting in jihad are martyrs. Their reward is with God.”
Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Doha, 2004
Qaradawi is gone, but his pulpit still preaches. His fatwas were archived, his networks institutionalized, and his reach now lives on through protégés and organizations that Doha continues to sponsor. The state that paid Hamas’s salaries also provided the fatwas that blessed their war.
Qatar did not just host Qaradawi. It made him a global voice, gave his ideology a megaphone, and embedded it into the architecture of modern jihad.
Washington’s Bargain
Why does the United States tolerate Qatar? Because every administration has found it too useful and too profitable.
After September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush expanded Al Udeid into America’s central base for the War on Terror. It became the launchpad for the invasion of Iraq, a country with no role in 9/11, unlike Qatar. Washington chose Doha as a partner while targeting Baghdad, cementing a dependency that still anchors CENTCOM today.
President Barack Obama deepened the embrace. In 2011, Qatar helped steer NATO’s Libya intervention. His administration publicly praised Qatar as a “key partner” while Doha funded Muslim Brotherhood movements across the Arab Spring and hosted Hamas leaders openly.
President Donald Trump started by standing in the Rose Garden after Saudi Arabia and the UAE imposed a blockade, calling Qatar a terror sponsor. Shortly after, however, he signed a $12 billion arms deal with Doha, boasting it would create American jobs. By April 2018, he was hosting Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani at the White House. In August 2018, Jared Kushner’s family’s drowning tower at 666 Fifth Avenue was rescued when Brookfield, backed by Qatari sovereign wealth, poured in about $1.3 billion. What began with condemnation turned into arms deals, personal bailouts, and brand partnerships.
President Joe Biden went further still. In January 2022, he named Qatar a “Major Non-NATO Ally,” a title reserved for America’s closest partners. In 2023, his administration trusted Doha to hold $6 billion for Iran in a prisoner swap, even as Qatari cash and fuel were keeping Hamas and Hezbollah alive. Biden completed what Bush began, Obama expanded, and Trump monetized: he elevated Qatar from useful partner to untouchable ally.
In 2025, Trump went even further. The Trump Organization signed onto a luxury golf resort project in Simaisma, tying the president’s private business directly to Qatari money.
In May, he signed a $1.2 trillion economic commitment with Qatar, headlined by more than $240 billion in contracts for Boeing, GE Aerospace, Raytheon, and General Atomics. The deal also included statements of intent on tens of billions more for defense cooperation and the expansion of Al Udeid. As part of the same courtship, Qatar offered him a $400 million Boeing 747-8 jet, sparking outrage that the president was accepting gifts from the very state hosting Hamas leadership.
And on September 9, after Israeli jets struck Hamas commanders in Doha, Trump personally intervened to calm Emir Tamim, calling the attack an “unfortunate incident” and assuring him it would not be repeated.
From Bush to Obama, from Trump to Biden, every administration made its own bargain with Doha. Bases, cover, weapons, bailouts, and recognition each deal left Washington more entangled, and Qatar more immune.
That is the bargain. Qatar bankrolls jihad. Washington supplies the cover.
Europe for Sale
Europe made its own deal. On November 29, 2022, QatarEnergy and ConocoPhillips signed two contracts to supply Germany with 2 million tonnes of LNG per year for at least 15 years starting in 2026, a deal worth nearly $3 billion annually. It was Berlin’s first long-term Qatari contract after cutting off Russian gas.
France followed on October 11, 2023, when TotalEnergies signed two separate 27-year agreements to ship 3.5 million tonnes per year of LNG to the Fos Cavaou terminal near Marseilles. Less than two weeks later, on October 23, 2023, Italy’s Eni secured its own 27-year deal for 1 million tonnes annually beginning in 2026. In the United Kingdom, Qatar’s leverage runs through ownership: the South Hook LNG terminal in Wales, 67.5% controlled by QatarEnergy, can provide up to a quarter of Britain’s daily gas demand. British utility Centrica extended its LNG supply partnership with Doha to keep that pipeline alive.
At the same time, the Qatar Investment Authority (QIA) was buying up Europe’s crown jewels. On May 8, 2010, QIA acquired Harrods in London for about £1.5 billion. In December 2009, it bought a 17% stake in Volkswagen, cementing its influence in Germany’s industrial core. By August 2012, QIA owned 20% of Heathrow Airport Holdings, and in March 2015, it teamed with Brookfield to seize control of London’s Canary Wharf Group in a £2.6 billion buyout. In June 2011, Qatar Sports Investments took over Paris Saint-Germain football club, installing Nasser Al-Khelaïfi as president. Even the banking system carries Doha’s fingerprints, Barclays turned to Qatar in 2008 for survival money, a deal that regulators were still fining the bank over in 2024.
By December 2022, the corruption spilled into the open. Belgian police raided homes and offices in Brussels, uncovering €1.5 million in cash. Eva Kaili of Greece, one of the European Parliament’s vice presidents, was arrested alongside her partner, Francesco Giorgi. Former Italian MEP Pier Antonio Panzeri was caught with €600,000 in his home; another suitcase stuffed with cash was found in a Brussels hotel. On December 13, 2022, Parliament stripped Kaili of her vice presidency in a 625–1 vote. In January 2023, Panzeri cut a plea deal to cooperate, while other names, Marc Tarabella of Belgium and Andrea Cozzolino of Italy, were dragged into the scandal.
Meanwhile, Doha staged its photo-ops with the West. On January 31, 2022, Qatar Airways stood at the White House beside U.S. officials to announce a $30 billion order of 34 Boeing 777X freighters and 737 MAX jets. A year later, on February 1, 2023, it patched things up with Airbus by reinstating 23 A350s and 50 A321neos, deliveries set to begin in 2026.
Add it up: long-term gas contracts for Germany, France, and Italy. Control over London’s luxury and financial districts. Stakes in Germany’s Volkswagen and a football empire in Paris. Cash-stuffed bags in Brussels. White House photo-ops. The scandal proved the point: Qatar doesn’t just buy gas contracts. It buys policy.
The Hamas leaders killed or targeted in Doha this week were meeting openly, under Qatar’s protection.
The “mediator” was the sanctuary.
Qatar’s consistency is its camouflage: shelter terrorists, fund their movements, broadcast their propaganda, then cash Western checks in the daylight.
Qatar has played its role well, small enough to be overlooked, rich enough to be indulged, and duplicitous enough to host both the terrorists and the diplomats.
But the mask is slipping. When Israeli bombs hit Doha, the world saw the real capital of jihad, a glittering city on the Persian Gulf, skyscrapers built on oil wealth and blood money, guarded by U.S. tanks and rewarded by European contracts.
But the question is: Did the world SEE?
The bombs over Doha stripped away the disguise. This is the true Qatar.
Israel checkmates Hamas and the Arabs. JOSHUA HOFFMAN
The implications of Israel’s strike on Tuesday against Hamas leaders in Qatar are profound, and the entire Arab world has been put on notice.
SEP 09, 2025
Sometimes, history turns on a single move, a decisive play that alters the balance of power for years to come.
In the latest geopolitical chess match of the Middle East, Israel has made such a move — one that exposes the contradictions of Arab regimes, neutralizes the pressure tactics of Far-Left Europe, and underscores, once again, that Israel remains the West’s indispensable ally in the region.
In the lead-up to the United Nations General Assembly, which starts today, several Far-Left European countries threatened to “recognize” a “Palestinian state.” This symbolic gesture, meant to appease their domestic activists and to punish Israel diplomatically, was nothing new. For years, Europe has attempted to manipulate Israel through moral posturing, elevating Palestinian victimhood into a political weapon.
Yet Israel’s response was not weakness but strength: It openly mulled annexing parts of Judea and Samaria. This was not only a message to Europe but also to the Arab world: Symbolic recognition could be answered by permanent realities on the ground. Annexation would be irreversible, a reminder that Europe’s resolutions amount to empty gestures compared to Israel’s ability to draw borders in practice.
The Arab powers reacted predictably. The United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, the two most significant players in the Abraham Accords and beyond, warned that any annexation would jeopardize normalization. It was a classic threat: choose land or peace.
But Israel has long since learned that Arab ultimatums are hollow. Normalization is not a gift Israel must beg for; it is a necessity for Arab regimes seeking technology, security, and legitimacy. The Palestinians are no longer the key to Arab foreign policy, and Arab leaders know it. Annexation, therefore, became both a bargaining chip and a test: would Arab states risk their own economic and security interests merely to posture over Palestine?
The answer was revealed soon enough.
The decisive move came not in Gaza or Judea and Samaria, but in Doha. Days after the Qatari prime minister pressed Hamas to accept a ceasefire deal, Israel struck Hamas leadership gathered in the Qatari capital — carried out with the help of heavy bombs dropped by Israeli fighter jets, within a range of 1,800 kilometers from Israel, to ensure the successful elimination of the senior officials, who were reportedly holding a meeting at the time. Drones also took part in the operation, which was dubbed “Fire Summit.” A total of 10 munitions were dropped in the attack.
The decision to eliminate Hamas senior figures in Qatar was made about a month ago, coordinated in advance with the Americans.1 According to two Israeli sources who spoke to CNN, planning accelerated in recent weeks. The IDF Operations Division initiated a secret battle procedure that included almost two days of preparation discussions, and once a week, senior figures from the Shin Bet, Military Intelligence, and the Operations Division were convened. Last night, the head of the Operations Division finally gave the green light.
Mosab Hassan Yousef, whose father, Sheikh Hassan Yousef, was a founding member of Hamas, told The Jerusalem Post: “This should have been done almost two years ago. Qatar funded Hamas for many years, and Hamas took sanctuary in Qatar. They thought that they could not be reached, and they thought they were immune.”2
The message was thunderous: Not even Qatar, the Arab state most favored by many Western politicians, was immune from Israel’s reach.
This was no ordinary strike. Qatar is home to the largest U.S. military base in the Middle East. For decades, the Qataris have funneled money into Washington and European capitals, cultivating influence with politicians — particularly Left-wing ones. As one politician has said, “You walk by the Qatari embassy in Washington, D.C., and your pockets grow fuller.”
Qatar even “gifted” Donald Trump an airplane earlier this year, and maintains deep personal ties with his envoy, Steve Witkoff, who sold his New York hotel to the Qatar Investment Authority for nearly $623 million in 2023. Witkoff and the Qatari prime minister recently met in Paris to discuss the ceasefire deal, evidence of Qatar’s relentless attempts to position itself as the indispensable broker in the region.
Yet none of that stopped Israel. Not even the symbolism of violating Qatari sovereignty (and by extension, the prestige of the West’s Arab darling) deterred the Jewish state. And crucially, Trump did not stop it either.
While authorizing the strike on Hamas’ leadership in Qatar, IDF Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir said Israel will “settle accounts with our enemies” anywhere in the world. “These are the terrorists whose only aspiration was to be the spearhead for the destruction of the State of Israel. We will continue to carry out this mission everywhere, at any range, near and far.”
