COMMENTARY / OPINION
President Trump hosts Bill Gates at White House, giving him a platform to spout his evil aspirations for AI-driven digital dystopia [VIDEO 19:07] LEO HOHMANN
After questioning Operation Warp Speed earlier this week, Trump invites Bill Gates to White House dinner and nods approvingly as Gates lays out dystopian vision for AI-controlled medical & food system
SEP 05, 2025
Earlier this week President Trump posted a statement on his Truth Social account that had his base of MAGA supporters flying high.
Trump appeared to be questioning, for the first time, the wisdom of Operation Warp Speed and the efficacy of the Covid mRNA injections that it produced, promoted and distributed en masse. He said the data he received from Pfizer showed wonderful results but that different data was circulating to the public and he demanded answers as to which data was accurate.
His base went wild with enthusiasm. Trump had finally seen the light on mRNA gene-altering injections that have caused so much harm and misery not just in this country but worldwide. Almost everyone knows of someone who was previously very healthy and after getting the shots suffered a stroke, heart attack or neurological disorder – people of all ages and backgrounds.
Some of the headlines I saw in the conservative media were outlandish in their overly optimistic take on the Trump tweet and what it meant. One headline, typical of the euphoria, claimed, “Trump goes to war against Big Pharma.” Alex Jones chimed in and called the Trump post “a total game changer…sending shockwaves throughout the global establishment.”
Whoa! Hold onto your horses boys and girls before your irrational exuberance drives you into deception.
Like so many of Trump’s tweets, they are meant to have shock value – I’m convinced it’s for purely entertainment’s sake in some cases, your daily dose of distraction in most others – and should be taken with a grain of salt. He can come back a day or a week later and say or do something that’s totally opposite of the message sent in his earlier comment.
And it didn’t take long for that to happen with regard to his comment about demanding true data on mRNA Covid shots. Just hours after his own HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. had delivered a brilliant beatdown to Big Pharma-captured U.S. senators in a high-profile Senate hearing, Trump was sitting down at the White House with some of the biggest villains in the Big Pharma takeover of our government apparatus.
The truth is, the Covid shots are old history. He may question them, or even end up rebuking them as “bad” shots. But that doesn’t mean he will question or rebuke the AI-powered mRNA gene-editing technology in general. No, he will simply back up a bit and issue a limited hangout. He will say Warp Speed was a little ahead of its time, the technology hadn’t been fully perfected or fine-tuned when it was rolled out during a national emergency, but now the “NEW” mRNA is here and it is much better! Much more trustworthy and brilliant? So line up for your shots!
He proved that something like this is already in the works by his behavior at last night’s White House dinner for technology “innovators,” with Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg among the featured guests.
The devil speaks through Gates
Gates, sitting front and center next to Melania Trump, said he wants to see an AI doctor assigned to every human. He spoke glowingly of his plans to unleash more gene editing, applying AI to medicine even more than it already is, using a new version of Trump’s Warp Speed for all of it. Trump sat and nodded his head as Gates spoke.
Gates said:
𝘐’𝘮 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘩𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘳, 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘺, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘐 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘮𝘺 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘯𝘰𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 — 𝘷𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴, 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦 𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘯𝘰𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘴.
Fast-forward to the 3-minute mark in the video below to hear Gates’ comments Thursday at the White House while sitting next to the president and his wife.
Gates said he’s also working on delivering AI “advice” for farmers, which signals a ramping up of the war on food, replacing real food (cull your herds) with ultra-processed, bioengineered fake-food full of chemical additives and bio-manipulated for various traits.
So you have your answer folks. Even if Trump ends up swearing off the safety and efficacy of the original Covid shots, that does not mean he has a problem with the larger issue of mRNA gene-therapy injections for everything from Covid to cancer to polio, RSV, HIV, influenza, and Sickle Cell Anemia.
Gates said it. Trump nodded.
In fact, the FDA has already approved four new mRNA shots for Covid. Out with the old, in with the new.
At the same time Gates was being lauded at the White House, he is being accused of genocide and crimes against humanity in a historic court case in the Netherlands, according to medical researcher Nicolas Holscher of the McCollough Foundation. There are 146 pieces of evidence, from autopsies to secret contracts, being submitted to the Dutch court. “This could spark Nuremberg 2.0,” Holscher wrote in a Facebook post.
Watch Holscher in a short video interview putting Gates’ criminality into larger context.
Trump is either unaware or doesn’t care about any of the sordid history surrounding Bill Gates.
If Trump and Gates have their way, everyone will have their own personal AI doctor, a bot that will instruct them of exactly which new mRNA injection they need to get in order to ward off whatever creeping disease AI determines they might have lurking in their bodies. Trump is on board with all of this. He thinks it’s great. That much came through loud and clear at Thursday’s White House tech dinner where the tech bros were wined and dined and treated like royalty.
A post to X from The Patriot Voice says it all in terms of what true America-First patriots (as opposed to Trump idol worshipers) are feeling today after watching Trump’s dog and pony show at the White House, cavorting with some of the most viciously evil technocrats on the world stage today:
“Bill Gates said that he is going to team up with Trump and the Administration when it comes to implementing more AI, mRNA vaccines and gene therapies. ‘In the same way Warp Speed took those seeds and put them together, I think something fantastic can be done.’ It ALL makes more sense now…THEY HAVE BEEN IN IT TOGETHER SINCE THE BEGINNING OF WARP SPEED, probably even before that. Trump did make a significant contribution to his GAVI alliance, that didn’t make much sense in 2020, but it sure as hell does now. Let me remind you about Bill Gates… The same dude who literally PLANNED OUT the COVID-19 PSYOP with John’s Hopkins, in October of 2019 with Event 201. The same dude who pushed to get as many people to get vaccinated with mRNA DNA altering/destroying vaccines as possible, KILLING AND MAIMING UNTOLD MILLIONS WORLDWIDE. The same dude who said we can ELIMINATE 10-15% of the world’s population by 2030. The same dude who smirked on live TV when talking about increasing childhood death. The same dude who wants to block out the sun. The same dude who was also good friends with Jeffery Epstein, been to his island multiple times, and planned to make a Transhumanist ‘master race’ with him. The same dude who bought up much of America’s farmland and genetically modifies all of our food, and pushed fake Frankenstein meat products, making us all sick. The same dude who is aggressively pushing Digital ID, AI mass surveillance, and all of the Agenda 2030 goals, ultimately leading to the Mark of the Beast. This is quite LITERALLY EVERYTHING we have fought AGAINST over the last five years. EVERY. DAMN. THING. MAGA, you haven’t only been SOLD OUT, but you have been VICIOUSLY DECEIVED AND LIED TO…
While a little on the dramatic side, I can’t argue with the author’s points in the above post. It does feel like a betrayal.
[Ed.: It could be that Leo Hohmann is reading too much Daily Shmutz, but apparently, he no longer trusts Trump any more than I do. But, please don’t get me wrong! I’ll still vote for him again. He has done so many incredible good things in six short months that possibly no one else could have done! The list is long. (see: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/09/wayne-root-trump-hits-highest-approval-ratings-ever ) No question that he’s the best president we’ve ever had. That doesn’t mean I (should) trust his judgement. The list is long, and I won’t write it all here now, but just one small example is that you don’t put Qatar in charge of peace negotiations between Hamas and Israel when Qatar is Hamas’ backer. Then, you don’t put a Nit-wit-kopf as your chief emissary to the Middle East. AI is turning against humans from it’s womb, and Trump is pushing for it! Good Lord, please help us… Check out this interpretation: ‘Why is Gates sitting next to Trump at the White House?’ [11:40] The Body Language Guy
An alternative universe Melanie Phillips
Hamas’s war against civilization pivots on its war against the Western and Israeli mind. Hamas and its Iranian patron have understood that the West no longer has the intellectual wherewithal to recognize the lies in the anti-Israel psyop warfare. Opinion.
Sep 4, 2025, 11:13 PM (GMT+3) Israel National News
(JNS) Israel’s elimination last weekend of Abu Obeida, the spokesman of Hamas’s military wing, was a far more significant development than many at first realized.
Abu Obeida wasn’t a mere propaganda chief. According to Doron Kadosh, the military correspondent of Israel Army Radio, this key terrorist mastermind had built a propaganda and psychological warfare apparatus consisting of no fewer than 1,500 operatives.
Every Hamas brigade and division had one of his senior representatives overseeing propaganda efforts, and a “propaganda command center” staffed with video editors produced propaganda videos.
More remarkably still, said Kadosh, no military action by Hamas in recent years had taken place without a structured combat protocol and approval of Abu Obaida’s propaganda plans.
He had developed a psychological warfare plan to prevent the Israel Defense Forces from entering Gaza City, focusing on how to halt tanks and armored personnel carriers using psychological and influence operations aimed at the Israeli government. “He planned to do this through psychological terror operations involving hostages,” said Kadosh.
Abu Obeida was a key player in Hamas’s war against Israel because the manipulation of the Israeli and Western mind through propaganda and “psy-ops” is a critical weapon against the Jewish state.
The claims that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza and starving its civilians are an essential element of that manipulation.
These claims are, of course, utterly ludicrous. Israel has allowed more than 2 million tons of food into Gaza.
Even according to the distorted Hamas casualty figures, the 65,000 Gazans said to have been killed in this war of self-defense out of an estimated total of 2.1 million comes nowhere near the definition of genocide in the Genocide Convention as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”
Nevertheless, headlines screamed across Western media last Monday that a resolution passed by 86% of the International Association of Genocide Scholars declared Israel’s actions in Gaza met the legal definition of genocide.
Melanie O’Brien, the IAGS president and a professor of international law at the University of Western Australia, said the resolution was “a definitive statement from experts in the field of genocide studies that what is going on the ground in Gaza is genocide.”
But only 28% of members took part in that vote. According to a dissident member of this body, Sara Brown, the so-called “expert” sources cited in support of the resolution included virulently anti-Israel organizations and individuals.
These included Amnesty International (which actually reworded the international definition of genocide to support its claims against Israel) and Francesca Albanese, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, whom the U.S. State Department condemned in June for “unabashed antisemitism, expressed support for terrorism, and open contempt for the United States, Israel and the West.”
The scholars’ arguments were shoddy in the extreme. They committed the howler of claiming that the International Court of Justice had said there was a “plausible” claim of genocide in Gaza, which is blatantly untrue. The ICJ had said instead that the Palestinian Arabs “plausibly” had rights to protection under the Genocide Convention.
The IAGS scholars had assumed preposterously that no combatants had been harmed in the war. They had ignored Israel’s unprecedented measures to avoid civilian casualties wherever possible. They had ignored the way Hamas had deeply embedded its military infrastructure among Gaza’s civilian population. And they were accusing Israel falsely of the very crime of which it was the victim.
This grotesque inversion in accusing Israel of genocide has been deployed for decades by the Palestinian Arabs as a way of delegitimizing Israel and thus gaining international support for its destruction.
It’s a psy-ops tactic that’s straight out of the old Soviet playbook—accuse your victims falsely of the crime you are committing against them, which allows you to claim that your own murderous acts are justified resistance against your victims’ fictional aggression.
Hamas ruthlessly deploys this tactic to conceal their own actual genocidal behavior, which they unashamedly proclaim, but which is brushed aside because the term “genocide” is being used to demonize Israel’s attempt to defend itself.