“We are settling a moral and ethical account on behalf of all the victims of October 7th,” added Zamir. “We will not rest and we will not be silent until we bring back our hostages and defeat Hamas.”
The implications are profound. The strike was not merely about Hamas leaders; it was about the hierarchy of alliances in the Middle East. Europe can threaten recognition, the Arabs can threaten normalization, and Qatar can spend lavishly to buy influence. But when the dust settles, Israel is the West’s number-one ally in the region — militarily, technologically, morally.
By striking in Doha, Israel forced the world to reckon with an uncomfortable truth: The Arab regimes are pawns, not kings. Their threats carry weight only when Israel allows them to. Europe can gesture in the halls of the UN, but it is Israel that acts decisively on the ground. And when American interests are tested, it is not Qatar’s money or Saudi Arabia’s oil that ultimately prevails; it is Israel’s reliability as a partner.
This is not the first time Israel has shifted the board with bold, decisive action. In 1976, Israel stunned the world with Operation Entebbe, flying commandos thousands of miles to rescue hostages in Uganda, humiliating Arab-backed terrorists and proving that Jews would never again be passive victims.
In 1981, Israel bombed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, an act universally condemned at the time but vindicated years later as having prevented a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein. In 2007, Israel quietly destroyed Syria’s secret nuclear reactor, again defying international opinion but protecting the region — and the world — from catastrophe. Each time, Israel acted without waiting for international approval.
Each time, it was proven right by history.
The Doha strike belongs to this lineage: a bold, risky action that demonstrates Israel’s will and capability to act in defense of its people, regardless of the diplomatic consequences.
The “Palestinian” card, once the centerpiece of Arab diplomacy, is collapsing. For decades, Arab states used the Palestinian cause as a bludgeon to extract concessions from the West and to keep their own populations pacified.
But the Abraham Accords, Morocco’s normalization, and Saudi Arabia’s quiet engagement with Israel show that the old playbook no longer works. The Palestinian issue is not the center of gravity it once was; it is a declining asset. The Doha strike symbolizes this collapse: Hamas, once paraded as the face of “resistance,” is now a hunted liability, even in the capitals of its patrons. Israel has forced the Arab world to face the truth: The Palestinians no longer define the region’s future.
Europe, meanwhile, continues to labor under the illusion of relevance. Its threats of “recognition” are pure theater, detached from the realities on the ground. The European Union is divided, its militaries weakened, and its economies dependent on external powers. NATO’s shield is American, not European.
For Israel, Europe’s recognition schemes carry no weight, because they are unenforceable. By mulling annexation in response, Israel flipped the script: What Europe intends as punishment becomes Israel’s opportunity to enshrine permanent borders. Europe threatens paper; Israel answers with reality.
In contrast, America’s reliance on Israel is rooted in hard interests. Israel provides unmatched intelligence on Iran, Hezbollah, ISIS, and global jihad. Israel develops technologies in cyber, defense, and AI that are vital to the U.S. military-industrial complex. And Israel provides something no Arab state can offer: stability and moral clarity in a region otherwise defined by coups, dictatorships, and shifting alliances.
The Doha strike, conducted under Trump’s watch without objection, underscores that when American and Israeli interests align, Arab states’ complaints are noise. Washington will never choose Doha over Jerusalem, because Doha can buy influence, but Israel delivers results.
Arab states like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates now find themselves in a trap of their own making. They have tied normalization to conditions such as “no annexation,” but these conditions are unenforceable. They need Israeli technology, intelligence, and access to Washington far more than Israel needs them. Israel just proved it can act without fear of losing Arab ties, because those ties are dictated not by Palestinian theatrics, but by Arab necessity. By striking in Doha, Israel demonstrated that Arab threats of walking away from normalization are bluffs. The Arabs cannot afford to lose Israel.
And perhaps most importantly, the symbolism of the strike carries enormous psychological weight. To Hamas, it said: Nowhere is safe, not even in the heart of your Qatari sanctuary. To Qatar, it said: Your money and influence cannot shield you from accountability. To Europe, it said: Your recognition games will not restrain Israeli action. To the Arab world, it said: Your threats of halting normalization are hollow. This is the essence of psychological warfare, reshaping the calculations of every adversary simultaneously.
In chess, checkmate is the moment when every escape route is cut off, when the opponent is forced to concede. That is what has happened here. Europe’s recognition ploy, the Arabs’ normalization threats, and Qatar’s cultivated influence — all have been cornered. Israel showed that it will not be bullied by diplomatic theater, Arab leverage, or Qatari money. It can annex if it chooses. It can strike anywhere, even in the heart of America’s Arab protectorate. And it can do so while maintaining the confidence of Washington.
Israel’s enemies still cling to the old playbook of boycotts, UN resolutions, and empty threats. But the board has changed. With every decisive move, from annexation debates to striking terrorists in the heart of Arab capitals, Israel shows that it is the immovable center of the Middle East order.
The Palestinians have lost their leverage, the Europeans their credibility, and the Arab regimes their veto power. Israel is no longer playing defense. It is dictating the game. And the world will have to adjust to the reality that the Jewish state is not just surviving. It’s winning.
The Reckoning in Doha: Why Israel’s Strike Against Hamas Was Both Justified and Overdue Gregg Roman
The Explosions That Shattered the Morning Calm in Doha’s Katara District on September 9, 2025, Marked a Restoration of Moral Clarity in Warfare
September 9, 2025
The explosions that shattered the morning calm in Doha’s Katara District on September 9, 2025, marked a restoration of moral clarity in warfare. For nearly two years since the October 7 massacres, Hamas’s leadership had orchestrated genocide from the comfort of Qatari luxury hotels, protected by the fiction of diplomatic immunity and the shield of a supposed American ally. Israel’s precision strike against these architects of terror represents the enforcement of a principle as old as justice itself: those who plan mass murder cannot claim sanctuary anywhere on earth.
For nearly two years since the October 7 massacres, Hamas’s leadership had orchestrated genocide from the comfort of Qatari luxury hotels, protected by the fiction of diplomatic immunity and the shield of a supposed American ally.
The operation was clean. Professional. Necessary. And it should have happened years ago.
Wars end when one side loses the will or ability to continue fighting. For Hamas, that calculus has been distorted by Qatar’s provision of an extraterritorial sanctuary where its leadership could direct operations, manage finances, and plan attacks while remaining physically removed from consequences. This arrangement—in which Khalil al-Hayya, Khaled Mashal, and their lieutenants could watch October 7 unfold on television from Doha penthouses while Israeli families burned alive in their homes—represents a perversion of both warfare and diplomacy that no civilized nation should tolerate.
The principle at stake transcends Israel’s immediate security concerns. When Qatar transformed itself into a five-star command center for terrorism, it challenged the fundamental architecture of international order. The post-Westphalian system assumes that states will not provide operational headquarters for groups dedicated to the genocidal destruction of other states. Qatar’s hosting of Hamas since 2012 shattered this assumption, creating a precedent whereby wealthy nations could sponsor terrorism while maintaining diplomatic respectability through strategic ambiguity and energy leverage.
Consider the grotesque asymmetry: while Hamas fighters used Gazan civilians as human shields in tunnels beneath hospitals, their political leadership enjoyed the protection of Qatari state security. While Israeli reservists left their families for months of urban warfare, Hamas’s decision-makers conducted press conferences from air-conditioned hotel ballrooms. While Palestinian civilians in Gaza suffered under Hamas’s brutal rule and Israel’s military response, those most responsible for precipitating this suffering remained untouchable in their Doha safe houses.
This bifurcation of accountability—where those who order atrocities remain immune from their consequences—corrupts the very concept of warfare. It incentivizes maximum violence with minimum personal risk, creating moral hazards on a civilizational scale. Israel’s strike restored the principle that leadership entails vulnerability, that those who choose war must share its dangers.
From a purely military perspective, Hamas’s Doha headquarters represented what Carl von Clausewitz would term a “center of gravity”—a source of strength whose elimination fundamentally alters the conflict’s dynamics. The office served multiple critical functions that sustained Hamas’s war-making capacity long after its military infrastructure in Gaza had been decimated.
Hamas’s Doha headquarters enabled it to maintain the fiction of political legitimacy while pursuing genocidal objectives.
First, it provided command and control capabilities that would be impossible to maintain under the conditions of siege warfare in Gaza. Secure communications, encrypted financial transfers, diplomatic coordination with Iranian proxies—all of these required the technological infrastructure and political protection that only a state sponsor could provide. Every rocket launched from Gaza, every tunnel dug beneath the Philadelphi Corridor, every hostage video released to torment Israeli families traced back to decisions made and resources allocated from Doha.
Second, the Doha office enabled Hamas to maintain the fiction of political legitimacy while pursuing genocidal objectives. By treating Hamas officials as diplomatic representatives rather than terrorist commanders, Qatar enabled them to engage with useful idiots in Western capitals, sympathetic media outlets, and international organizations that would otherwise shun them. This legitimacy translated directly into operational advantages: weapons procurement under diplomatic cover, recruitment through “humanitarian” networks, and propaganda dissemination through respectable channels.
Third, and perhaps most critically, Qatar’s protection allowed Hamas to preserve its leadership cadre from the attrition that typically degrades terrorist organizations over time. While Israel systematically eliminated Hamas commanders in Gaza—from Mohammed Deif to Marwan Issa—the organization’s strategic brain trust remained intact in Doha, ensuring continuity of planning and institutional memory. This arrangement made it functionally impossible to defeat Hamas through military means alone, as the organization could simply regenerate its tactical losses while its strategic leadership remained untouchable.
The September 9 strike shattered this sanctuary principle. By demonstrating that Hamas leaders were vulnerable even in the heart of a wealthy Gulf capital, Israel restored the element of personal risk that constrains extremist behavior. The message was unambiguous: choose terror, and you choose to live as a target, regardless of which government provides your refuge.
The fiction that Qatar served as a neutral mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict dissolved entirely after October 7. The evidence of Doha’s transformation from diplomatic facilitator to active terrorism enabler is overwhelming and damning.
Begin with the financial dimension. Since 2012, Qatar has transferred approximately $1.8 billion to Gaza, with monthly cash payments of $30 million continuing until the eve of October 7. Qatari officials insisted these funds served humanitarian purposes—paying civil servant salaries, providing aid to impoverished families, purchasing fuel for power generation. Yet Israeli intelligence documented systematic diversion of these funds to Hamas’s military wing, with Shin Bet assessments indicating that millions went directly to the Qassam Brigades for weapons procurement and tunnel construction.
The arrangement operated with breathtaking cynicism. Literal suitcases of cash would arrive at the Erez and Kerem Shalom crossings, where Israeli officials would inspect them before allowing their transfer to Gaza. This kabuki theater—where Israel facilitated the funding of its own enemies to maintain a strategic division between Gaza and the West Bank—represented a catastrophic intelligence failure that October 7 exposed in blood.
But Qatar’s support extended far beyond mere financing. The emirate provided Hamas with sophisticated technological infrastructure that enhanced its military capabilities. Israeli cyber-security experts documented Qatari investment in encrypted communication systems used in Hamas’s tunnel networks, enabling command-and-control operations that would be impossible under blockade conditions. Hamas used Qatar’s banking system to launder funds through cryptocurrency transactions, its airports to coordinate with Iranian weapons suppliers, and its hotels to conduct recruitment and fundraising from sympathetic donors worldwide.
Most perniciously, Qatar’s Al Jazeera network served as Hamas’s global propaganda arm. Documents seized by Israeli forces revealed direct communication between Hamas commanders and Al Jazeera producers, with the network employing multiple Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad operatives as “journalists.” During October 7 and its aftermath, Al Jazeera Arabic glorified the attacks as “resistance,” referred to murdered civilians as “settlers,” and systematically suppressed footage of Hamas atrocities while amplifying claims of Israeli violations. This media infrastructure proved invaluable in shaping international opinion, particularly in the Arab world, where Al Jazeera’s reach exceeds any Western outlet.
The Qatari government’s response to October 7 revealed its true allegiances. While the world watched footage of Hamas terrorists hunting down families at the Nova music festival, Qatar’s Foreign Ministry blamed Israel for the escalation. Spokesman Majed Al-Ansari praised Hamas’s “launching of 3,000 rockets in 10 days” and described Gaza as “the first Palestinian territory liberated from the occupier.” Even as evidence mounted of Hamas’s systematic use of rape as a weapon of war, of children burned alive in their beds, of Holocaust survivors executed in their homes, Qatar refused to condemn the attacks or consider expelling Hamas leaders.
This was not neutrality. This was complicity.
The operational details of the September 9 strike remain classified, but informed analysis suggests a masterpiece of intelligence coordination and tactical execution. The challenge was formidable: eliminate high-value targets in the center of a hostile capital, protected by state security services, without creating a broader diplomatic crisis or civilian casualties that would undermine the operation’s legitimacy.
The intelligence foundation likely took months to construct. Mossad’s human intelligence networks would have recruited assets within Qatar’s Palestinian expatriate community, service industries that support Hamas leaders, and potentially within the Qatari security apparatus itself. Every movement pattern, security protocol, and meeting schedule would be mapped with painstaking precision.
The operational details of the September 9 strike remain classified, but informed analysis suggests a masterpiece of intelligence coordination and tactical execution.
Technical intelligence gathering would complement human sources. Signal intercepts from Hamas leaders’ communications, despite Qatari-provided encryption, would reveal gathering plans. Satellite surveillance would track vehicles and identify gathering locations. Cyber operations might have penetrated scheduling systems or communications networks to confirm the presence of targets at specific locations and times.
The strike itself appears to have employed Israel’s doctrine of “focused prevention”—surgical elimination of terrorist leadership with minimal collateral damage. The weapons systems used—likely precision-guided munitions delivered by stealth aircraft or naval platforms in the Gulf—would be selected for their ability to neutralize targets within urban environments while limiting blast radius. The timing, mid-afternoon in the Katara District, suggests deliberate effort to minimize civilian presence.
But the true sophistication lay not in the kinetic operation but in the strategic preparation. Israel would have anticipated Qatar’s response, international condemnation, and potential Iranian retaliation. Diplomatic groundwork with sympathetic Arab states, particularly those that view Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups like Hamas as existential threats, would ensure regional support or at least acquiescence. Legal justifications under international law’s principle of self-defense would be prepared and disseminated. Most critically, the timing—after nearly two years of failed negotiations and continued Hamas intransigence—created political space for action that would have been impossible immediately after October 7.
The operation’s success sends a crucial message to Iran and its proxy network: the age of untouchable terrorist leadership is over. Just as Israel eliminated Hezbollah’s command structure in Lebanon and Iran’s nuclear scientists in Tehran, it has now demonstrated the capability and will to strike Hamas wherever its leaders gather.
The Doha strike accelerates fundamental realignments already underway in the Middle East since October 7. The most significant is the collapse of Qatar’s carefully constructed position as the region’s indispensable mediator. For over a decade, Doha leveraged its Hamas relationship to insert itself into every crisis, positioning itself as the only actor capable of delivering all parties to the negotiating table. This monopoly on mediation created a perverse incentive structure: the more Hamas provoked conflict, the more essential Qatar became to its resolution.
The strike shatters this dynamic. By demonstrating that hosting Hamas carries unacceptable costs, Israel has forced regional actors to reconsider their relationships with terrorist organizations. Already, we see signs of this recalculation. Turkey, which had positioned itself as an alternative haven for Hamas leadership, now understands that providing sanctuary means accepting vulnerability. Iran, watching its proxy architecture systematically dismantled from Lebanon to Syria to Gaza, must reassess whether Palestinian rejectionism remains worth the investment.
Most significantly, the strike strengthens the hand of Arab states that have chosen normalization over nihilism. The Abraham Accords countries—the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan—see their strategic bet validated. Saudi Arabia, still calibrating its approach to Israel, receives confirmation that Palestinian maximalism need not dictate regional diplomacy. Egypt and Jordan, exhausted by decades of Palestinian rejectionism, gain leverage to demand Hamas’s complete capitulation as a prerequisite for reconstruction.
The Palestinian Authority, paradoxically, emerges strengthened. For years, Hamas’s external leadership undermined PA attempts at pragmatic diplomacy by offering a rejectionist alternative backed by Qatari wealth and Iranian weapons. With Hamas’s command structure decimated and its safe havens eliminated, the PA becomes the only viable Palestinian interlocutor, forcing a long-overdue consolidation of Palestinian representation.
Within Gaza itself, Hamas’s grip weakens daily. The organization’s promise—that steadfastness and resistance would ultimately yield victory—lies buried beneath the rubble of a devastated territory. With its external leadership eliminated or scattered, its tunnel networks destroyed, its weapons depleted, and its popular support eroding under the weight of catastrophic losses, Hamas confronts the reality that its war of extinction against Israel has become a path to its own elimination.
Critics will inevitably ask: why now? Why not immediately after October 7, when international sympathy for Israel was at its peak? Or why not wait for a negotiated resolution that might have secured hostage releases? The answer reveals the strategic patience that has always characterized Israel’s most successful operations.
Immediate retaliation after October 7 would have appeared emotional, potentially undermining the legitimacy of Israel’s response. The world needed time to digest the full scope of Hamas’s atrocities, to understand that this was not another round of limited conflict but an attempted genocide. Israel needed time to present its case, to demonstrate good faith through accepting humanitarian pauses and negotiation attempts, to prove that military action was not its first choice but its last resort.
The two years since October 7 provided crucial intelligence development time. Hamas leaders, initially cautious, gradually resumed normal patterns of movement and meeting. Complacency set in. Security protocols relaxed. The belief that Qatar’s protection was inviolate created vulnerabilities that patient intelligence work could exploit.
When the Arab League issued its unprecedented July 2025 statement calling for Hamas to disarm and relinquish power—signed by Qatar itself—the organization’s isolation was complete.
Most importantly, Hamas’s own intransigence created the political space for action. Every rejected ceasefire proposal, every impossible demand for complete Israeli withdrawal, every propaganda video of hostages in captivity strengthened the case that negotiation was futile. Even Hamas’s ostensible supporters grew exhausted with its maximalism. When the Arab League issued its unprecedented July 2025 statement calling for Hamas to disarm and relinquish power—signed by Qatar itself—the organization’s isolation was complete.
The timing also reflects broader regional dynamics. With Iran weakened by Israeli strikes on its nuclear program, Hezbollah’s leadership decimated, and Syria’s Assad overthrown, Hamas lost its strategic depth. The “axis of resistance” that might have retaliated for the Doha strike no longer exists as a coherent force. Russia, preoccupied with Ukraine, cannot provide diplomatic protection. China, focused on Taiwan, will not expend capital defending Palestinian rejectionism.
In this context, September 9, 2025, was not just acceptable timing—it was optimal.
The Doha strike forces a long-overdue conversation about sovereignty in the age of terrorism. The Westphalian principle of absolute sovereignty within borders assumes that states will not use their territory to wage war against other states. When a nation provides headquarters, financing, and protection to an organization dedicated to destroying another nation, it forfeits its claim to inviolability.
Qatar wants to have it both ways: to host the largest American military base in the Middle East while simultaneously harboring those who would destroy America’s allies; to participate in international institutions while facilitating those who reject international law; and to claim diplomatic immunity while enabling those who target diplomats. This schizophrenic approach to sovereignty—where protection is absolute when convenient and permeable when profitable—cannot stand.
International law recognizes this principle. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1373, binding on all member states including Qatar, requires countries to “deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts.” The International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism obligates states to prevent their territory from being used for terrorist purposes. By any reasonable interpretation of these obligations, Qatar’s hosting of Hamas constituted a material breach requiring enforcement action.
The United States, which maintains 11,000 troops at Qatar’s Al Udeid Air Base, faces particular moral hazard. American forces provide security for a regime that hosts those who murder American citizens—for six Americans died on October 7, and others remain hostage. This arrangement is not merely hypocritical; it is strategically incoherent. No amount of natural gas wealth or regional positioning justifies such a fundamental compromise of principles.
The Doha strike clarifies these contradictions. States must choose: they can be members of the international community or sponsors of terrorism, but not both.
The Doha strike clarifies these contradictions. States must choose: they can be members of the international community or sponsors of terrorism, but not both. They can host American bases or Hamas headquarters, but not both. They can claim sovereign protection or enable attacks on other sovereigns, but not both.
For too long, the Middle East has operated under the assumption that terrorism pays—that violence yields concessions, that maximalism attracts mediation, that rejectionism brings rewards. Hamas’s leadership, ensconced in Qatari luxury, embodied this perverse incentive structure. They could order atrocities without experiencing consequences, negotiate in bad faith without personal risk, and maintain their grip on Gaza from the comfort of Doha’s Four Seasons Hotel.
The September 9 strike ends this age of impunity. It restores the principle that choices have consequences, that declaring war means accepting its risks, that targeting civilians forfeits any claim to protection. This is not escalation but restoration—of deterrence, of accountability, of the basic principle that those who plan genocide cannot claim sanctuary.
Hamas is learning what Hezbollah learned in Lebanon, what Palestinian Islamic Jihad learned in Damascus, what the PLO learned in Tunis: Israel’s arm is long, its memory is longer, and its commitment to protecting its citizens is absolute. There are no safe havens for those who choose terror. No diplomatic immunity for those who orchestrate massacres. No sanctuary for those who hold innocents hostage.