This infernal tactic has been ramped up during the current war because Hamas and its Iranian patron have understood that the West no longer has the intellectual wherewithal to recognize as a lie the accusation against Israel of genocide.
The reason is the prevalent orthodoxy that there’s no such thing as absolute truth, only dominant narratives. These are only permitted to groups said to be of oppressed and powerless victims.
Jews are deemed to be powerful, so they aren’t allowed any dominant narratives. And there’s a determination to deny the Jews their unique historic experience as victims in order to inflate that status for today’s self-designated “powerless” minority groups.
This relativizing process has corrupted Holocaust memorialization and education, much of which now holds that there have been many holocausts and there was nothing special about the Jews as victims of the Nazis.
The key feature of the Nazi Holocaust—the intention to exterminate not just Jews as people but as a people and wipe them off the face of the earth—has been denied. Instead, the Holocaust has come to mean merely the intentional killing of a lot of people.
The same thing has happened to genocide, the term invented by the legal scholar Raphael Lemkin after World War II to describe the intentional eradication of an entire people.
Today’s anti-Zionists have shifted this definition to encompass occupation, Israeli sovereignty or even Zionism itself.
In a remarkable series of posts on X, Adam Louis-Klein, an anthropology Ph.D. student who researches antisemitism, Zionism and Jewish peoplehood, has shredded the prevalent thinking of academics in “genocide studies.”
They openly argue, he writes, that the legal definition of genocide needs to be discarded, stretched or reinterpreted—because they know it doesn’t apply to Israel and they aim to turn it into a weapon to use against the Jewish state alone.
Louis-Klein quotes Dirk Moses, editor of the Journal of Genocide Research, who has argued that when non-state actors commit what he calls “subaltern [lower rank] genocide” they aren’t committing a crime but engaging in a necessary and justified act of resistance. In other words, genocide from the right direction is righteous.
Moses has argued that the distinction between war and genocide is irrelevant because motivation isn’t important. “What does it matter to civilians if they’re killed by violence with genocidal or military intent?” he wrote.
This reasoning is morally bankrupt. Without intent, there can be no moral distinction between right and wrong, aggressor and victim. The absence of intent enables those defending themselves against genocide to be blamed for killing their attackers—precisely the obscene inversion the genocide scholars have achieved with Israel and Hamas.
As Louis-Klein has observed, genocide has thus been deployed not to prevent atrocities but to authorize them.
These genocide scholars have no more intellectual authority than a pack of snake-oil salesmen—in fact, rather less, since anyone can join the IAGS for a fee which can be as low as $30 and with no background checks being made. Members include human-rights activists, students, policymakers, artists and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all.
No media outlets that ran with the screaming “genocide scholars say Israel guilty of genocide” headlines bothered to check the credibility of these “leading scholars” and their claims.
It’s the same reason they eagerly swallow the poisonous lies of Al Jazeera’s terrorist “journalists,” or Hamas-compromised U.N. officials, or Gaza’s Hamas “health ministry.” They want to believe the narrative of murderous Israelis and innocent Palestinian Arab victims.
The result is an alternative information universe of fake news, fake journalists, fake famine, fake genocide and fake genocide “scholars,” all pushing the narrative of fake Palestinians and fake Israeli war crimes—to create a fake Palestine state to destroy Israel, the real nation state of the real Jewish people and the lonely citadel of truth in a world of lies.
Melanie Phillips, a British journalist, broadcaster and author, writes a weekly column for JNS. Currently a columnist for The Times of London, her new book, The Builder’s Stone: How Jews and Christians Built the West and Why Only They Can Save It, is published by Wicked Son and can be purchased on Amazon. To access her work, go to: melaniephillips.substack.com.
No red carpet for Mahmoud Abbas Jack Engelhard
For Rubio and the Trump Administration, the blinders are off, and there shall be no hospitality for thugs and murderers. Opinion.
Sep 5, 2025, 3:11 PM (GMT+3) Israel National News
Those were the days when Yasser Arafat would address the UN General Assembly wearing a gun holstered across his belt.
They loved it when he denounced Israel in the vilest ways…dancing in the aisles as he kept pouring it on for more than an hour.
This was music to the delegates. This was Mozart to their ears. This was his world. These were his people…drunk on Jew hatred.
His annual pitch blasting Israel always drew roaring applause…it was a festival. It was an orgy of antisemitism.
Along came Mahmoud Abbas, and nothing much had changed. His visits to the UN were greeted with the same hoopla.
That was then. This is now, and now the Trump Administration has imposed a ban upon Abbas and his Palestinian Authority.
Message? We are on to you. You are not welcome to enter the United States, and by the way, two-state solution?
Forget about it.
Well ain’t that a shame. Finally, somebody wised up to these people and recognized them for what they are…a bunch of killers.
Thank you, Marco Rubio, for being a menshe in a world where there are so few.
I must be thinking of previous administrations who played along with the same fiction, a pretense that these were peace partners.
That whatever the medicine, it clicked.
They fooled generations of Israelis, people like Sharon, the two Ehuds, and peaceniks Peres, Rabin.
I ask…post Oslo, 1993…did anybody really believe that the PA Arabs had been transformed? Or was it wishful thinking?
Is there an Israeli anywhere who believes that these Arabs can be trusted?
For Rubio and the Trump Administration, the blinders are off, and there shall be no hospitality for thugs and murderers.
Yes, pay to slay is still in the works, rendering Abbas and the PA an uncivilized entity.
Let Abbas go romancing Europe…where he will be among friends, like France, England, Canada, Australia.
Americans are different.
We refuse to be in the same room with Mahmoud Abbas and his fellow mobsters.
J.Engelhard Jack Engelhard writes a regular column for Arutz Sheva. Engelhard wrote the int’l bestseller Indecent Proposal that was translated into more than 22 languages and turned into a Paramount motion picture starring Robert Redford and Demi Moore.
New from the novelist, the anti-BDS thriller Compulsive. Website: www.jackengelhard.com
Engelhard books Now available, a collection of Jack Engelhard’s op-eds, “Writings.”
The Genocide Mitzvah, the Prime Minister’s Hubris, and the King’s Humility By Mordechai Sones
How trusting in human strength earns Israel global condemnation, while trusting in G-d delivers miraculous victory
September 5, 2025
The commandment to blot out the memory of Amalek is understood not merely as an act of simple warfare, but as a necessary and divinely-ordained mitzvah to purify the world of a unique metaphysical evil. This obligation is a fundamental component of achieving a moral world.
Contents
The Source and Nature of the Commandment
The Philosophical Rationale in Jewish Law
Identifying Amalek’s Ideological and Behavioral Essence
Identifying Existential Enemies
The Prerequisite for Victory: King Yehoshaphat’s Humility
The Source and Nature of the Commandment
The Torah introduces the conflict with Amalek immediately following the Exodus from Egypt. After Israel witnessed the miracles of the splitting of the sea, Amalek launched a cowardly and unprovoked attack on the weakest and most vulnerable of the people. The Torah describes this in Deuteronomy 25:17-18:
Remember what Amalek did to you on the way, when you came out of Egypt; How he happened upon you on the way, and struck the hindmost of you, all who were feeble behind you, when you were faint and weary; and he did not fear God.
This act was not a territorial dispute. Amalek’s attack was primarily ideological. They sought to “cool off” the world’s awe of the Creator after the miracles of the Exodus. Rashi explains the phrase “asher karcha baderech” (how he happened upon you) as “he cooled you off.” Israel was like a boiling hot bath that no nation dared to enter; Amalek jumped in, and though they were scalded, they made it seem possible for others to attack as well.
Because of this, G-d Himself declares a perpetual war against Amalek. In Exodus 17:16, the verse states:
For he said, ‘Because a hand is on the throne of G-d; G-d will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.’
As long as the seed of Amalek exists, G-d’s throne, His sovereignty in the world, is considered incomplete. The existence of Amalek is tantamount to standing rebellion against the Creator’s moral order.
The Scope of the Obligation
The commandment is an active one: to completely eradicate the memory of Amalek, as explicitly stated in Deuteronomy 25:19:
Therefore it shall be, when the L-rd your G-d has given you rest from all your enemies round about, in the land which the L-rd your G-d gives you for an inheritance to possess it, that you shall blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; you shall not forget.
The practical application of this mitzvah is detailed in the book of 1 Samuel, Chapter 15. G-d commands King Saul, through the prophet Samuel, to carry out this war:
Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.
When King Saul failed to fully execute this command by sparing King Agag and the best of the livestock, he was severely rebuked by Samuel and his kingship was stripped from him. This episode underscores the absolute and uncompromising nature of the commandment. It is not subject to human mercy or discretion because it is not a human war; it is a divine decree to remove a spiritual and moral cancer from the world.
The Philosophical Rationale in Jewish Law
Rabbi Moses Maimonides (Rambam), in his legal code Mishneh Torah, codifies the war against Amalek as one of the 613 commandments. He places it among the first obligations of the Jewish people upon entering the Land of Israel, alongside appointing a king and building the Temple (Hilchot Melachim 1:1).
Rambam explains that certain commandments appear cruel, but are necessary for preserving truth and eliminating idolatry (Guide for the Perplexed, 3:41). The war against Amalek is the archetype of this. Amalek represents the principle of a world run by random chance, chaos, and brute force, in direct opposition to the Torah’s vision of a world guided by divine providence and morality. The Talmud identifies Haman, the antagonist of the Purim story, as a descendant of Agag, the Amalekite king, demonstrating that this evil nature is inherent and enduring.
Therefore, the obligation is not understood as a racial injunction but as a mandate to eliminate an evil ideology that is inextricably tied to its progenitors. The goal is to ensure that such a force, which seeks to undermine the very possibility of a moral existence under G-d, can never again threaten the world.
The Mitzvah in Practice Today
This commandment is not considered practically applicable today. The Assyrian king Sennacherib “came and mixed up all the nations” during his conquests centuries after the initial commandment. As a result, the distinct lineage of Amalek has been lost. We can no longer identify with any certainty who is a descendant of Amalek.
However, this position is not monolithic. Dissenting opinions do not typically dispute the historical fact of Sennacherib’s mixing of the nations. Instead, they argue for a different method of identifying Amalek in the present day.
These dissenting views can be broadly categorized into two approaches: identification through ideological essence and the reinterpretation of existential threats.
Identifying Amalek’s Ideological and Behavioral Essence
The primary dissenting argument posits that while a direct patrilineal lineage to the ancient Amalekites cannot be traced, a nation can be identified as Amalek de facto if it embodies the quintessential spirit and behavior of the original.
The core characteristics of Amalek, based on traditional sources, are irrational, causeless hatred towards Israel, not based on a territorial or political dispute but an innate, existential opposition to the Jewish people and their divine mission.
Another indicator is genocidal intent. Amalek does not seek to merely defeat Israel in battle but to utterly annihilate them, “from man to woman, from infant to suckling.”
Finally, Amalek rejects divine morality as a matter of principle. Their actions represent a fundamental assault on the concept of a divinely ordered, moral universe.
An example of this view was articulated by Rabbi Yisrael Hess, in a 1980 article for the Bar-Ilan University publication titled “The Genocide Commandment in the Torah” (Mitzvat Milhemet Amalek). In it, he argued that the German people, particularly under the Nazi regime, could be halachically identified as Amalek.