The path forward is clear. Hamas must surrender unconditionally, release all hostages immediately, and accept the dissolution of its military apparatus. Its leadership, scattered and vulnerable, must choose between capitulation and elimination. Qatar must expel all remaining Hamas operatives and cease all financial support, or accept its designation as a state sponsor of terrorism with all accompanying consequences. The international community must enforce existing counterterrorism obligations rather than sacrificing them for convenient fictions about mediation and dialogue.
Hamas’s leaders, wherever they hide, now understand a fundamental truth: you can run, but you cannot hide forever.
Some will condemn Israel’s action as a violation of sovereignty, an escalation of violence, an obstacle to peace. These critics should be asked a simple question: what peace is possible with those who seek your annihilation? What sovereignty protects those who wage genocidal war? What escalation exceeds burning families alive in their homes?
The explosions in Doha were not the sound of war expanding but of justice being served.
They were not an obstacle to peace but a prerequisite for it. For genuine peace requires the defeat of those who reject it, the elimination of those who make it impossible, and the demonstration that choosing violence brings not victory but destruction.
Israel has sent that message with crystalline clarity. The age of consequence-free terrorism is over. The sanctuary of Doha is shattered. Hamas’s leaders, wherever they hide, now understand a fundamental truth: you can run, but you cannot hide forever. And when justice finds you, whether in a Gaza tunnel or a Qatari hotel, the result will be the same.
This was not merely the right move. It was the only move. And it should have happened long ago.
🚨 BREAKING: Israel TARGET All Hamas Leaders In Qatar – IRGC Prepare For War [16:41] Mahyar Tousi
September 9, 2025 Tousi TV
Qatar Captures Northwestern, Univ. of Rochester Denies Reality, & Iran Loses at Princeton By Winfield Myers
Sep 8, 2025 Middle East Forum
A new report by MEF’s Benjamin Baird details how Qatar’s investment of $737 million ideologically captured Northwestern University’s campuses in both Evanston, IL, and Doha, Qatar. It recommends federal action, including enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, investigations under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), and congressional oversight of the university’s foreign funding arrangements.
A.J. Caschetta relates that the Univ. of Rochester denied that the viciously antisemitic, pro-Hamas organization Students for Justice in Palestine exists on its campus despite the mounds of evidence to the contrary he produced. Benjamin Weinthal spells out why Princeton finally parted ways with Iranian henchman Seyed Hossein Mousavian.
Benjamin Baird has the goods on CAIR’s outrage that Baird’s July MEF report succeeded in convincing the Dept. of Homeland Security to stop funding terrorist-linked Islamist groups. We also feature the work of Giulio Meotti, Abdullah Bozkurt, and Raymond Ibrahim.
Qatar-Funded Northwestern Employs Hamas Money Launderer to Teach U.S. Students By: Benjamin Baird
A in-depth Middle East Forum investigation released today slams Northwestern University for employing a professor involved in Hamas money laundering at its Qatar campus.
Why it matters: Northwestern’s $737 million Qatar investment since 2007 has fostered a hostile environment for Jewish students, violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (CRA).
- MEF public affairs specialist Benjamin Baird said that “this investigation reveals that Northwestern’s partnership with Qatar extends far beyond financial support into ideological capture.”
- The university’s complicity with Qatari laws challenges its commitment to American academic values and endangers campus safety.
Driving the news: Following the damning report, Northwestern faces a $790 million federal funding freeze and intense congressional scrutiny for antisemitism.
- President Michael Schill’s resignation underscores the gravity of the situation and the urgent need for reform.
Details: Ibrahim Abusharif, who teaches at the Qatar campus, was co-founder of an organization that laundered over $1 million to Hamas.
- Contracts with Qatar legally bind Northwestern’s campuses in Evanston and Doha to silence, prohibiting criticism of the Qatari regime and compromising academic freedom.
What’s next: The Middle East Forum demands stringent federal action, including Title VI CRA enforcement and probing foreign funding under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, to safeguard Jewish students and uphold institutional integrity.
To read the press release, click here; to read the full report, click here.
Addressing Campus SJP Problems, Part 2: Denial at the University of Rochester By: A.J. Caschetta
The University of Rochester (UofR) denies the existence of a Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapter, despite conclusive evidence to the contrary.
Why it matters: The university’s denial contradicts archived records showing an officially-recognized SJP chapter from 2020 to 2023.
- The administration’s actions could affect its credibility and lead to scrutiny under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Driving the news: UofR claims no SJP chapter exists, yet communications between the administration and the “derecognized” chapter reveal ongoing interactions.
- The chapter, though “derecognized,” remains active, hosting events and protests on campus.
Details: Archived pages and social media posts confirm the SJP chapter’s presence and activities at UofR.
- The administration’s attempts to silence critiques about its handling of SJP issues suggest deeper institutional challenges.
What’s next: UofR—unable to silence the author—must address past policy failures and improve transparency to rebuild trust and avoid further scrutiny.
To read the full article, click here.
ICYMI: “The Battle for the Jewish State” with Victoria Coates
The October 7, 2023 Hamas assault on Israel shocked the world with its brutality. While many condemned the attack, others rapidly rushed to blame Israel, framing the Jewish state as an oppressor through the lens of Marxist ideology and critical race theory. In The Battle for the Jewish State, Victoria Coates examines how Hamas’s atrocities, Iran’s role, and America’s cultural drift have imperiled Israel and the U.S. Is this conflict truly about land, or is it part of a broader civilizational struggle? What is at stake for both Israel and the United States if this battle is lost?
Victoria Coates is Vice President of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy at The Heritage Foundation. A former Deputy National Security Advisor to President Trump, she oversaw U.S. policy on the Middle East, including the Maximum Pressure Campaign on Iran and early negotiations for the Abraham Accords. She holds a B.A. from Trinity College, an M.A. from Williams College, and a Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania, all in art history.
To watch the full podcast episode, click here.
Islamic Republic of Iran Loses Its Man at Princeton By: Benjamin Weinthal
In November 2023, Iranian-Americans launched a campaign to remove Seyed Hossein Mousavian from Princeton University, citing his links to Iranian dissident assassinations and nuclear weapons development.
Why it matters: Mousavian’s alleged role in the “Chain Murders” of Iranian dissidents in Europe and his involvement in Iran’s nuclear ambitions have drawn significant criticism.
- The Alliance Against the Islamic Regime of Iran Apologists (AAIRIA) revealed Mousavian’s “retirement” from Princeton as of June 1, aligning with increased scrutiny of his past activities.
Driving the news: A 2004 interview with Mousavian confirmed Iran’s persistent nuclear ambitions, reinforcing accusations against him.
- Mousavian, a key negotiator in Iran’s nuclear talks, has maintained controversial positions on uranium enrichment.
- Despite mounting evidence that Mousavian’s presence at Princeton tainted the school, emboldened Tehran, and endangered U.S. interests, university president Christopher Eisgruber steadfastly defended Mousavian from criticism.
Details: Mousavian’s tenure as Iran’s Ambassador to Germany is marked by alleged involvement in state-sponsored assassinations, including the 1992 Mykonos restaurant attack.
- A 1997 Berlin court testimony linked him to these crimes, intensifying calls for his prosecution.
What’s next: The Iranian-American activist organization now seeks Mousavian’s deportation to Europe, where he could face prosecution for his alleged role in the “Chain Murders.” The 24 victims of Mousavian’s scorched-earth campaign on European soil deserve genuine accountability.
To read the full article, click here.
Hamas-Aligned CAIR Outraged after DHS Cuts Funding to Terror-Linked Islamist Groups By: Benjamin Baird
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has slashed $8 million in security grants to Muslim American groups linked to alleged terrorist activities, following a report revealing $25 million in past grants to such organizations.
Why it matters: The decision addresses concerns raised by the Middle East Forum’s report on DHS funding of terror-linked groups, challenging the integrity of the Nonprofit Security Grant Program.
- The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a prominent Muslim nonprofit that placed American communities at risk when it helped extremist groups apply for security funding, dismissed the July 21 MEF report on which DHS’s action was based as “ravings.”
Driving the news: CAIR, previously promoting the security program, now accuses the government of cutting funds due to “criticism of Israel’s genocide.”
- Published findings show no evidence of political criticism leading to disqualification but cite antisemitic sermons and conspiracies at government-funded mosques.
Details: MEF’s above-mentioned July report detailed funds to organizations tied to Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah.
- The lion’s share of this funding was allocated through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which administered grants for security improvements to houses of worship, such as bulletproof glass, surveillance cameras, and armed security guards.
- FEMA grants were used for security improvements at radical mosques, likened to funding Branch Davidians before the Waco siege.
What’s next: Although Trump’s DHS may have cut the cord on subsidized security at radical nonprofits, there’s nothing to stop the next administration from resuming these harmful practices.
- To ensure this chapter of mismanagement is never repeated, Congress members must act decisively, enshrining rigorous oversight and ironclad vetting into law.
- They can start by banning government partnerships with terrorist-supporting front organizations like CAIR.
To read the full article, click here.
Dear Europeans, If You Don’t like Islamization, Please Leave By: Giulio Meotti
Interim mayor Saliha Raïss of Molenbeek, one of the municipalities in the Brussels region, dismisses critics of Islamization, telling them to “leave,” a move highlighting the increasing sway of Islamism in Europe.
Why it matters: Raïss’s statement, “If Molenbeek is unbearable, leave!” reflects a broader acceptance of political Islam that threatens Western values.
- Elon Musk amplified these comments on X, warning, “If tolerance means the end of Western civilization, then we cannot be tolerant.”
Driving the news: Raïss’s leadership signals a worrying trend where Islamist agendas overshadow secular principles, as evidenced by former Doctors Without Borders head Alain Destexhe’s observations of Brussels’ societal decline.
- Destexhe notes, “Every day, the country is shaken by an incident related to Palestine, the Islamization of society, or antisemitism—three elements linked together.”
Details: Molenbeek’s demographic shift to a majority Muslim population has led to the closure of synagogues as Jews fled and a climate of intolerance, with antisemitic and anti-Western slogans becoming commonplace.
- Raïss’s rhetoric is a capitulation to Islamist demands and demonstrates the failure of the ideology of multiculturalism.
What’s next: Either Europe wakes up, accepts that there are lost territories in Europe and tries to reconquer them while saving what remains, or Europeans will have to resign to Saliha Raïss and leave.
To read the full article, click here.
Turks Among Top Groups Stripped of French Citizenship over Jihadist Terror Links By: Abdullah Bozkurt
In the past decade, French authorities have stripped Franco-Turkish nationals of citizenship for terrorism charges linked to jihadist groups such as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and al-Qaeda.
Why it matters: Turkey’s Islamist government under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has actively supported jihadist affiliations, drawing criticism for its destabilizing influence.
- Erdoğan’s policies embolden radical elements, making Franco-Turks susceptible to extremism and compromising Western security.
Driving the news: Erdoğan’s government fuels anti-Islamic accusations against France, polarizing Franco-Turkish nationals and straining diplomatic relations.
- His administration strategically manipulates Turkish nationals abroad to serve geopolitical interests, exacerbating tensions.
Details: France uses Articles 25 and 25-1 of the Civil Code to revoke the citizenship of individuals like Ünzile Nur Sert for posing national security threats.
- These measures highlight the challenge of countering extremism while addressing the covert influence of Erdoğan’s regime.
What’s next: France remains vigilant in safeguarding its national security, while the international community scrutinizes Turkey’s role in fostering jihadism.
To read the full article, click here.
Egypt’s War on Christian Memory By: Raymond Ibrahim
The historic Church of the Virgin Mary in Rashid, Egypt, faces destruction by influential figures, highlighting systemic attacks on Egypt’s Christian heritage.
Why it matters: The attempts to erase the church’s identity, led by sons of a high-ranking judge, expose the vulnerability of Christian sites in Egypt, where legal protections often go unenforced.
- Egypt’s Christians, despite being indigenous, are treated as second-class citizens, with their heritage under constant threat.
Driving the news: Police intervention halted the church’s demolition, but Coptic leaders remain vocal about the ongoing injustices, as seen in Father Luka Asaad’s public stand despite personal risk.
- The destruction coincides with the demolition of a licensed Coptic cemetery wall, further illustrating the double standard in protecting religious sites.
Details: The church, a 19th-century monument, has faced piecemeal destruction since 2009, with opportunists exploiting legal loopholes to claim ownership and dismantle it.
- Meanwhile, mosques receive untouchable status, underscoring the systemic bias within Egypt’s governance.
What’s next: The Rashid incident is part of a broader pattern across Egypt, where Christian sites face neglect, closure, or destruction, demanding international attention and action to preserve Egypt’s Christian heritage.
To read the full article, click here.
Rightists and Turkish Secularists Oppose Shariah in Austria By: Jules Gomes
Critics warn of “parallel justice.”
Spain Flags Ankara’s Growing Role in Sanctions Evasion for Russia By: Abdullah Bozkurt
Goods were brought into Turkey, repackaged as Turkish exports, and then shipped onwards to Russia to sidestep EU trade restrictions.
Iranian Regime Falters as Sponsored Concert Backfires By: Mardo Soghom
Social media campaigns urged people to attend the concert and seize the chance to chant anti-government slogans.
Thank you for relying on the Middle East Forum for up-to-date analyses of the region. If you enjoyed this issue of the MEF Dispatch, please forward it to a friend. We invite you to use the comments feature to let us know your thoughts on the Dispatch and the issues we cover.
Sincerely,
Winfield Myers
Managing Editor, Middle East Forum
Director, Campus Watch
Too many people still don’t understand Palestinian culture. JOSHUA HOFFMAN
Until the international community confronts this culture of celebrating violence and death, they will never understand the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
SEP 08, 2025 The Future of Jewish
Six Israelis were murdered on Monday and 12 more were wounded, six of them seriously, when a pair of Palestinian terrorists opened fire on vehicles and pedestrians in Jerusalem.
The two gunmen, residents of the West Bank, arrived at the junction shortly after 10 a.m. and opened fire at people waiting at a bus stop, as well at a bus that had just stopped there.
Of course, Hamas praised the deadly attack, calling it a “heroic operation.”
Such incidents are part of a grim escalation since the Israel-Hamas war began on October 7, 2023, when thousands of Hamas-led terrorists invaded southern Israel, murdering some 1,200 people and abducting 251. Since then, more than 50 Israelis have been killed in terror attacks across Israel and the West Bank.
In January 2024, Israel faced an attempted infiltration near Hebron, as well as a deadly vehicle-ramming in Ra’anana that left one person dead and many others injured. Just a month later, in February, gunmen opened fire at a gas station near Eli, killing at least two Israelis.
In March, three Israelis were stabbed at a Gan Yavne mall by a Palestinian employed there illegally; one later died of his wounds. By mid-2024, the toll mounted further with a fatal shooting in Qalqilya, injuries near Nablus, and other targeted assaults on individuals simply going about their daily lives.
The violence reached a particularly gruesome peak in August 2024, when a Jewish settler was beaten to death with a hammer near Kedumim. That same month saw a drive-by shooting on Route 90, a series of car bombs near Hebron, and the killing of Israeli police officers in yet another attack. In October, seven Israelis were murdered — including a mother shielding her infant son — in a stabbing and shooting rampage in Tel Aviv.
In November and December, terrorists opened fire on a bus near Ariel, wounding eight, while additional car-ramming and shooting incidents near Hebron and al-Khader left multiple casualties, including the death of a child.
In January 2025, three Palestinian gunmen linked to Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad ambushed a bus and two cars on Highway 55 in the northern West Bank. Their coordinated assault left three Israelis dead and eight wounded. In February, multiple buses in central Israel were found rigged with explosives, but failed to detonate. One device carried the message “Revenge from Tulkarem” — a city in the West Bank.
In May, a pregnant Israeli woman was shot en route to the hospital; she died, though her baby survived via emergency C-section. And in July, two Palestinian Authority officers carried out a combined shooting and stabbing in Gush Etzion, killing one Israeli.
The truth is, these examples could go on endlessly. In Israel, terrorism is not an exception but a constant — buses, synagogues, restaurants, sidewalks: the everyday spaces of Jewish life are turned into theaters of bloodshed.
And yet, outside Israel, these horrors barely register. They flicker across the local press and then vanish. The world moves on as though Israelis possess a strange superhuman capacity to absorb the unbearable. This erasure is not accidental. It is the product of selective perception.
When a Palestinian drives his car into civilians at a bus stop or when a teenager pulls a knife on Jewish pedestrians, it is rarely described as terrorism. Instead, the world is fed euphemisms: a “lone wolf,” a “response to occupation” — as though stabbing strangers were a form of political dialogue. In such coverage, Jewish victims are reduced to footnotes, their humanity erased by framing that turns killers into “resistance fighters” and the dead into mere consequences.
But this pattern is not new. Palestinian terrorism against Jews is part of a long, unbroken continuum of violence that stretches back more than a century. Before the modern State of Israel was even founded, Jews were murdered in the Hebron massacre of 1929, targeted in pogroms across Europe, and attacked during the Arab riots of the 1930s. The decades that followed saw airplane hijackings, suicide bombings in buses and cafes during the Second Intifada, and knife intifadas in the 2010s.
Under longtime dictator Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority’s “Martyr Fund” will now pay $400 per month, for life, to each family of the terrorists who perpetrated today’s Jerusalem attack.1
We are often told to distinguish between “ordinary Palestinians” and the terrorists who carry out attacks. But how much of that distinction holds up to scrutiny? Terrorism does not grow in a vacuum. It requires infrastructure: communities that shelter the perpetrators, celebrate their “martyrdom,” and raise children on a steady diet of glorified violence.
When someone carries out a school shooting in the United States, mainstream American society does not glorify the shooter. But when a Palestinian terrorist carries out an attack, the killer’s face is plastered on posters, their name is given to public squares, their families receive stipends, and their funerals are celebrated like national holidays. Instead of being treated as pariahs, they are elevated as martyrs and role models for the next generation.
Is this the behavior of a society fundamentally opposed to terrorism, or one complicit in sustaining it? Does this kind of culture make terror an aberration, or an aspiration?
It is not simply Hamas or Islamic Jihad that perpetuate this cycle; it is the cultural ecosystem that normalizes them. Polls routinely show large segments of the Palestinian population supporting attacks on Israeli civilians. Streets, schools, and sports tournaments are named after men who blew up buses or stabbed children. In living rooms, attacks are sometimes celebrated with sweets. These are not fringe behaviors; they are woven into daily life, creating an atmosphere where murderers are heroes and victims are afterthoughts.
So, when analysts reassure us that the “ordinary Palestinian” is different from the terrorist, what they really mean is that the ordinary Palestinian is not holding the weapon, at least not today. But if that same “ordinary” person condones the knife, cheers the bloodshed, and supports those who orchestrate it, the moral distinction becomes much harder to maintain. Terrorism is not just the act of the few; it is the tolerance, silence, and approval of the many.
Internationally, Palestinian terrorism is often framed as a desperate bid for “liberation,” as though every bullet fired at a Jewish child or every bus bombing is a cry for freedom. But if the goal were truly liberation, the pattern of Palestinian violence outside Israel makes no sense. For decades, Palestinian groups have turned their weapons not only on Israelis but also on the very Arab countries that hosted them.
Take Jordan, for example. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Palestinians expanded into a parallel war against the Jordanian monarchy itself. They hijacked planes, assassinated officials, and even attempted to overthrow King Hussein’s government. The result was Black September in 1970, when the Jordanian army expelled the Palestine Liberation Organization after a bloody civil war that left thousands of Palestinians and Jordanians dead.
Or look at Lebanon. When the Palestine Liberation Organization was driven out of Jordan, it moved into southern Lebanon, where it set up a mini-state and waged war not only against Israel but also against Lebanese Christians, Muslims, and Druze. Palestinian militias became a central driver of the Lebanese Civil War, dragging the country into chaos, igniting sectarian bloodshed, and devastating the society.
In 1992, Denmark took in 321 Palestinian refugees. When the government reviewed their status in 2019, it found that nearly two-thirds — 64 percent — had criminal records.
If Palestinian terrorism was purely about “liberation,” it would target only Israel. But history shows a different reality. Mainstream Palestinian society carries an ideology of perpetual struggle, turning even their allies into enemies the moment they refuse to submit. The truth is uncomfortable: Palestinian terrorism has less to do with building a free state and more to do with sustaining a culture of destruction.
What we are witnessing today is, unfortunately, not unprecedented. Rather, it is the latest chapter in a history where Jewish life is treated as expendable.
This continuity has produced something even more sinister: the normalization of Jewish death. Terror attacks against Israelis have been turned into background noise — tragedies absorbed into the daily rhythm of the conflict, as though they were inevitable and unworthy of shock. The same act of terror that would paralyze London, New York, or Paris for weeks is treated as “just another day” in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv.
When a bombing happens in Europe, landmarks light up with colors of solidarity, hashtags trend, and global leaders declare their unity against extremism. But when Jews are murdered in Israel, the silence is deafening, broken only by vague mentions of “cycles of violence” that imply moral equivalence between victim and attacker.
The language of the media fuels this erasure. The words chosen — “militants,” “clashes,” “escalations” — rob the events of moral clarity. Terrorism becomes politics, murder becomes grievance. Reporters and analysts devote more space to explaining the supposed motivations of attackers than to memorializing the lives of their victims. The result is a narrative that subtly recasts killers as actors in a struggle and victims as unfortunate props in someone else’s story.
This distortion is made worse by the double standard of human rights. Palestinian suffering is described in the language of universal justice, while Jewish suffering is treated as a byproduct of conflict. Human rights for Palestinians are endlessly championed; human rights for Jews are invisible. The refusal to call Jewish victims “victims” is not just semantic; it is dehumanization dressed up as empathy.