In essence, Rabbi Hess’s method was to argue that Amalek’s identity is determined more by its immutable spiritual character—a unique combination of causeless hatred, genocidal intent, and ideological war against G-d—than by a traceable bloodline. He synthesized sources describing this character with the tradition linking Amalek to Germany to conclude that the Nazi regime was, for all intents and purposes, the Amalek that the Torah commands Jews to oppose.
Identifying Existential Enemies
Another approach, found in the thought of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, identifies modern enemies as the spiritual inheritors of Amalek’s mantle.
Rabbi Soloveitchik, particularly in his analysis of Nazi Germany, viewed the conflict not as a mere political or military struggle, but as a metaphysical war. He saw the Nazi ideology—with its goal of eliminating the Jewish people, who represent the presence of G-d and morality in history—as a modern incarnation of the Amalekite spirit.
In this view, the mitzvah to “blot out the memory of Amalek” becomes an eternal command to fight against any power that seeks to commit genocide against the Jewish people. The Allied war against the Third Reich, and Israel’s subsequent struggles against existential threats, are thus framed as a fulfillment of this mitzvah. This represents less of a halachic statement on the physical applicability of the original command and more of a theological application of its eternal lesson.
The Prerequisite for Victory: King Yehoshaphat’s Humility
To understand the proper posture for confronting an Amalek-like enemy, we must look to the story of King Yehoshaphat in 2 Chronicles 20. A vast horde of aboriginal tribes—from Ammon, Moab, and Mount Seir—assembled to attack his kingdom. Our Sages teach that among this coalition were the disguised descendants of Amalek, the people of Mount Seir.
Faced with an overwhelming force, King Yehoshaphat’s response is a masterclass in Torah leadership. He did not issue boastful proclamations or rely on military strategy. Instead, “Yehoshaphat feared, and set himself to seek the L-rd, and proclaimed a fast throughout all Judah.” He gathered his people, and standing before the entire congregation, he prayed to G-d. His prayer is a testament to perfect faith and humility, culminating in an admission that stands in stark contrast to the spirit of our age:
O our G-d, will You not judge them? For we have no might against this great company that comes against us; neither know we what to do: but our eyes are upon You.
This is the voice of true Jewish leadership: an utter nullification of self and a complete reliance on the Blessed Holy One.
Now, juxtapose this with the attitude of Israel’s modern leaders. Faced with conflict, their discourse is one of arrogance, hubris, and grandiose narcissism. We hear endless bluster about the prowess of the military, of human ingenuity, and of political maneuvering.
The air is thick with vainglorious declarations like, “We will achieve total victory,” “The mighty IDF will hunt down every last terrorist,” and “We will respond at the right time of our choosing.” The subject is always “we,” the agent is always the State and its army. This is the language of men who have rejected Torah law in favor of their own perceived prowess.
The results speak for themselves. King Yehoshaphat, who stood humbly and prayed, was granted a miraculous victory. G-d caused the enemy armies to turn on and destroy each other. The people of Judah did not have to lift a single sword; their only role was to sing praises to G-d and then spend three days collecting the immense spoils. The world recognized the Divine hand, and “the fear of G-d was on all the kingdoms of those countries… So the realm of Yehoshaphat was quiet: for his G-d gave him rest round about.”
And what is the result of modern Israel’s hubris? The entire world, in a supreme and bitter irony, accuses Israel of the very crime of genocide. The leaders who trust in their own might find themselves powerless on the stage of international opinion, bogged down in endless conflict, their boasts of strength revealed as empty words as the Gaza quagmire claims more and more Israeli soldiers. They have abandoned Yehoshaphat’s path of humility and find themselves reaping the consequences.
May the Creator have mercy on His people. May He sweep away the arrogant leaders who place their faith in the work of their hands and replace them with true Torah sages, leaders like King Yehoshaphat who will stand before the congregation of Israel and declare, “We don’t know what to do, but our eyes are upon You.”
Only then will we merit to see the final downfall of our enemies and the fulfillment of the promise to blot out the memory of Amalek, speedily and in our days. Amen.
The UNREPORTED reason why Trump is targeting Venezuela [14:14] Glenn Beck
Sep 4, 2025 – A few weeks ago, President Trump moved a battle group to Latin America. Now, with the bombing of a Venezuelan cartel drug smuggling boat, we’ve seen what part of its mission may be. But Glenn Beck lays out an unreported second reason that Trump is drawing these battle lines: Venezuela has become a literal “beachhead” for enemies of America, like China, Hezbollah, and Iran.
The New Indoctrination: How Marxist Pedagogy is Quietly Infiltrating Israeli Schools By Mordechai Sones
Under guise of ’emotional learning,’ foreign-funded movement with socialist roots seeks to reshape values of next generation
September 4, 2025
In a brightly decorated kindergarten classroom in Rishon LeZion, children are gathered in a circle. They are not learning the Aleph Bet or the wisdom of the Torah. Instead, their teacher, trained in a new and increasingly popular methodology, is guiding them through a “critical discussion” about Family Day. They are prompted to consider the holiday’s commercialism, its reinforcement of traditional gender roles, and whether its structure excludes other kinds of families. The goal, proponents say, is to foster “dialogue” and “critical consciousness.”
Contents
Dialogue as Doctrine: The Philosophy of Oppression
The Ideological Architects: From the Kibbutz to the Classroom
The Currency of Influence: Who Pays for the Revolution?
An Assault on Faith and Freedom
A Parent’s Guide to the Educational Battlefield
But for a growing number of parents and watchdog groups, the goal is something far more alarming: the systematic dismantling of traditional values and the indoctrination of children into a collectivist, Marxist worldview.
Across Israel, a quiet but determined movement is underway to reshape the nation’s educational landscape. Operating under the benign-sounding banner of “Social-Emotional Learning” (SEL), this initiative is introducing the totalitarian theories of the late Brazilian Marxist educator, Paulo Freire, into the hearts of Israeli schools. From kindergartens to high schools and teacher training colleges, this pedagogy is challenging the very pillars of Israeli society: the authority of the family, the sanctity of Jewish tradition, and the morality of individual responsibility.
This educational trend is not a homegrown phenomenon. It is driven and funded by a network of social demolition organizations with deep roots in socialist and Marxist ideology, most notably the youth movement Hashomer Hatzair and its affiliates, with significant financial backing from the controversial U.S.-based New Israel Fund (NIF). For citizens who champion individual freedom and Torah-observant Jews who see tradition as the bedrock of their identity, this represents a profound and subversive threat, one that many are surprised to learn is unfolding in their own communities.
Dialogue as Doctrine: The Philosophy of Oppression
To understand what is happening in these classrooms, one must first understand Paulo Freire. His 1970 book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, is a foundational text in radical leftist academia. Freire argued that the world is divided into two classes: the oppressors and the oppressed. He believed that traditional education is a tool used by the oppressors to maintain the status quo, turning students into passive receptacles of official knowledge.
Freire’s solution was a new kind of education, one aimed not at imparting knowledge, but at sparking social revolution. Through a process he called “conscientization,” students are taught to see oppression in all societal structures—the family, the economy, religion, and the state. Education becomes a relentless exercise in Hegelian dialectical critique. The teacher is no longer an authority figure but a “facilitator” of dialogue, and the classroom is transformed into a “circle of knowledge” where all hierarchies are flattened.
In Israel, this theory is being put into practice with startling fidelity. At the Dror Galil High School in the Galilee, the very architecture of the building was redesigned to eliminate traditional classrooms and corridors, creating open spaces intended to blur the lines between students and teachers and foster a sense of egalitarian community. In “social kindergartens” operated by the Dror Israel movement, educators are trained to replace rote learning and traditional holiday celebrations with group discussions aimed at deconstructing them. Family Day becomes a lesson in anti-consumerism. National holidays become opportunities to question Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.
This radical philosophy is packaged and delivered through the far more palatable vehicle of Social-Emotional Learning. SEL, an import from the American education system, purports to teach children valuable life skills like empathy, self-awareness, and responsible decision-making. Few parents would object to these goals. Yet critics argue that in this context, SEL functions as a Trojan horse. It provides the framework for emotional manipulation while Freire’s pedagogy provides the ideological content. Children are taught not just how to feel, but what to feel—resentment toward perceived oppressors, suspicion of authority, and allegiance to the collective over the individual.
The Ideological Architects: From the Kibbutz to the Classroom
The primary engine driving this movement in Israel is Dror Israel, an educational organization that openly bases its programs on Freire’s philosophy. Its ideological lineage is a direct line to one of the most radical movements in Zionist history: Hashomer Hatzair, “The Young Guard.”
Founded over a century ago in Europe, Hashomer Hatzair was unique among Zionist youth movements for its explicit synthesis of Zionism and revolutionary Marxism. While other pioneers focused on building the land, Hashomer Hatzair was equally focused on building a new world order based on class struggle and collectivist totalitarianism. For decades, it was an officially anti-religious movement that admired the Soviet Union, viewing Joseph Stalin as the “Sun of the Nations” long after his atrocities were known. Its kibbutzim were organized on strict Marxist principles, with the collective owning all property and dictating the lives of its members.
In a systematic campaign of religious coercion and re-education, the madrichim (teachers/counselors) from Hashomer Hatzair deliberately and cruelly stripped orphaned religious children escaping to Palestine during World War 2 of their religious identity.
Eyewitness testimonies and historical accounts detail heartbreaking examples of indoctrination, where religious instruction was replaced with socialist ideology, folk songs, and glorifying manual labor and the kibbutz, forcibly cutting off peyot, young boys’ traditional sidelocks, Shabbat desecration, and ridicule of faith, where prayer, kashrut, and other religious practices were mocked.
While the movement has tried to modernize its image, its core ideology remains deeply rooted in rejection of capitalism, nationalism, and traditional morality. Its worldview is fundamentally internationalist, often placing it at odds with mainstream Israeli society, particularly on issues of national security and Jewish identity. “It’s a movement that has always flirted with radical leftism,” noted one political analyst. “Its DNA is wired to see the world through a lens of power structures, class conflict, and a deep skepticism of traditional authority.”
This is the ideological wellspring from which Dror Israel and its Freire-inspired programs draw their mission. They are not merely teaching; they are continuing a century-long project to re-engineer society from the ground up, starting with its youngest and most impressionable members.
The Currency of Influence: Who Pays for the Revolution?
An ideological movement of this scale requires significant funding. While proponents are quick to point to partnerships with the Israel Education Ministry and local municipalities, a deeper look reveals that a substantial portion of the financial backing comes from sources deeply troubling to many Israelis. While some may suspect the hand of international bodies, the funding trail does not lead to the United Nations. Instead, it leads directly to the New Israel Fund.
The NIF is a U.S.-based behemoth of progressive philanthropy, funneling tens of millions of dollars annually to a wide array of Israeli non-governmental organizations. On its surface, its mission seems noble: to promote democracy and equality in Israel. But critics have long argued that the NIF’s agenda is profoundly subversive, aimed at weakening Israel’s Jewish character, delegitimizing its national institutions, and prosecuting its soldiers.