Meanwhile, the psychological toll on Israelis is profound. Parents put their children on school buses knowing those very buses are targets. Families walk through markets or board trains with the quiet calculation of where to run if gunfire erupts. Soldiers, teachers, shopkeepers, and students all live with the unspoken awareness that daily routines take place under the shadow of terrorism. This is the human cost behind the headlines that never make it beyond Israel’s borders: not just deaths, but the quiet terror of life lived in anticipation of the next attack.
And yet, the world refuses to learn a simple truth: What begins with Jews never ends with Jews. The terror tactics pioneered in Israel (suicide bombings, knife attacks, car rammings) have been exported and copied across the globe. To ignore them in Israel is to allow them to metastasize elsewhere. Israel is the front line in a broader war against terrorism, and those who dismiss Israeli suffering are not just indifferent to Jews but blind to the dangers facing themselves.
The irony is chilling: The Jewish People, history’s perennial scapegoats, are again treated as the exception. We are the only victims whose tragedies are rationalized, whose deaths are explained away as deserved. Some argue this is not deliberate, just the byproduct of fatigue or competing headlines.
But ask yourself: How often do you see headlines about Israelis stabbed, shot, or blown apart on their way to synagogue, school, or work? How often do these stories receive the same urgency, the same empathy, as similar attacks in the West? Why do “human rights” apply everywhere, except when Jews are the victims?
The answer is uncomfortable. Acknowledging Jewish suffering would require reckoning with centuries of double standards. It is easier to dismiss Jews as privileged or powerful than to admit they remain vulnerable targets of hate. It is easier to redefine terrorism in Israel as something less than terror than to confront what it says about our moral compass. Silence is not neutrality. Silence is complicity.
There is an old thought experiment: “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” Today, we might reframe it: “If a terrorist attack happens in Israel and the world does not cover it, did it really happen?”
It is rhetorical, of course, but it captures the paradox of our information age: a time when everything is recorded, streamed, and shared, and yet entire tragedies can vanish into the abyss of selective reporting.
When a bus is riddled with bullets, a family gunned down, or a bomb explodes outside a synagogue, the absence of coverage is more than omission. It robs the dead of dignity and the living of solidarity. It tells the world that some lives matter less, some victims are unworthy of empathy. This is not merely a failure of journalism. It is a failure of morality. By choosing silence, people do not just overlook the violence; they normalize it.
From Pagers to Eyeglasses: Israel’s Next Frontier in Covert Warfare? By Mordechai Sones
Strategic analysis of technological feasibility, legal ramifications, and geopolitical drivers behind potential weaponization of optical devices, one year after 2024 Hezbollah pager attacks
September 8, 2025 Jewish Home News
A New Paradigm in Asymmetric Warfare
In September 2024, the world watched as Israel executed one of the most audacious and technologically sophisticated covert operations in modern history. The simultaneous detonation of thousands of pagers across Lebanon and Syria dealt a stunning blow to Hezbollah’s command-and-control infrastructure.
Contents
A New Paradigm in Asymmetric Warfare
The Pager Precedent: A Blueprint for Supply-Chain Dominance
The Technological Leap: The Science of Transparent Munitions
A Long History: The Pursuit of Blinding and Directed-Energy Weapons
The Legal and Ethical Battlefield: A High-Stakes Gamble
Innovation, Necessity, and Moral High Ground
The attack, a masterclass in supply-chain infiltration, did more than just disrupt an adversary; it signaled a paradigm shift in asymmetric warfare. By turning a common electronic device into a weapon, Israel demonstrated a new doctrine: the mass weaponization of commercial technology.
Now, one year later in the autumn of 2025, a pressing question emerges from the strategic fallout: what comes next? As tensions with Iran and its proxies continue to dominate mainstream news, speculation has turned to an even more ubiquitous and personal item: eyeglasses and contact lenses.
The concept, while seemingly drawn from espionage fiction, warrants serious analysis. Based on established technological precedents, current materials science research, and Israel’s long-standing security doctrine, the development of explosive optical devices is not only plausible but represents a logical next step in this new era of warfare.
The Pager Precedent: A Blueprint for Supply-Chain Dominance
To grasp the potential for weaponized eyewear, one must first appreciate the strategic success of the pager operation. It was not merely an act of sabotage but the culmination of a years-long intelligence effort to achieve supply-chain dominance. Reports indicate that Mossad, likely through front companies, orchestrated the manufacturing of pagers with minuscule quantities of PETN (pentaerythritol tetranitrate) integrated into their batteries. The explosive, a potent and near-transparent compound when purified, evaded detection.
The operation’s true genius lay in its exploitation of an enemy’s operational security measures. Hezbollah had adopted pagers to avoid Israeli signals intelligence (SIGINT) capabilities that effectively tracked cellular phones. Israel turned this strength into a catastrophic vulnerability. The synchronized detonation, reportedly triggered by a sophisticated broadcast signal, created chaos, sowing paranoia and crippling the organization’s ability to coordinate.
For Israeli strategists, this confirmed a powerful new doctrine: if an adversary’s communication or logistical network can be physically infiltrated at the source, it can be neutralized with unprecedented precision and scale. Eyewear, with its complex global supply chain originating largely in Asia and distributed worldwide, presents a similar and arguably more intimate target.
The Technological Leap: The Science of Transparent Munitions
The primary technical hurdle is the creation of a stable, transparent explosive that can be molded into an optical-grade lens without compromising its explosive power. While traditional explosives like C-4 are opaque, advancements in materials science are closing this gap.
The pager attacks utilized PETN, a crystalline substance. For a lens, the ideal material would be an amorphous explosive. Unlike crystals, which have an ordered molecular lattice that scatters light and causes opacity, amorphous solids have a disordered structure, much like glass, allowing light to pass through.
Declassified research from institutions like the U.S. Army’s Picatinny Arsenal, dating back to 2016, reveals long-standing military interest in developing transparent energetic materials using nanotechnology. The goal has been to alter the molecular structure of explosive compounds to achieve clarity without sacrificing stability or power.
More recently, research from institutions like Purdue University into “switchable explosives”—compounds that remain inert until activated by a specific trigger, such as sound or light frequency—points toward dual-use materials that could function as a lens until armed.
Israel’s deep investment in nanotechnology and its advanced defense firms, such as Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, place it at the forefront of this field. Rafael’s work on hypersonic interceptors, which rely on sophisticated infrared seekers and miniaturized explosive warheads, demonstrates a mastery of integrating advanced optics with energetic materials. The incremental steps from a mostly-hidden explosive like PETN in a battery to a fully transparent amorphous explosive in a lens are scientifically significant but represent a clear developmental trajectory.
A Long History: The Pursuit of Blinding and Directed-Energy Weapons
The concept of using advanced technology to blind an adversary is not new; it is a well-established, if controversial, field of military research. Long before the idea of explosive lenses, the world’s major powers invested heavily in directed-energy weapons designed to disable optics—both human and electronic. This history provides a crucial strategic precedent for any operation targeting an enemy’s vision.
As early as March 1982, the U.S. Army Missile Command awarded a $27 million contract to develop ROADRUNNER, a vehicle-mounted, high-energy laser intended to find and destroy the sensitive optical sensors of enemy weapon systems. While its primary mission was anti-sensor, its potential to cause permanent blindness in soldiers was an undeniable and alarming capability. ROADRUNNER was part of a broader Cold War-era push into tactical laser systems, a field that eventually led to the Forward Area Laser Weapon System (FALWD) and other programs aimed at protecting troops by disabling incoming threats.
The very real possibility of these technologies being used as anti-personnel blinding weapons sparked significant international concern. This culminated in the 1995 Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons (Protocol IV to the CCW), a landmark arms control treaty that preemptively banned weapons specifically designed to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision. The protocol did not ban lasers outright, but it made the intent to blind illegal.
Today, this legacy continues with the development of modern High-Energy Laser Weapon Systems (HELWS). While publicly designated for countering drones, rockets, and mortars, these systems operate on the same principles as their predecessors. A laser powerful enough to burn through a drone’s airframe is more than capable of causing irreversible eye damage.
This technological duality—publicly stated anti-materiel purpose versus inherent anti-personnel capability—keeps the issue relevant and demonstrates a persistent military interest in weaponized light. This decades-long pursuit establishes that targeting vision is a consistent theme in modern warfare, making the idea of weaponized eyewear a technologically advanced continuation of an old strategic goal.
The Legal and Ethical Battlefield: A High-Stakes Gamble
The deployment of weaponized eyewear would provoke an international legal firestorm far exceeding that of the pager attacks. The pager operation already drew condemnation for violating international humanitarian law (IHL). UN experts and human rights organizations argued the attacks constituted an illegal use of booby-traps under Amended Protocol II of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), which prohibits targeting “apparently harmless portable objects.”
Weaponized lenses would be a more profound challenge to the core principles of IHL:
Distinction: How could the weapon distinguish between a combatant and a civilian family member who might borrow the glasses? The inability to make this distinction would lead to accusations of indiscriminate attacks.
Perfidy: This is the act of killing or injuring an adversary by feigning protected status. Using an object associated with civilian life and medical need to deliver an attack would almost certainly be classified as perfidy under the Geneva Conventions.
Proponents of such an operation would argue that it is a legitimate tactic when used against military targets, such as a known enemy unit whose members are all issued compromised eyewear. They would frame it as a proportional response that minimizes collateral damage compared to an airstrike. However, this legal defense would be tenuous and would likely fail to persuade international bodies like the International Criminal Court (ICC), further isolating Israel politically.
Innovation, Necessity, and Moral High Ground
As of late 2025, there is no public evidence that Israel has developed or deployed explosive eyewear. However, the strategic logic is undeniable. In its decades-long shadow war with Iran and its proxies, Israel has consistently prioritized technological superiority and covert action to offset its quantitative disadvantages.
The 2024 pager attack was not an endpoint but a declaration of a new capability. The convergence of a proven operational blueprint, advancing materials science, and a persistent existential threat makes the pursuit of even more discreet weapon systems a near certainty.
For Israel, the challenge is not merely technical but profoundly strategic: it must weigh the tactical advantages of such innovations against the immense political and legal costs. Deploying a weapon that so intimately blurs the line between civilian objects and military hardware would be a gamble for its very legitimacy on the world stage.
As technology continues to evolve, the question for Israel is not just “Can we do this?” but “Should we?”—a question that will define the character of its defense and its place in the world for years to come.
The road to Oct. 7 began in Hebron Moshe Phillips
The 1929 massacre by local Arabs is not just a painful chapter in the past but a reality that still impacts the region.
Sept. 8, 2025 JNS
Itamar Ben-Gvir, the outspoken Israeli politician who currently serves as Israel’s Minister of National Security, was recently targeted by Hamas for assassination. Fortunately, the plot was uncovered in early September and the would-be murderers from the “Hebron area,” according to reports, are now in custody.
This news item is among the first international news out of the “Hebron area” to break since Elliot Kaufman’s Wall Street Journal op-ed on July 5, “A New Palestinian Offer for Peace With Israel,” which offered a naive and misguided view of the potential for peace in the region. Kaufman reported that local sheikhs in Hebron could take the lead in peace efforts with Israel, ignoring the complexities and political realities that make such an idea not only impossible and impractical but dangerous.
It’s been two months since Kaufman’s article was published, and nothing substantial has come out of Hebron that he said was going to happen. His article was widely reported as news by nearly every major news outlet.
Kaufman’s suggestion that the sheikhs could be instrumental in peace talks overlooks many truths, and here’s just one: Peace negotiations require institutional authority, something the sheikhs simply don’t have. While they may have some influence on hyper-local affairs, they lack the political power to represent all Palestinians or to implement any peace agreement at a national level. Peace is not something that can be brokered over tea in a local council meeting; it requires legitimate authority, which they do not possess and cannot attain.
This point becomes even more significant when you consider Hebron’s violent history. The 1929 Hebron massacre—when 67 Jews were murdered and more than 70 others were wounded—is not just a painful chapter in the past but a reality that still impacts the region today. The massacre, which involved not only killings but also horrifying acts of sexual violence, left deep scars. The similarities between the Hebron massacre in 1929 and the atrocities committed on Oct. 7 are many, including the fact that seemingly noncombatants participated in the surprise attacks.
Hebron’s history is one of brutality against Jews. Kaufman’s optimism ignores the deep-seated antisemitism that is very much still present there.
He overlooks one of the most significant factors that shape society in Hebron today: the power and influence of Hamas, as the plot against Ben-Gvir demonstrates. While Kaufman focuses on local leadership, he fails to engage with the reality that Hamas has significant support in Judea and Samaria. During the Hamas-led terrorist invasion of Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, many Hebron Arabs openly supported the attacks. That isn’t a detail that can be brushed aside. Hamas’s deep influence is a fact that needs to be reckoned with. Kaufman’s dreams of peace—driven by sheikhs—ignore this critical dynamic. The reality is that Hamas’s grip on Palestinian society cannot be wished away.
In fact, his idealization of the sheikhs also fails to account for their lack of formal political power. They have no control over the police, military or judicial systems in Hebron or within the broader area. More than that, they aren’t even recognized by the international community as legitimate representatives of the Palestinian Arabs. While they may have some sway within their own communities, their ability to engage in meaningful negotiations or secure a lasting peace is just not real. It is one thing to be influential locally and quite another to be trusted with the power to negotiate internationally.
Then there’s the Palestinian Authority itself, which Kaufman seems to bypass in his analysis. While the P.A. is widely regarded as a governing body in Palestinian Arab areas, its control is shaky at best. Corruption, incompetence and a failure to provide security or accountability have combined to weaken the P.A. Worse still, it has been unable or unwilling to confront Hamas, which continues to gain influence. Kaufman seems to overlook this crucial fact—the P.A., despite its formal status, has shown little ability or will to deliver stability.
At its core, Kaufman’s argument is built on a misunderstanding of what is needed for peace between Israel and its neighbors. His view of Hebron’s sheikhs as potential peacemakers is overly simplistic and naive, ignoring the violent history of the Arabs of Hebron and the deep divisions among Palestinians.
His solution may sound appealing in theory, but it ignores the harsh realities that make it unworkable. Until everyday Palestinians demand that their leaders make real reforms, until Arab media, clerics and leaders stop glorifying terrorism and antisemitism, and until Hamas is defeated, negotiations will remain out of reach and any discussion of negotiations will remain exactly that—a discussion.
MOSHE PHILLIPS Moshe Phillips, a veteran pro-Israel activist and author, is the national chairman of Americans For a Safe Israel (AFSI). A former board member of the American Zionist Movement, he previously served as national director of the U.S. division of Herut and worked with CAMERA in Philadelphia. He was also a delegate to the 2020 World Zionist Congress and served as editor of The Challenger, the publication of the Tagar Zionist Youth Movement. His op-eds and letters have been widely published in the United States and Israel.
Pro-Palestinians are not actually pro-Palestinian. JOSHUA HOFFMAN
This is how you know the “pro-Palestinian” movement is a farce for modern-day antisemitism at its core. Every Jew must take notice.
SEP 07, 2025
“Pro-Palestinian” activists dominate headlines, campuses, and city streets.
They chant, march, and disrupt in the name of “Palestinian” freedom.
But pause for a moment and imagine something different. Imagine if the people who call themselves “pro-Palestinian” were actually committed to the well-being of Palestinians. The Middle East, and the lives of millions, would look radically different.
Imagine if the people who call themselves “pro-Palestinian” actually fought for the well-being of Palestinians. Imagine if they poured their outrage not into chanting for Israel’s destruction, but into demanding the dismantling of Hamas, a tyrannical regime that has stolen Palestinian futures for decades.
If the marches and slogans were aimed at Gaza’s rulers instead of Israel’s citizens, Hamas would be gone. Gaza would not lie in ruins. Its children would not grow up in jihadist schools, its families would not be forced to serve as human shields, and its economy would not be chained to the machinery of terror.
Had “pro-Palestinian” activists truly wanted freedom for Gaza, they would have demanded Hamas lay down its weapons, dismantle its terror infrastructure, and invest in education, jobs, and healthcare. They would have condemned the October 7th massacres not only for the slaughter of Israelis, but also for the catastrophe it unleashed upon Gazans, who now live amid rubble.
The real tragedy is that no march, no viral campaign, and no campus sit-in has demanded that Hamas stop sacrificing Palestinians on the altar of perpetual war.
Consider the Israeli company SodaStream. One of their manufacturing plants used to be located in the West Bank, the company employed hundreds of Palestinians in good-paying jobs. Workers earned up to three times the average Palestinian wage, enjoyed benefits, and worked alongside Israelis in an environment of cooperation. It was a model of coexistence.
But the “pro-Palestinian” boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement could not tolerate that. It pressured SodaStream to close its West Bank plant. The result? Hundreds of Palestinians lost their jobs. Many openly begged for the factory to remain open. One Palestinian worker put it simply: “We want to work. We want to live.” But activists cheered the closure as a “victory.” For whom? Certainly not for Palestinians.
If “pro-Palestinians” were truly pro-Palestinian, they would be campaigning for more SodaStreams, not fewer. They would advocate for economic partnerships, cross-border trade, and sustainable industries that bring dignity and prosperity. Instead, they celebrate economic sabotage, even when it devastates Palestinian families.
The Palestinian Authority receives billions in international aid, yet ordinary Palestinians see little benefit. Hospitals lack supplies. Schools are underfunded. Poverty is endemic. Where does the money go? To the villas of officials in Ramallah. To “martyr salaries” that pay terrorists more than teachers or doctors. To offshore accounts that enrich the ruling elite.
Real pro-Palestinians would be demanding transparency, accountability, and reform. They would protest in front of Palestinian Authority headquarters demanding that its president, Mahmoud Abbas, hold elections — something he has avoided for nearly two decades. They would reject a system that keeps Palestinians dependent and disempowered.
But the “pro-Palestinian” movement never lifts a finger against corruption in Palestinian leadership, because doing so would expose the uncomfortable truth: The real enemy of Palestinian freedom is not Israel, but the failed leadership of Palestinians themselves.
History makes this even clearer. Time and again, Palestinians have been offered statehood. In 1937, the Peel Commission proposed partition. In 1947, the United Nations voted to establish both a Jewish and an Arab state. In 2000 at Camp David and in 2008 under Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Palestinians were again offered nearly all of the West Bank and Gaza.
Each time, Israel said yes or was willing to negotiate. Each time, Palestinian leaders said no — and often answered with violence. If “pro-Palestinians” truly wanted a Palestinian state, they would demand accountability for these rejections, instead of pretending Israel alone is responsible for the lack of peace.
The hypocrisy grows sharper when one looks beyond Israel. Where were the “pro-Palestinian” marches when Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria starved and bombed Palestinian refugees in the Yarmouk camp? Where are the protests against Egypt, which controls Gaza’s southern border at Rafah and often keeps it shut tighter than Israel ever has? Where is the outrage at Jordan or Lebanon, which restrict Palestinians’ rights to work and own property?
These absences reveal the truth: Palestinian lives are not the movement’s concern. Jewish lives are. The outrage is selective, and therefore dishonest.
And so Palestinian suffering itself is weaponized. Each destroyed building, each funeral, each statistic becomes not a rallying cry to improve Palestinian lives, but a cudgel to delegitimize Israel. The tears are not for the children of Gaza, but for the political capital their deaths provide. The tragedy of Palestinians is that their pain is turned into theater, recycled endlessly for global consumption, never to build, only to destroy.
Compare this to other conflicts. China holds a million Uyghurs in concentration camps. Russia leveled the Ukrainian city of Mariupol. Turkey has oppressed Kurds for decades. Yet no weekly mass marches fill the streets of Western capitals for these people. There are no campus encampments for the Uyghurs. The world erupts only when Jews are involved. This double standard is not accidental; it is the essence of antisemitism, singling out the Jewish state for treatment applied to no other nation.
The moral inversion of the so-called “pro-Palestinian” movement is staggering. What would help Palestinians — economic cooperation, coexistence programs, peace negotiations — is condemned. What hurts Palestinians — terrorism, corruption, boycotts, and rejectionism — is celebrated. This is not a mistake of analysis; it is the deliberate choice of a movement whose goal is not to uplift Palestinians, but to oppose Jews.
That is why “pro-Palestinian” rallies so often spill into explicitly antisemitic violence: vandalizing synagogues, harassing Jewish students, assaulting Jewish diners at restaurants. No other diaspora is targeted when a foreign conflict erupts. Only Jews. Anti-Zionism, far from being a separate category, has become the socially acceptable mask for the oldest hatred.
Antisemitism is not suddenly “surging.” It has not re-emerged after decades of dormancy. It has always been here — ancient, adaptable, relentless. From Pharaoh to the Romans, from medieval blood libels to pogroms, from the gas chambers of Auschwitz to the boycotts of Israel, the Jew has been the eternal target. The difference is not in its existence, but in its disguise.
After the Holocaust, explicit antisemitism became taboo in polite society. It was no longer acceptable to say “I hate Jews” or “Jews are our problem.” So antisemitism put on a new mask. It called itself “anti-Zionism.” It replaced the individual Jew with the collective Jew, the State of Israel. What had once been “the Jew is poisoning the well” became “Israel is poisoning the world.” What had once been “the Jew controls the banks” became “Israel controls the governments.”
The same stereotypes, the same conspiracies, the same eliminationist desire — only rebranded for a post-Holocaust world.
That is why Jews must not fool themselves into thinking that supporting the so-called “pro-Palestinian” movement is an act of justice, coexistence, solidarity. It is not. It is a betrayal of Jewish dignity and survival. To march alongside those who chant “From the River to the Sea” is not to stand for human rights; it is to stand for the erasure of Jewish self-determination. To endorse the boycotts of Israel is not to promote peace; it is to empower those who dream of dismantling the world’s only Jewish homeland.