The list of NIF grantees is a who’s who of the most radical organizations operating in Israel. It has provided extensive funding to groups like Breaking the Silence, which collects and disseminates often-anonymous and unverified testimonies from soldiers to accuse the Israel Defense Forces of war crimes. It funds Adalah and other NGOs that file lawsuits in international courts against Israeli officials and advocate for the abolition of Israel as a Jewish state. As the watchdog group Im Tirtzu has documented, the NIF’s network acts as a powerful political machine, using foreign money to wage lawfare and political warfare against the democratically elected government of Israel and its core institutions.
It is this same organization that provides grants to the ecosystem of groups affiliated with Hashomer Hatzair and its educational projects. From the Jewish perspective, the connection is chillingly clear: foreign money, channeled through an organization with a documented history of supporting anti-Jewish causes, is being used to fund a Marxist-rooted pedagogy designed to alienate Israeli children from their own heritage, families, and nation.
An Assault on Faith and Freedom
This educational trend is not merely misguided; it is a direct assault on the foundational principles of a free and faithful society.
Education should equip a child with knowledge and critical reasoning skills so that they can pursue their own goals, create value, and flourish as a sovereign being. Freire’s pedagogy does the opposite. It subsumes the individual into the collective. It teaches children to see themselves not as unique souls with agency and potential, but as members of intersecting identity groups—defined by their status as either “oppressor” or “oppressed.” It replaces the pursuit of personal excellence with a grievance-based demand for enforced equity. This is an overreach of the most profound kind, an intrusion of collectivist ideology into the sacred space of a child’s developing mind.
For Jews, the threat is even more existential. Judaism is built upon a foundation of mesorah—the faithful transmission of tradition and wisdom from one generation to the next. It respects a divine and natural hierarchy: the authority of the Creator, the wisdom of the Torah, rabbinic authority, and the sanctity of parents as a child’s first and most important teachers. Freire’s pedagogy is an acid designed to dissolve these bonds. By encouraging children to “critically” question all authority, it fosters resentment toward the very figures meant to guide them.
When a kindergarten teacher encourages a child to deconstruct the “gender roles” of Family Day, she is striking at the Torah’s concept of the family as a holy, foundational unit. When a high school program encourages students to view Jewish holidays through a lens of economic inequality, it strips them of their spiritual power and reduces them to mere sociological artifacts. The moral framework being taught is not the timeless, absolute ethics of Sinai, but a fluid, secular “social justice” that changes with the political winds. “We are teaching emotions without anchoring them in halacha,” as one Jerusalem-based critic recently wrote, capturing the fear that this trend is producing a generation unmoored from the bedrock of Jewish law and values.
A Parent’s Guide to the Educational Battlefield
For parents in affected communities, the revelation of this ideological agenda can be overwhelming. It can feel like an insurmountable force, backed by powerful organizations and sanctioned by the educational establishment. But passivity is not an option when the minds of one’s children are at stake. A concerted, strategic response is necessary to counter this trend and reclaim education for its proper purpose.
First, parents must become investigators. They must move beyond the glossy brochures and pleasantries from school administrators and ask specific, pointed questions. Request to see the curriculum materials for Social-Emotional Learning programs. Ask what outside organizations or guest speakers are being brought into the school. Listen for keywords like “critical consciousness,” “dialogue,” “social justice,” and “equity.” Research the groups involved. If the school is working with an organization, find out who funds it. Knowledge is the first line of defense.
Second, parents must organize. A single concerned voice can be easily dismissed as that of a lone reactionary. A group of united parents is a political force that cannot be ignored. Share your findings with other parents in your child’s school and in your community. Form a parents’ association or a working group dedicated to curriculum transparency and academic integrity. Use social media and community forums to raise awareness and build a coalition.
Third, engage with school leadership directly and strategically. Do not lead with accusations of “Marxism,” which may be dismissed as hyperbole. Instead, frame your concerns in the language of parental rights, academic excellence, and psychological well-being. Argue that while emotional skills are important, they must be taught without divisive political ideology. Insist that the classroom should be a place for education, not activism. Present your evidence calmly and demand accountability.
Fourth, advocate for positive alternatives. The most effective counter to a bad idea is a better one. Work with trustworthy rabbis, community scholars, and quality educators to develop and promote alternative curricula rooted in authentic Jewish values. Programs that teach Mussar (ethical self-improvement), Derech Eretz (proper conduct), and the richness of Jewish thought can provide the emotional and ethical grounding children need without the subversive ideological baggage. Support the creation and growth of schools and after-school programs that are explicitly committed to a Torah educational mission.
Finally, parents must be willing to vote with their feet. If a school administration proves to be intransigent, unresponsive, or ideologically captured, the ultimate leverage is to remove your child. This is a difficult and often costly decision, but it sends the most powerful message possible. The growth of homeschooling networks and the establishment of new private schools and cheders that honor traditional values are a testament to the fact that when the mainstream system fails, communities can and will create their own solutions.
What is happening in Israel’s schools is not a simple curriculum update. It is a battle of ideas, a struggle between two irreconcilable visions of the human person, society, and the future of the Jewish nation.
One is a vision of individual liberty, personal responsibility, and divine purpose, rooted in millennia of Jewish tradition. The other is a vision of collectivist grievance, revolutionary upheaval, and secular utopia, imported from the failed ideological experiments of the last century.
For the parents on the front lines of this battle, the mission is clear: to ensure that the next generation is educated, not indoctrinated.
Israel-haters desperately want Israel to commit genocide. NACHUM KAPLAN
Genocide is not determined by the likes of a student council election. You cannot vote it into being. Either there is evidence of systematic extermination, or there is not. And, in Gaza, there is not.
SEP 04, 2025
If you want to see the extent which the social sciences have morphed from academic disciplines into political tribalism, look no further than the International Association of Genocide Scholars passing a motion that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
Beyond the pythonesque fact that such an association even exists, matters of law and history are not things that can be decided by a tribal vote, which is what best describes this association’s motion.
Let us be clear: There is no genocide in Gaza and not a shred of credible evidence of one. There are no mass graves, no extermination camps, and no systematic attempt to annihilate a people.
What is happening in Gaza is a war between Hamas and Israel. Hamas is a ruthless jihadist terrorist organization that butchered 1,200 Jews on October 7, 2023, abducted hundreds more, and still holds hostages underground. Israel is fighting to free the remaining hostages and dismantle Hamas’ terror machine so it cannot commit such atrocities again.
It is outright fraudulent to call this “genocide.” Even holding a vote on the question is obscene. It cheapens the meaning of genocide.
This vote reveals everything that is rotten in the modern social sciences, where ideological performance masquerades as scholarship and tribal votes, not truth, determine the narrative.
The more you look into it, the more surreal the organization and the vote becomes.
The first clue that something was amiss lay in the phrase “genocide scholars” in the group’s name. Genocide is not an academic subject. Academics in real subjects such as history, politics, or law can study genocide, but it is not a subject in and of itself.
So, I was not surprised to learn that this self-professed group is not really a scholar’s association. It is open to pretty much anyone, including activists, so the group’s name is itself a lie.
Author Salo Aizenberg did some research about the International Association of Genocide Scholars, and here’s what he found: “I have been asked by other scholars about the necessary credentials to join this esteemed group of ‘genocide scholars’ that generated worldwide headlines because 24 percent of members voted that Gaza was a genocide. There are 2 key criteria: (1) be alive, (2) have a valid credit card.”1
Organization member Dr. Sara E. Brown noted: “We were promised a town hall, which is a common practice for controversial resolutions, but the president of the association reversed that. The association has also refused to disclose who were the authors of the resolution.”2
Another lie was that most members voted that Israel was committing genocide. Conveniently missing from the group’s announcement was that only 129 of the association’s 500 members voted. Not even a majority of members voted, let alone supported the motion.
If this was not bad enough, no debate or discussion was held or permitted before for the vote.
So, this professional association of “genocide scholars” did not reach its conclusion through forensic investigation, courtroom proceedings, or research. They put it to a vote. Those who believed Hamas’ propaganda voted “yes.” Those who did not voted “no.” The “majority” carried the day, and Israel was branded a genocidal state.
Perhaps most disturbing is that these so-called “scholars,” who one would have thought were even more horrified by genocide than most, want Israel to be committing genocide so that they can smear the Jewish state. That is quite a pathology.
Yet, genocide is not like a student council election. You do not vote it into being. Either there is evidence of systematic extermination or there is not. And, in Gaza, there is not. If there were such evidence, there would be no need for a vote.
The vote was performative. It was not about saving lives, but signaling virtue to secure status within the tribe.
When Raphael Lemkin, a Polish lawyer, coined the word “genocide” in 1944, he was describing the deliberate destruction of entire peoples — what the Nazis were doing to the Jews, the Roma, and the Slavs. The concept was later enshrined in international law with strict criteria: intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. That is the legal standard.
Nothing that is happening in Gaza gets anywhere close to this standard or looks anything like it. Israel has never stated, implied, or pursued the eradication of Palestinians. Israel’s leaders repeat, ad nauseam, that the war is against Hamas, not the Palestinian people. Israel has dropped thousands of leaflets and made literally millions of phone calls warning of impending attacks, and opened humanitarian corridors to save civilian lives. A genocidal regime would never do such things.
These so-called “scholars” ignore these facts because for them “genocide” is not a legal term or a specific crime; it is the self-righteous Left’s political weapon of choice with which to bash Israel and beat Jews. This ideological insanity has infected the humanities departments at Western universities and other institutions. These disciplines once sought to uncover truths about human societies. Today, they stage B-grade morality plays.
To belong in these circles, one must adopt the fashionable causes of decolonization, anti-racism, intersectionality and, above all, support the “Palestinian cause,” whatever that is. Israel must always be cast as the villain, and the Palestinians as eternal victims. Any scholar who questions this script risks professional ostracism. Thus, the vote was little more than activist members reciting a catechism.
This is why the social sciences are in crisis. Departments are shrinking, public trust is collapsing, and students are fleeing to disciplines that take reality seriously. Ordinary people can smell the post-modernist fraud. They know that scholarship is supposed to be about discovering what is true, not about declaring by acclamation what feels righteous.
The tragedy is that never has the proper study of social science subjects — especially history, politics, and philosophy — been more necessary. People believe the Palestinian version of events (which are lies from top to tail) because their historical and political knowledge is so poor. They cannot discern facts from propaganda because they cannot think critically, or because they have preconceived biases against Jews, or both. If they were properly schooled in the humanities, they would know that the crime of genocide is not just another tool in the activist’s dictionary, but the crime of crimes.
Think of the Ottoman Turks marching the Armenians into the Syrian desert, or the Holocaust, where Jewish children were gassed, burned, and shot by the millions. Think of the Hutus slaughtering some 800,000 Tutsis with machetes in Rwanda. As a young journalist, I interviewed a Tutsi survivor of this genocide and it remains one of the most affecting interviews I have done.
To suggest Israel’s military campaign against Hamas is anything like this is so insane and detached from reality that the only way someone could believe it is if they chose to do so to suit their political ideology. This is morally depraved because it reduces the weighty term “genocide” to mean anything they do not like, akin to these everyday inconveniences dressed up in apocalyptic language:
- My latte came out lukewarm instead of hot? Genocide!
- The internet cut out during my Zoom meeting? Genocide!
- Netflix removed my favorite show? Genocide!
- The waiter forgot the extra guacamole I ordered? Genocide!
- My phone battery died at 12 percent? Genocide!
- Starbucks spelled my name wrong, again? Genocide!
- Apple released a new iPhone that looks like the old one? Genocide!
- Someone took “my” parking spot? Genocide!
Worst of all, accusing Israel of genocide is a tactic to deny the reality of October 7th. If Israel is guilty of genocide, then Hamas is innocent by definition. If Israel is the perpetrator, then Hamas cannot be. So, these scholars’ vote is really about rewriting the story of October 7th and laundering Hamas’ atrocities into “resistance.”
Civilization rests on the principle that law and history are grounded in evidence. Trials require proof, historians require sources, and jurists weigh facts. That is how societies distinguish truth and facts from lies and propaganda. The alternative is ideological tribalism, where those who shout the loudest and have the most muscle behind them decide what is “true.”
When accusations of genocide are put to a vote, it is not Israel on trial as much as it is the concept of truth and the idea that there are facts that exist independent of ideology. When that idea dies, so does scholarship, justice, and civilization. Imagine if we voted on the following:
- Gravity — Should we decide by majority whether objects fall up or down?
- Two plus two — Is it 4, or whatever number people feel it should be?
- The shape of the Earth — Round, flat, or hexagonal this election cycle?
- Historical events — Did 9/11 happen, or should we take a show of hands?
- Biology — Do humans need oxygen, or is that a Western imperialist construct?
- Time — Is today Thursday, or are we all entitled to our own calendar?
- Science exams — Should every answer be marked correct if the class votes for it?
- Sports results — Who really won the game, the team with the most points or the one with more fans in the stands?
- Weather — Is it sunny, or shall we democratically declare it cloudy with a chance of rain?
The narrative about genocide in Gaza — and the casualty numbers that purport to show it — come from Hamas and have been proven to be fabrications. Yet, these “scholars” have swallowed them whole like a giant python eating a guinea pig stuffed with lies.
The “scholars” held no debate, so they did not bother to ask kindergarten-level questions, such as how many of the dead in Gaza were Hamas fighters? How many deaths were caused by Hamas’ own misfired rockets? How many were the tragic but inevitable result of urban warfare against an enemy that deliberately hides among civilians? How many did Hamas kill for not supporting it? How many were natural deaths?
Instead, they believe the lies of a sociopathic terror group.
This matters because misuse of the word genocide corrodes everything it touches. It robs real victims of recognition, legitimizes blood libel, and shows Hamas that its vile tactics of taking hostages and using civilians as shields are effective.
If genocide can be voted into existence, then it means nothing. If every war becomes a genocide, then no genocide will ever shock humanity’s conscience again.
Bludan Conference By Alex Grobman
| September 4, 2025
Part XII
Following the publication of the Peel Commission Report, nearly 500 Arab representatives gathered at a Pan-Arab Congress in the Syrian resort of Bludan on Sept. 8, 1937. Though no government was officially represented, the participation of representatives from Palestine, Syria, Trans-Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt and Saudi Arabia “revealed a growing sense of Arab unity, opines ESCO Foundation for Palestine. The presiding officer called Zionism “a cancer which ought to be removed from the body politic.”
ESCO adds the Arab nation and the Muslim people, the representatives declared, would continue the fight to free Palestine and establish an Arab government. The presence of a number of Christian Arab activists and an anti-Zionist speech by the Greek Orthodox Bishop of Hama suggested that Muslims and Christian Arabs had common political goals, asserts political scientist Ronny E. Gabby. This was the first time the Arab world became involved in Palestine affairs, observes historian Kenneth Stein, and set the pattern for their continuing to do so in the years ahead.
Historian Basheer M. Nafi notes that the Bludan Conference authorized the maximum financial support to the Palestinian Arabs and the establishment of a center to promote Arab propaganda, with branches in leading Arab countries. Another resolution urged that a rigorous boycott of Jewish products be initiated, which would be expanded to British goods should the English continue what they perceived as anti-Arab policies.
In “A Crackle of Thorns: Experiences in the Middle East,” Sir Alec Kirkbride, who served as governor of Acre and of the district of Galilee, said that shortly after the conference, demonstrations and strikes were held in Arab capitals to protest the impending partition. In Palestine, the revolt against partition by the Arabs began in October 1937 after the murder of Lewis Andrews, acting district commissioner for the Galilee, who had organized in-country travel arrangements for the Peel Commission. By mid-October there were renewed attacks against Jews and British officials and property. Many Arab moderates who did not support the Mufti’s policies were killed. This led Arab leaders at Tulkarm to formally request the district commissioner’s permission to obtain arms to protect themselves against Arab extremists.
Acting on orders given by Palestinian Arabs living in Damascus, known criminals, including murderers, were recruited from Syrian slums to create chaos in Palestine, Martin Gilbert said. Some armed bands infiltrated into Palestine from Lebanon. Anti-Jewish Arab peasants were enlisted and paid for their services. They spent their days blowing up trains, destroying the oil pipeline, harassing and killing officials, soldiers, policemen and civilians, sniping at Jewish buses and trucks, extorting money at gunpoint from Arabs and Christians, cutting phone lines, and engaging in myriad disruptive and murderous activities.
Gilbert said that on June 19, 1938, they murdered seven Arabs for the “crime” of having worked for Jews. One of the Arabs was a woman in her ninth month of pregnancy. Another woman was tied to a tree and then shot. Guerrilla warfare was directed at the British in Palestine out of fear that partition would hasten the Arabs’ “ultimate extinction.”
In response to these unprovoked attacks, Gilbert adds that members of the Jewish underground killed 25 Arabs in Haifa on July 6, 1938. After other Jews were murdered, they retaliated by exploding a bomb in the melon market in Haifa, killing 39 Arabs on July 24. These reprisals were widely condemned by the Jewish establishment. British officials claimed that there had been no pleas for restraint from moderate Arab leaders, although they opposed the killings, as did the majority of the Arab public. Fear of the terrorists prevented them from speaking out against them.
Gilbert said William Ormsby Gore, the British colonial secretary, believed that Arab opposition to partition would not impede its implementation since the Arabs in Palestine had never “regarded themselves as ‘Palestinians,’ but as part of the Arab world.”
However true this might have been, Gilbert claims, it was no longer accurate. In addition, the neighboring Arab countries were beginning to assume a more active role with regards to Palestine. They adamantly opposed the Mandate and were resolute in the need to establish an independent Arab state. The lack of unity among the Palestinian Arab leaders, the termination of the Arab Higher Committee in September 1937, and the increase of unity among the Arab nations created the opportunity for Arab leaders to begin coordinating their activities concerning Palestine.
Woodward Commission
After the Peel Commission’s partition plan was rejected, the Permanent Mandates Commission appointed a new body in March 1938, under the chairmanship of Sir John Woodhead, to ascertain the feasibility of a partition proposal given the financial, economic and political issues involved.
When Woodward and his commission arrived in Palestine at the end of April 1938, historian Hillel Cohen said, they were greeted with placards printed by the Higher Arab Committee, the principal political body of Palestinian Arabs in Mandatory Palestine, urging Arabs to boycott the commission. Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, warned anyone planning to testify before the Commission “should take their shrouds with them.” Throughout the Commission’s investigation, “no Arab witness came forward to submit evidence to us,” they noted in the preface to their report.
The inquiry, which was conducted during the “height” of the Arab disturbances, sought to propose boundaries for the projected Jewish and Arab areas. The Royal Commission had specified what it expected: “The natural principle for the partition is to separate the areas in which the Jews have acquired land and settled from those which are wholly or mainly occupied by Arabs.” This meant the Royal Commission was “largely based on the assumption that a process of exchange of land and transfer of population” would be involved, according to ESCO.
After the Woodhead Commission submitted a new proposal in November 1938, which found Peel’s solution to be unrealistic, “His Majesty’s Government announced their conclusion that the political, administrative and financial difficulties involved in the proposal to create independent Arab and Jewish states inside Palestine were so great that this solution was impracticable.”
Dr. Alex Grobman is the senior resident scholar at the John C. Danforth Society, a member of the Council of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East and on the advisory board of the National Christian Leadership Conference of Israel (NCLCI). He has an MA and PhD in contemporary Jewish history from The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Los Angeles has a Jewish problem. JOSHUA HOFFMAN
When ideology trumps reality, when slogans replace law enforcement, when politicians care more about “activists” than about parents afraid for their Jewish children, this is the predictable result.
SEP 03, 2025
Writer’s note: I was born and raised in Los Angeles. I know a thing or two about this city.
Earlier this week, a woman entered a Los Angeles coffee shop wearing a shirt emblazoned with the words, “Israel kills children.”1 The message wasn’t political commentary; it was utterly hateful, targeting Jewish identity in a very public setting, and spreading a blood libel.
Then, on Sunday, a 24-year-old Israeli visiting from Sacramento for his cousin’s Bar Mitzvah was walking along the Santa Monica Pier when he encountered about 20 “pro-Palestinian” protesters displaying Palestinian and Mexican flags. He told an Israeli news outlet: “I also met another Israeli man … we spoke in Hebrew, and I also wore a Star of David necklace so they recognized us as Israelis.”2
At that point, the mob attacked him — one person struck the back of his head, blood ran, others ripped his Star of David necklace from his neck, and when he pushed back, they all jumped on him. The police didn’t intervene effectively; the crowd was too large. One of the attackers even brandished a knife, taunting him: “You’re lucky I’m not stabbing you.”
Just a week earlier, another group of Israeli residents returning from synagogue in the Wilshire–Crescent Heights area were assaulted. Eyal Dahan, whose two children are serving in the IDF in combat units, described how a group of Hispanics demanded he say “Free Palestine.” When he replied “Long Live the IDF,” someone punched him, knocking off his kippah. His neighbor Shlomi was attacked as well, and another companion’s hand was cut. Although police were across the street, they did nothing — despite it clearly being a hate-motivated crime.
These aren’t isolated incidents; they’re part of a broader, disturbing pattern of antisemitic violence in Los Angeles since October 7, 2023.
In the Pico-Robertson neighborhood, a densely Jewish area, violent clashes broke out outside the Adas Torah synagogue during a real estate seminar in June 2024. “Pro-Palestinian” demonstrators attempted to block entrance to the synagogue; the confrontation escalated into a riot and a Jewish woman was beaten. In November 2024, there were at least six incidents of vandalism against businesses in the Pico-Robertson neighborhood.
In April–May 2024, at UCLA, “pro‑Palestinian” demonstrators set up a campus encampment — sometimes referred to as a “Jew Exclusion Zone” — on Royce Quad. Jewish students and faculty were prevented from accessing classrooms, the library, and other vital parts of campus, unless they denounced Israel. The university’s response was deeply troubling: It reportedly aided these exclusion zones by providing metal barriers and closing pathways, while faculty and Jewish students were turned away.
In November 2023, Paul Kessler, a 69-year-old Jewish man, died following an altercation between pro-Israel counter-protesters and “pro-Palestinian” demonstrators in Westlake Village. He was struck in the head with a megaphone and later ruled a homicide. Prosecutors have charged the attacker with involuntary manslaughter, though it remains under investigation as a potential hate crime.
Earlier in 2023, two Jewish men were shot outside synagogues in Pico-Robertson in separate incidents believed to be hate crimes. Both survived, and the perpetrator was arrested.
Ariel Marciano, the 24-year-old Israeli attacked at the Santa Monica Pier this past Sunday (photo: courtesy)
This is not a new story for Los Angeles. The city has a long history of antisemitism, from vandalism of synagogues and cemeteries to hate-fueled violence. But what makes today different is the brazenness, normalization, and sheer frequency of these attacks. It’s no longer whispers or subtle hostility; it’s mobs in public squares, slurs broadcast in coffee shops, and organized efforts to intimidate, harass, and harm Jews wherever they are visible.
The numbers tell the same story. According to the Anti-Defamation League, California led the nation in reported antisemitic incidents in 2024, and Los Angeles ranked among the top cities for such hate crimes. Nearly half of all hate crimes in LA County that year targeted Jews. The FBI’s own data confirms that Jews, despite being a tiny minority of the population, are the most targeted religious group in the country. What was once anecdotal is now statistical fact: Los Angeles is becoming an increasingly hostile place for Jews.
What makes this crisis even more alarming is the muted response from institutions that should be standing guard. Time and again, law enforcement has been present but either unwilling or unable to intervene — whether at Santa Monica Pier, on Wilshire Boulevard, or outside the Pico synagogue. Local leaders have often equivocated, calling these incidents “clashes” instead of hate crimes, as though mobs of masked men attacking Jews are just another expression of political speech. Many in city government have chosen caution or silence, fearing political backlash from activist groups that have made anti-Israel rhetoric a mainstream cause.
This environment didn’t appear overnight. Years of unchecked antisemitism in schools, universities, and activist spaces have cultivated a climate where Jews are labeled “oppressors,” where Israeli identity is criminalized, and where violence is rationalized as “resistance.” Social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram have supercharged this hatred, radicalizing younger generations with simplistic, dehumanizing narratives that make attacking Jews feel not just permissible, but virtuous.
The human toll of all this is profound. Jewish families across Los Angeles now think twice before wearing a Star of David or speaking Hebrew in public. Parents hire private security for their children’s schools and synagogues. College students self-censor, afraid that expressing even moderate support for Israel could make them targets. The psychological burden is immense, especially for a community still processing the trauma of October 7th and the ongoing war in Israel.
Yet, despite this reality, the city’s response has been tepid. Hate crime units are underfunded and undertrained. Prosecutions are rare. Community leaders plead for protection, while activists frame every effort to secure Jewish spaces as “political repression.” It’s a failure of policy, a failure of leadership, and a moral failure to uphold the most basic expectation of civic life: that a minority community should not have to live in fear.
Speaking of political leadership, Los Angeles is led by a mayor who has leaned hard into a performative “woke” agenda that claims to champion diversity, equity, and inclusion, but in reality has left Jewish Angelenos deeply exposed. Mayor Karen Bass has repeatedly condemned antisemitism in statements, yet under her watch, Jewish residents have been beaten on city streets, synagogues surrounded by mobs, Jewish students blocked from UCLA classrooms, and Jewish institutions repeatedly threatened. Words have not translated into real security, real accountability, or real protection.
This is what happens when naive, Left-leaning Jews throw their political support behind politicians who talk about “justice” and “equity” but are blind to or, worse, complicit in antisemitism from their own activist base. Too many Jewish voters in Los Angeles believed they were voting for leaders who would fight hatred in all forms. Instead, they got a political class that treats antisemitism as a nuisance rather than a crisis — afraid to confront it head-on for fear of offending the loudest voices on the Far-Left.
And Karen Bass is not alone. She is joined by a lineup of Far-Left, antisemitic, “woke” politicians such as Zohran Mamdani in New York, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (a possible Democratic Party presidential candidate in 2028), Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley, Jamaal Bowman, Cori Bush, Greg Casar, Summer Lee, and Delia Ramirez.
The uncomfortable truth is this: “Woke” identity politics has completely turned on Jews, and “woke” identity politics has been trying to hijack the Democratic Party with some level of success — enough that self-respecting Jews can no longer wish it away. When ideology trumps reality, when slogans replace law enforcement, and when politicians care more about wannabe activists than about parents afraid to send their kids to Hebrew school, this is the predictable result.
What Los Angeles faces is not just a security problem, but a moral one. A city that allows mobs to menace synagogues, police to stand by as Jews are assaulted, and hate speech to be normalized in public life, sends a message that Jews are second-class citizens, that their safety is negotiable. Calling this a “Jewish problem” is not blaming the Jewish community; it’s naming the problem. Hatred, assault, and threats targeting Jews have become a recognizable and urgent part of life in this city.
The solutions will not come easily, but they are urgent. City leaders must commit to treating antisemitism with the same seriousness as any other form of hate, investing in education, law enforcement, and community security. Jewish organizations need to unify and demand accountability, rather than competing for influence or funding. Allies, especially those outside the Jewish community, must speak up and show that Los Angeles will not tolerate this descent into bigotry.
Los Angeles is celebrated for its diversity and tolerance, but those ideals are hollow if one community is left to fend for itself. Without a collective reckoning — without honest acknowledgment of how deep this rot runs — the city risks losing its Jews. The same Jews who have, for decades, developed so many industries, so much culture, and so many causes there. History teaches us a hard truth: Societies that drive out their Jews rarely thrive for long.
The first step is to say it plainly: Los Angeles has a Jewish problem.
Naming it is the only way to start solving it.
The Price of Compliance: How Government Co-opted Rabbis, Clinics, and Community Leaders to Enforce Vaccine Mandates [VIDEO 10:52] By Mordechai Sones
How government used billions in public funds to transform trusted community health organizations into a frontline force for state policy. Now, with measles resurgent, the same playbook is back
September 3, 2025
In the frantic spring of 2021, a torrent of federal money began flooding the United States. Billed as a lifeline, the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) was a monumental financial intervention purported to pull the nation from the depths of the COVID-19 pandemic. For community health centers—the trusted local clinics serving the nation’s most vulnerable—it seemed like a godsend. Millions of dollars were offered to “keep their doors open.”
Contents
Echoes of the Pandemic: The Measles Resurgence
A Crisis of Conscience and a Question of Capture
But this lifeline came with strings attached. An investigation into the specific terms of these federal grants and the actions of the organizations that received them reveals a story not of benign partnership, but of a systemic co-opting of civil society. The unprecedented scale of government funding effectively transformed a wide range of community health organizations from independent entities into de facto agents of the state.
This was not a grassroots mobilization but a meticulously executed top-down campaign of compliance, one that turned trusted local clinics into the frontline enforcers of the government’s vaccination-centric agenda. The very trust these organizations had spent years cultivating was weaponized to overcome skepticism and ensure adherence to federal policy.
Now, in the summer of 2025, as a disease once declared vanquished makes a shocking return, that same machinery of influence is being reactivated. As measles outbreaks flare from Texas to Jerusalem, the playbook of financial coercion, narrative control, and the marginalization of dissent pioneered during COVID-19 is being deployed once more, raising profound questions about whether the official response to public health crises has itself become part of the problem.
The Money Trail
The most effective form of state control is not always the iron fist of force, but the velvet glove of financial dependency. The U.S. government’s pandemic response serves as a model for this form of coercion. Through ARPA and grants disbursed by agencies like the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), the federal government created a financial architecture that commandeered the nation’s community health infrastructure.
The sheer volume of capital was transformative. ARPA delivered an immense $350 billion in funds to support COVID-19 response efforts, with a staggering $7.6 billion explicitly earmarked for community health centers (CHCs) to expand vaccination and testing. This was not a passive offering but an active intervention. The purpose of the funding was unambiguously defined: to “Promote, distribute, administer, and track COVID–19 vaccines,” and to “Detect, diagnose, trace, monitor, and treat COVID–19 infections.” This language left no room for institutional discretion. The funds were not provided for health centers to determine the best course of action for their communities; they were provided to execute a pre-determined federal plan.
Failure to comply carried severe consequences, including the termination of the award. For community health centers serving populations with a limited ability to pay, turning down millions in federal funding was not a realistic option. The government did not need to pass a law forcing CHCs to become vaccination centers; it simply made it financially impossible for them not to. Their primary function shifted from serving the holistic needs of their patients to fulfilling the contractual obligations of their federal paymasters. This deputization of civil society allowed the government to achieve widespread implementation of its policies by co-opting the trusted “community” layer of healthcare, turning local clinics into an extension of the federal bureaucracy.
A Web of Entangled Interests
The federal government’s financial inducements did not enter a vacuum. They were injected into a public health ecosystem already deeply compromised by a web of financial relationships. The fusion of state and corporate power—the so-called “medical-industrial complex”—creates a system predisposed to favor centralized, product-based solutions that benefit entrenched players.
This systemic issue permeates the leadership of the very community organizations that received government COVID-19 funding. An examination of their boards of directors reveals they are often populated not by concerned local citizens, but by individuals with deep ties to the corporate, financial, pharmaceutical, and insurance systems.
The most glaring example is found at the Lakewood Resource and Referral Center (LRRC), which operates the prominent clinic CHEMED in Lakewood, New Jersey. The organization’s 2023 tax filing reports a payment of $449,742 to BP Print Group Inc. for advertising services. The form explicitly states that BP Print Group is an “ENTITY MORE THAN 35% OWNED BY BENNY HEINEMANN, CHAIRMAN.” Heinemann is listed as a board member of LRRC.
When the chairman of a non-profit that received over $9.4 million in government COVID-19 funds is also the majority owner of a private company profiting directly from that non-profit’s government-funded activities, does this comprise a textbook conflict of interest?
Similar entanglements are visible across other organizations in the region, with board members connected to pharmaceutical development firms and major insurance companies. This pattern reveals a form of capture at the community level. The government outsourced its policy implementation to organizations whose leadership was already aligned with the interests of the pharmaceutical-financial complex.
The “community” in community health center became a brand to be leveraged, not a constituency to be served.
The Ground War on Dissent
This architecture of influence translated directly into on-the-ground action. A necessary precondition for the state’s agenda was the control of information. Any deviation from the official narrative was framed as a dangerous form of “misinformation.” The World Health Organization coined the term “infodemic,” and skepticism was pathologized as a public health threat fueled by nefarious actors. This strategy effectively silenced legitimate debate over vaccine adverse events, natural immunity, and alternative treatments for COVID-19.
This strategy of narrative control is now being repurposed for the 2025 measles outbreaks. Public health officials have been quick to blame the unvaccinated, particularly in Haredi communities, for the disease’s return. Yet this narrative, critics contend, dangerously oversimplifies a complex reality and ignores troubling patterns in the data.
During COVID-19, the vast sums of federal money ensured community health centers acted as proxies for the state’s agenda. CHEMED in Lakewood, after receiving at least $9.4 million, became a major hub for testing and vaccination. Yet in August 2021, OSHA cited the center for two “willful violations” for failing to provide proper protective equipment for nurses conducting up to 300 tests a day, suggesting a prioritization of high-volume government mandates over worker safety. Refuah Health Center, after receiving $11.8 million, launched a public “Get The Shot” campaign, perfectly aligning with its grant requirements to “promote” vaccination.
In both the U.S. and Israel, a perception of a decentralized, community-driven effort masked what was, in reality, a centralized, state-directed campaign executed through financially dependent proxies.
WATCH [10:52]
Echoes of the Pandemic: The Measles Resurgence
In the summer of 2025, the return of measles provided the first major test of the post-COVID public health apparatus, and the response has been eerily familiar. As cases climbed past 1,400 in the U.S. and a smaller but significant outbreak of over 70 cases hit Israel, authorities launched emergency vaccination campaigns, mirroring the urgency of the pandemic. But a growing number of independent researchers are pointing to a disquieting correlation: first come the mass vaccination drives, and then, in their wake, the outbreaks appear to intensify.
In Texas, after state health authorities administered over 173,000 MMR doses between January and March, the state was grappling with more than 700 cases by May. In one Gaines County example, a targeted drive with just 80 doses was reportedly followed by a 242% leap in local infections. A similar pattern has been noted in Israel, where an emergency campaign has been shadowed by a continued escalation of the outbreak. This has led some to ask an unsettling question: is the official response fanning the flames?
The core of this question lies in the nature of the MMR vaccine, which uses live, weakened viruses. While the medical establishment has long assured the public of its safety, a body of scientific literature confirms that the vaccine virus can replicate and “shed,” meaning it can be transmitted from a recently vaccinated person.
A 2024 study in the Journal of Clinical Virology found that over a third of recently vaccinated children shed measles vaccine RNA for up to a month. While not proving causation, this documented phenomenon has fueled concerns that mass vaccination campaigns could, ironically, contribute to community spread. This theory found further support when wastewater surveillance in Canada detected the vaccine’s specific genotype in 8% of samples, confirming the virus is being shed into the environment on a population-wide scale.
Furthermore, critics argue that the exclusive focus on vaccination status ignores other critical factors, such as the quality of medical care. The tragic deaths of two young girls in Texas in February 2025, six-year-old Kaley Fehr and eight-year-old Daisy Hillebrand, were immediately used to stoke fear. However, a meticulous review of their medical records by Dr. Pierre Kory, a critical care specialist, concluded they died not from measles, but from tragically mismanaged secondary bacterial pneumonia for which they did not receive timely, appropriate antibiotics.
This echoes reports from a 2019 measles outbreak in Samoa, where officials were accused of suppressing the use of Vitamin A—a proven, WHO-recommended therapy that can cut measles mortality in half. Just as with COVID-19, the suppression of alternative, effective treatments—such as the use of inhaled steroids, with which Texas physician Dr. Richard Bartlett has reported rapid recoveries in over 100 measles patients—in favor of a rigid, vaccine-centric protocol appears to be a feature of the official response.
A Crisis of Conscience and a Question of Capture
The state’s top-down agenda has repeatedly created a profound crisis of conscience, particularly in Orthodox Jewish communities with strong traditions of internal authority. During the COVID-19 pandemic, public health officials in Israel pursued a calculated strategy to secure endorsements from the country’s most influential Haredi rabbis.
Recognizing that their word often carries the weight of law, senior health officials engaged directly with religious leaders. The key to this strategy was leveraging the community’s trust in specific medical authorities. The state’s medical advice was effectively translated into religious guidance through Rabbi Elimelech Firer, the widely respected head of the Ezra LeMarpeh medical charity, who counseled leading figures like Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky and Rabbi Gershon Edelstein to endorse the national vaccination program. This created a powerful perception of unified religious and medical consensus.
However, the 2025 measles outbreak has exposed deep fissures in this model, revealing a dynamic that dissenting voices within the community describe as outright capture. In August 2025, the prominent Badatz Eidah Hareidis issued a terse, unsigned “halachic ruling” urging parents to vaccinate their children immediately, framing it as a matter of pikuach nefesh—a life-or-death imperative.
Critics immediately pointed out that the statement lacked any of the traditional hallmarks of a rabbinic ruling: there was no detailed analysis, no citation of Torah sources, and no reasoned argument. When pressed for answers, a representative for the Badatz refused to name any doctors or rabbis associated with the ruling and stated that all questions should be directed to an outside organization called “Yad Avraham.”
Further investigation revealed that the Badatz representative claimed the ruling was merely a renewal of a 25-year-old statement and that Yad Avraham had simply requested they issue it. This has led to accusations that the Badatz, until now one of the most revered bodies in the Haredi world, was merely acting as a rubber stamp for an outside agenda, lending its religious authority to a directive it could not—or would not—defend on its merits.
This episode laid bare the sophisticated mechanism of social control. The state and its public health apparatus identified religious authority not as a belief system to be respected, but as a strategic tool to be weaponized.
By working through intermediary organizations like Ezra LeMarpeh and Yad Avraham, the state could launder its directives through a trusted community filter. This tactic reframes a legitimate medical debate over risk and bodily autonomy into a matter of religious obedience versus heresy. The dissenting rabbis and community members are thus positioned not merely as individuals questioning a medical product, but as outliers resisting the combined will of both secular and religious authority—a profoundly coercive tactic that seeks to eliminate the space for individual conscience.
A Deforming Agent
The through-line from the COVID-19 response to the 2025 measles resurgence suggests a systemic issue that transcends any single virus. Some analysts have begun to describe the modern public health strategy as a form of societal teratogen—a deforming agent administered to the body politic. In this view, a policy is publicly marketed as a safe and necessary wonder drug, while its architects are aware of its potential for harmful, deforming effects that serve a hidden, strategic objective.
The thalidomide scandal of the 1950s provides a chilling historical parallel. A drug marketed as a safe sedative, particularly for morning sickness, was rushed to market based on flimsy data, causing catastrophic birth defects in over 10,000 children. This was not merely a mistake, but the consequence of a deliberate business strategy that prioritized market domination and treated severe human harm as an acceptable cost.
Critics now argue that our public health system, deeply entangled with pharmaceutical interests and government power, operates on a similar model of reckless disregard, where inconvenient data is suppressed, dissent is crushed, and human suffering is considered collateral damage in the pursuit of policy goals and profits.
The ultimate deformity is not physical, but societal: the erosion of trust, the corruption of science into a tool for manufacturing consensus, and the creation of a permanent state of crisis that justifies ever-increasing levels of social control.
The evidence from the past five years demonstrates a clear pattern. The combination of massive, conditional government funding, pre-existing corporate conflicts of interest, and the strategic co-opting of community institutions has created a powerful, coercive apparatus.
The ultimate authority in any medical decision must rest not with the state, but with the individual. But during the COVID-19 era, and again today, that principle has been systematically undermined.
The long-term cost is not measured in dollars, but in the trust that has been broken—trust in our doctors and medical institutions, in our community leaders, and in a government that has used public health crises to tighten its grip by co-opting the very institutions meant to protect us.
Israel’s Secret Unit: The Gidonim — Guardians of Jerusalem [19:05] Mansur Ashkar
Sep 1, 2025 The Ashkar Show
The Gidonim — One of Israel’s most secretive undercover special forces unit.
In this video, we dive inside their world, their hidden missions, and how they train to fight terrorism on the streets before anyone else even knows it’s there.
Full Episode available on my Patreon
👉 Watch till the end to discover why this unit is feared by enemies and respected worldwide.
Israel has every right to annex the West Bank. JOSHUA HOFFMAN
If other countries want to impose a Palestinian terror state on Israel, then Israel will have to do what it has to do.
SEP 02, 2025
The prospect of Israel annexing the West Bank, as the Israeli government is reportedly contemplating, is not some isolated or abstract idea. It is the latest chapter in a story that began long before the modern State of Israel and long before today’s deceptive debates.
For centuries, the Jewish People endured relentless persecution — pogroms, expulsions, blood libels, forced conversions, and ultimately the Holocaust.
This grotesque antisemitism drove a collective yearning to return to our ancestral homeland: a place where Jews could live freely, without harassment, massacres, or fear. That yearning was not just emotional or symbolic; it was historical and spiritual.
The reestablishment of Israel in 1948 was thus the culmination of millennia of unbroken Jewish connection to the land and an unshakable need for sovereignty.
From the moment of independence, Arab states rejected Israel’s existence. Instead of choosing coexistence, they launched a war of annihilation in 1948, hoping to push the Jews into the sea. Israel survived. It survived again in 1967, in 1973, and in 1982 — wars that cost thousands of Israeli lives and led Israel to develop one of the most advanced militaries in the world. This military strength has never been about conquest; it has always been about survival in a region where too many of our neighbors openly dream of a world without Jews.
Then came the Oslo Accords in the 1990s, agreements between Israel and the Palestinians that were sold as a roadmap to peace, but delivered bloodshed instead. Namely the Second Intifada, fueled by Palestinian leaders who rejected compromise and reconciliation, and featuring years of Palestinian suicide bombings, shootings, and terror attacks that slaughtered more than a thousand innocent Israelis. To protect its citizens, Israel was effectively forced to wall off Gaza and the West Bank. These barriers, derided by antisemitic critics, saved countless lives.
In 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza, giving Palestinians there an unprecedented opportunity to govern themselves and build a society free from occupation. Instead, Hamas violently seized power, turned Gaza into a terror fortress, and — alongside Palestinian Islamic Jihad — launched war after war against Israel.
This campaign of Islamist terror culminated on October 7, 2023, when Palestinians from Gaza invaded Israeli communities, massacred families, raped women, burned children alive, and kidnapped babies and grandparents. Gaza lies in ruins today not because Israel wanted war, but because Hamas demanded it.
All in all, there is a cause and effect at play that the world refuses to see: Every antisemitic action has been followed by a Jewish response to those actions. Every attempt to break us has only built us. Jewish success, sovereignty, and self-sufficiency are our enduring answer to antisemitism and anti-Zionism.
People love to pine about “Israeli occupation,” but they refuse to acknowledge history. There were thriving Jewish communities in Hebron, Shiloh, and other towns in Judea and Samaria (also known as the West Bank) long before the State of Israel was founded.
In 1929, the Hebron massacre resulted in more than 60 Jewish deaths, as well as scores seriously wounded or maimed, Jewish homes pillaged, and synagogues ransacked. The massacre was perpetrated by Arabs incited to violence by a blood libel that Jews were planning to seize control of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.
During the 1936-1939 Arab revolt, local Arabs were supposed to be revolting against the British administration, and yet several hundred Jews were killed.
In 1948, when Jordan invaded and illegally occupied the area — while rebranding it as “the West Bank” — Jews were expelled, synagogues destroyed, and cemeteries desecrated. That occupation, recognized by almost no one, lasted until 1967, when Israel liberated the territory in a defensive war. No sovereign Palestinian state ever existed here. To claim that Israel is “occupying” someone else’s land is a lie designed to erase Jewish history.
The harsh truth is this: If Palestinians wanted their own state, they would have one by now. They have turned down every serious offer for peace and statehood — 1936, 1947, 1967, 2000, 2008, and 2014 — because every offer required accepting a Jewish state alongside them. The reality is that Palestinian leadership does not want a state of their own; they want the destruction of Israel.
The infantilization of the Palestinian people by the global community — treating them as perpetual victims incapable of agency — is both absurd and insulting. They are not the only people in the world to face displacement or hardship, yet they are the only people treated as if they need other countries to do their bargaining and bidding for them. The Arab world controls one-sixth of the planet’s wealth, yet somehow Palestinians are uniquely helpless?
The truth is not that they can’t build a state; it’s that they don’t want to — not if it means accepting a Jewish one.
The ignorant critics like to parrot the claim that Palestinians simply want to “return” to the homes they were displaced from during what they call “the Nakba.” This is historically illiterate.
Before Israel’s declaration of independence in 1948, both Jews and Arabs lived in the land, which was under British mandate but not part of the UK. Time and again, international bodies proposed partitioning the land into two states: one Jewish, one Arab. Time and again the Jews said yes, and time and again the Arabs refused, choosing violence and war instead. By rejecting coexistence and launching wars of annihilation, the local Arabs (what we now call the Palestinians) did not just forfeit the opportunity for statehood; they forfeited any claim to a so-called “right of return.”
“But the Palestinians are indigenous to the land!” the dummies shout. This is a lie repeated so often that people mistake it for fact. The truth is that the land we now call Israel was sparsely populated and underdeveloped for centuries. In the 1800s and early 1900s, waves of both Jews and Arabs immigrated to the area, drawn by opportunities that didn’t exist before.
The Jewish pioneers, driven by the Zionist movement, began draining the malarial swamps in the early 20th century, transforming uninhabitable land into fertile ground. As the Jewish community built farms, businesses, and infrastructure, the local economy grew, and Arabs from across the Middle East and North Africa — Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq, even as far as Yemen — migrated in to take advantage of the economic boom.
By the 1920s and 1930s, much of what is now called “Palestinian” ancestry had roots elsewhere in the Arab world, arriving in the land only after Jewish development created jobs and stability. To claim that these relatively recent arrivals were somehow an ancient, unbroken indigenous population is historical fantasy. Jews, by contrast, maintained continuous ties to the land for over 3,000 years, even through exile and diaspora, and returned not as conquerors, but as people reclaiming their ancestral home.
Under international law, Israel’s claim to Judea and Samaria is not only moral but also legal. The 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine explicitly recognized the Jewish People’s right to reconstitute their homeland throughout the territory, including what is now the West Bank. That mandate was carried over into the UN Charter under Article 80, a provision often called the “Palestine Clause,” which preserved Jewish national rights.
Furthermore, Jordan’s occupation from 1948 to 1967 was illegal and recognized by almost no one. There was no Palestinian sovereign to dispossess. Israel, defending itself in 1967 from another existential war, acquired the territory in a defensive war, giving it stronger legal standing than most territorial claims in modern history.
Israel’s geography is unforgiving. Without the West Bank, the country would have a narrow waist of just nine miles near Tel Aviv, leaving its heartland virtually indefensible. The territory provides critical high ground overlooking Israel’s population centers and key infrastructure. Retaining control of this area is not an act of aggression; it is a matter of survival.
After the horrors of October 7th, no rational nation would gamble with its people’s safety again. Annexation would ensure consistent security control, preventing the region from becoming another launchpad for terror.
The only argument against Israel annexation the West Bank is that there are people living there — Palestinians. But those people are a people that repeatedly calls for terror; celebrates massacres; raises its children to hate; and rejects peace, prosperity, and coexistence. They want Israel gone and Jews dead.
The Palestinians are a people, therefore, that forfeits any legitimate claim to sovereignty or even the privileges of normal nationhood. If they cannot coexist peacefully on the land, then relocation to another Arab country — many of which are awash in wealth and land — is not only reasonable, but humane. It would end the cycle of violence and finally give Palestinians a chance to build a future elsewhere, without holding Israel hostage to their fantasies of destruction.
As Israel’s founding prime minister David Ben-Gurion used to say, for every Israeli soldier killed by the Arabs, a Jewish settlement should be built. I would add a caveat: perhaps two Jewish settlements for every woman or child murdered.
And the international community’s reflexive defense of Palestinian “rights” ignores that rights come with responsibilities.
Belgium, a country irrelevant on the world stage, declared this week its intention to recognize a Palestinian state. If Belgium can impose its opinion on a conflict that has nothing to do with it, then Israel, a sovereign nation directly affected by decades of terror and war, has every right to make decisions for its own security and future. Sovereignty is not something to be begged for; it is something exercised.
Of course, we know that most foreign governments pontificating about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are not motivated by principle or justice; they are projecting their own domestic dysfunctions onto Israel, as many countries have historically done onto their Jews.
In Belgium, for example, the announcement to recognize a Palestinian state was not about peace or morality. It was about averting a political crisis that had fractured the governing coalition. Belgian leaders exploited the conflict thousands of miles away to paper over their own failures at home. This isn’t solidarity with Palestinians; it’s self-serving theater. And Israel, a sovereign state, should never allow itself to be bound by the hollow posturing of irrelevant governments seeking to distract from their internal chaos.
This is the eternal cause-and-effect dynamic between the world and the Jewish People: Other nations make reckless, performative choices, and Jews adapt, build, and respond — not out of spite, but out of necessity.
To be certain, annexing the West Bank is not about vengeance; it is about sovereignty, security, and justice. Judea and Samaria are the cradle of Jewish history and identity.
Annexation would also create opportunities for integration. Palestinians who renounce terror and accept Jewish sovereignty could be offered residency or even citizenship, opening the door to economic growth and stability that their corrupt leaders have denied them for decades. Israeli governance could bring jobs, infrastructure, and security to communities long exploited by their own elites.
And, it must be stated: Annexation sends a message that Jewish blood is not cheap and Jewish sovereignty is not up for negotiation. It is a recognition that no one will truly defend the Jewish state except the Jewish state itself, and the fulfillment of a historical promise: that the Jewish People will never again depend on the “goodwill” of others for our survival.
Ilhan Omar and the art of getting filthy rich on a government salary JORDAN SCHACHTEL
The Somali-born legislator has cracked the code.
September 2, 2025 The Dossier
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) has cracked the code to achieving an eight-figure net worth on a $174,000 salary.
The Somali-born legislator’s wealth has soared over the past year, with her and her husband becoming incredibly wealthy seemingly overnight, if one is to believe her financial disclosures.
The Dossier is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Upgrade to paid
“Omar reported in her latest financial disclosure that she and her husband, former political consultant Tim Mynett, accumulated a net worth at the end of 2024 ranging from at least $6 million to $30 million,” the Washington Free Beacon reported Monday.
Omar and her husband, a leftist political operative named Tim Mynett, began fleecing the public immediately after the Minnesota representative was elected as a Congresswoman.
In 2020, Omar deployed millions of dollars from her campaign account to her husband’s consulting firm, but eventually stopped the practice when the media began aggressively reporting on the issue.
So the road to riches became more challenging. Given that Omar and her husband had limited capital to deploy for insider trading purposes, she could not simply take the patented Nancy Pelosi approach to wealth generation.
Mynett’s ambitions led him down a path to quasi-entrepreneurship. Well… more like the D.C. consultant class scammer version of quasi-entrepreneurship.
But in 2023 and 2024, disclosures showed that Mynett had become an unmitigated disaster of an executive, and he and Omar reported an inconsequential net worth of around 50 grand.
Omar’s hubby got in way over his head and made a bunch of promises he could not keep. Just last year, Mynett and his business partner were sued for allegedly defrauding a California winery. Another lawsuit alleged fraudulent misrepresentation. As of 2024, Mynett-related entities reportedly owed over a million dollars to South Dakota cannabis executives, after recently settling a separate fraud lawsuit.
But that all changed with Rose Lake Capital, which lists Mr Mynett as a founder of the company.
Very low effort website design
What the heck does Rose Lake Capital do?
Nobody really seems to know. And that doesn’t really seem to matter. The group has virtually zero media footprint. What we do know is they’ve claimed to have the “previous experience” of $60 billion in assets under management, whatever that means. Rose Lake also claims to have executives on board who have worked in 80+ countries. It lists Adam Ereli, a former registered foreign agent for Qatar, as one of its advisers. Also listed as an adviser is former senator Max Baucus, who served as Barack Obama’s ambassador to China.
“Rose Lake is focused on unique global opportunities where our experience can create bespoke solutions for our clients and partners,” reads a description on the one-page company website. “Our team of world class experts harness their combined centuries of experience, and deep global networks built from on-the-ground work in more than 80 countries working across business, politics, banking and diplomacy.”
“From distressed assets to buying publicly traded companies – our team has the prowess to execute the right opportunities,” the Rose Lake description continues. “At Rose Lake we tap into our extensive global network to create strategic partnerships to maximize the strength of the businesses we partner with.”
To make matters even more suspect, the listed address for Rose Lake’s corporate headquarters is a WeWork building in Washington, D.C.
Man, inflation really must be out of control when people who claim to have $60 billion AUM can’t even afford their own building in D.C.
Is Rose Lake working with foreign governments, even foreign adversaries, and the like? Nobody knows! But rest assured, the partners to the firm are securing the bag.
The Free Beacon reports that Rose Lake had virtually no money in the bank at the beginning of 2024. But by the end of the year, Mynett and Omar’s stake in the company reached up to $25 million, according to disclosures.
The report continues:
Shortly after Mynett launched Rose Lake Capital, Omar formed the U.S.-Africa Policy Working Group, where she leads a group of 20 members of Congress “committed to building partnership with the continent of Africa.”
Since then, both Omar and Mynett have been pictured at events hosted by the EBII Group, a company that helps facilitate international investments in Africa. Omar was the keynote speaker at EBII’s African Leaders and Partners forum in 2023, where she advocated for U.S. investment in Africa and called on Congress to institute policies including a “$44 billion lifeline for African communities.” During that same forum, Hailer, in his capacity as Rose Lake’s CEO, facilitated a panel discussion on the challenges faced by investors seeking to get their funds out of African countries.
So there you have it. Omar might be using her legislative powers to set hubby and his partners up for a gold rush in Africa. Omar, by the way, has substantial connections to private and governmental power brokers in East Africa. Were these foreign contacts exploited to generate tens of millions of dollars in newfound wealth?
Jordan Schachtel Jordan Schachtel is the publisher of The Dossier. He can be reached at jds921@protonmail.com
Leftist Narratives of Global Warming and Other Fear Porn Are Evaporating JEROME R. CORSI, PH.D.
“Trust the Science” is Actually a Unicorn hunt.
SEP 01, 2025
The world economy continues to spiral downward. Fiat currency is dissolving as precious metals increase in value. Go to corsination.com and click on the Swiss America link for a free eBook, personal consultation, and precious metals purchases.
The last four months of 2025 are going to be dramatic. President Trump will continue to put pressure on both Russia and Ukraine to end their war and stop the bloodshed. Israel is on the cusp of taking complete control of Gaza.
2026 will begin with an entirely new and MAGA approach to the United States.
Stay tuned, in the end, God always wins!
“Liquidate the Galuth or the Galuth will liquidate you. Dr. Alex Grobman
What is a major signs to be aware of in ascertaining the present danger of antisemitism? German Jews did not want to overreact…Op-ed.
Mar 31, 2022, 3:00 PM (GMT+3) Israel National News
The precipitous increase of antisemitism in the US has alarmed American Jews. Their reaction to this rise of assaults, vandalism and harassment, which “remain at near-historic levels in the U.S,” according to the ADL, has been instructive. Some of these incidents remind Jews of Germany of 1933- 1934 or even Kristallnacht. In response, some Jews intend to move to Florida, increase their involvement in Jewish defense organizations and lobbying groups like NORPAC and AIPAC or simply wait for the Messiah to come toand rescue them. Still others, are obtaining