Jews should not support this movement under any circumstances, because the movement is not about freedom, justice, or dignity for Palestinians. It is about denying freedom, justice, and dignity to Jews. When Jews lend their names, their voices, or their organizations to the cause of “Palestine,” they are not siding with the oppressed. They are siding with the oppressor: history’s most consistent oppressor of Jews themselves.
The disguise may have changed, but the hatred is the same. Antisemitism in the 21st century no longer marches under the banners of swastikas and fascist salutes; it marches under keffiyehs and slogans of “liberation.” But the goal is identical: the elimination of Jewish security, sovereignty, and survival. To support such a movement as a Jew is not only dangerous; it is self-destructive.
Meanwhile, Palestinians who truly seek peace or criticize their leadership are silenced. In Gaza, dissidents are jailed, tortured, or executed by Hamas. In the West Bank, activists calling for reform face intimidation. These voices are rarely amplified by Western activists because they contradict the narrative that Israel is solely to blame. And so the Palestinians most invested in building a better future are ignored, while those invested in endless conflict are elevated.
Movements reveal their true nature not by their slogans, but by their choices. A movement that cared about Palestinians would fight Hamas, build jobs, demand reform, and push for coexistence. But the movement we see today does none of that. Instead, it glorifies violence, sabotages opportunity, and shields corruption — all while blaming Israel for every Palestinian misfortune.
That is why the “pro-Palestinian” movement is not a liberation movement, but an eliminationist one. Its energy is not spent building a Palestinian future, just hindering the Jewish one. Its obsession is not Palestinian life, but Jewish existence.
The path to a real Palestinian future is clear: Destroy Hamas, reject terrorism, demand accountable leadership, build an economy of peace, and recognize Israel’s right to exist as the Jewish state alongside any Palestinian one. Only then can Palestinians thrive.
Imagine a movement that marched for democracy in Ramallah, that fundraised for Palestinian entrepreneurs, that pressured leaders to accept peace offers, that amplified Palestinian reformers instead of terrorists. That would be a pro-Palestinian movement worthy of the name.
But until the so-called “pro-Palestinian” movement makes that its rallying cry, it cannot claim to be pro-Palestinian at all. For now, its name is a lie, and its cause is not justice. It’s hate.
Hamas Just Played Their Ace Card Again, Sending Israel Into Full PANIC Mode! [52:07] Alex Traiman and Josh Hasten
September 7, 2025 JNS TV – Israel is quickly approaching the point of no return in their war against Hamas.
Broadcast from the JNS Media Hub in Jerusalem, JNS CEO and Jerusalem bureau chief Alex Traiman joins JNS Middle East correspondent Josh Hasten to break down the IDF’s full-scale incursion into Gaza City, the nerve center of Hamas operations. As multi-story buildings used by terrorists are demolished, Traiman and Hasten explore what this means for dismantling Hamas’s tunnel network and military infrastructure once and for all.
Meanwhile, President Trump issues a stark ultimatum to Hamas: release all Israeli hostages or face dire consequences. The episode also covers the escalating hostage crisis, the latest proposal for annexation in Judea and Samaria, dissecting mainstream media distortions and the political narrative surrounding Prime Minister Netanyahu and the controversial involvement of U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff and far-left negotiator Gershon Baskin.
Finally, you don’t want to miss the hosts’ reaction to Tucker Carlson’s inflammatory claims, including his dismissal of Judea and Samaria as “mythical” and his platforming of a former State Department staffer attacking pro-Israel officials.
A Fitting Psychiatric Diagnosis JOAN SWIRSKY
Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS)
September 6, 2025
Since the very microsecond in 2015 when billionaire builder and TV star Donald Trump descended the escalator in NY City’s splendiferous Trump Tower with his gorgeous wife Melania by his side and pronounced his candidacy as a Republican for the presidency of the United States of America, each and every leftist, liberal, progressive (LLP] from all over the world went insane.
A big part of that insanity was fear. After a 15-year run hosting the mega-successful TV show The Apprentice, candidate Trump’s adversaries knew that they were up against a guy with not only international name recognition as an innovative real estate developer, but also brains, an Ivy League education, a billionaire who could not be bought, bribed or compromised, and who also had that rare and elusive X factor known as charisma.
In fact, it was the late political columnist and TV personality, who was also a psychiatrist, Charles Krauthammer, who originally coined the phrase Bush Derangement Syndrome that ended up fitting candidate Trump so perfectly…hence, Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). That “syndrome” was defined by Krauthammer as “the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency—nay—the very existence of”––in 2015 and beyond, Donald Trump.
In fact, Krauthammer, in an op-ed, commented that—in addition to general hysteria about Trump—the “Trump Derangement Syndrome” was the “inability to distinguish between legitimate policy differences and … signs of psychic pathology.”
NO PROBLEM
But the insanity didn’t last long when all those LLPs realized that they themselves had three immensely powerful weapons against candidate Trump.
The first was ACORN (Association Of Community Organizations For Reform Now), which admitted to voter fraud in 2010 and went to prison, but upon release reorganized, changed their name, and by 2015 were back in the vote-rigging business.
The second powerful weapon in their Get-Trump toolbox was the leftist mainstream media, a media that once lionized Donald Trump, featured his beauteous former-model wife on the covers of prestigious fashion magazines, and thanked him copiously for his tremendous contributions to New York City, including for the long-forsaken Wollman ice-skating rink.
But in 2015, it was a media that was also poised to use all of its power and malevolence to defame, vilify, mock, undermine, and try to utterly destroy candidate––and worse, Republican––Trump.
The third, which the LLPs considered their most devastating weapon, was none other than candidate Trump’s formidable opponent, the former two-term First Lady of Arkansas while her husband was governor, and also the two-term First Lady of the USA while her husband, President Bill Clinton, was POTUS. And that is not to omit that Hillary Clinton was a former Secretary of State under the Obama regime, and a feminist icon to women around the world, all of whom chose to ignore that she tolerated a husband who spit in her face every day as his serial philandering became globally publicized.
But this seemingly ongoing blemish was no matter to every gender-obsessed LLP who hoped to be alive long enough to witness the first woman to be inaugurated as President of the United States of America!
THE SYMPTOMS STARTED IMMEDIATELY
All that original optimism notwithstanding, it didn’t take long for Democrats to finally acknowledge that they had a very good reason to fear a Trump presidency. Here was a man with limitless energy and obviously impervious to their gratuitous insults, defamation of character, and fabricated lies, as well as instantly ready to level withering and often prescient nicknames, caricatures and insults right back at them.
Who can forget Fake News CNN, Crooked Joe and Sleepy Joe (Biden), Low IQ War Hawk (Liz Cheney), Crazy Hillary and Crooked Hillary, Leakin’ James Comey, Shady James Comey and Slimeball James Comey, Comrade Kamala, Broken Old Crow (Mitch McConnell}, Governor Newscum (Gavin Newsom), Pocahontas (Elizabeth Warren), Our Great Palestinian Senator (Chuck Schumer), Tampon Tim (MN Gov. Tim Walz), and Pencil Neck (Cong. Adam Schiff)?
So colorful, so hilarious, and to the LLPs, so maddening, so menacing, so mortifying.
SMELLING THE COFFEE
Again, it wasn’t long before the Democrat establishment realized that ole Hillary would not have a cakewalk into the White House. That was when they launched their lawfare campaign, which is basically using lawsuits as weapons either to intimidate an opponent, or specifically in this case to persistently badger or bankrupt candidate Trump into quitting the race.
They had the wrong guy.
And we all witnessed the net result of that historic election. After virtually all the polls and pundits predicted a crushing Hillary victory, We the People had other ideas and literally swept candidate Trump to a decisive and yes, crushing victory into the Oval Office!
A WELLSPRING OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS
The Trump presidency was remarkable for its stunning accomplishments…high employment across all demographics, energy independence to last a thousand years, foreign actors paying their fair share into NATO (for the first time), a significantly strengthened US Military, widespread deregulation resulting in billions saved, the unprecedented Abraham Accords in the Middle East, expanding access to affordable healthcare choices and lowering drug prices, on and on and on.
It was also remarkable for the obdurate persistence of the peculiar Democrat hysteria at the very sight, sound or even mention of POTUS Trump.
THEN CAME 2020
The entire world was watching the returns roll in and, as expected, President Trump was racking up victory after victory in what clearly appeared to be a slam-dunk return to the White House. But suddenly––and for the first time in history––every TV station experienced a complete cessation of coverage. Typical electronic glitch, everyone initially thought.
But uh-oh…a glitch for three, four, five hours? What’s wrong with this picture?
What was wrong was that the clear victor became the ultimate loser and President Trump was forced to accede to Joe Biden, who even then, in 2020, was exhibiting alarming signs of cognitive decline.
Without rehashing the years-long controversy over rigged voting machines and mountains of fraudulent mail-in votes (ala Dinesh D’Souza’s explosive film, 2000 Mules), America was stuck with or condemned to Obama 2.0, 11-million illegal aliens breaching our borders, unvetted during the Covid scamdemic, a significantly weakened military, a pitiful and dangerous foreign policy that ushered in not one but five raging wars––in Darfur, Yemen, Myanmar, Ukraine, and Israel––not one of which existed in the Trump years.
INCURABLE
And during all these years, nothing persisted more hysterically, more irrationally, than Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines deranged as “mentally unsound…” –– and I would add obsessed! According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of the American Psychiatric Association, obsession is defined as recurrent and persistent thoughts, urges, or impulses that are…intrusive… and often lead to … repetitive behaviors, in this case of thinking night and day––um, obsessively––of ways to ultimately convince the vast populace––including multimillions of subscribers to social media like Facebook, Instagram, Telegram, X, et al––that under Trump, the world would come to an end.
Of course, this deranged, obsessed, indeed crazed cult engages daily in inflammatory memes that are largely inaccurate or downright false. When you’re obsessed, truth and accuracy are mere inconveniences.
Meanwhile, employment is high, Wall St. is pipping and popping, cesspools of crime like D.C. are being cleaned up, illegal criminals are being deported, wars that raged on for years are being ended, vicious anti-Semitism in American colleges and universities is being aggressively sanctioned, but the derangement and obsessiveness only grows.
In fact, writer Zoe Tillman documents that just since President Trump’s second term began this year, 74 Lawsuits Have Already Been Filed. But records show that he has been largely successful in fighting this rabid lawfare onslaught by dozens of partisan leftwing judges, to the everlasting handwringing and hysteria of the Get Trump cabal.
After years of observing this floridly aberrant behavior, I have to say that President Trump reminds me of Israel––relentlessly attacked but ultimately victorious!
Joan Swirsky is a New York–based journalist and author. Her website is www.joanswirsky.com, and she can be reached at joanswirsky@gmail.com.
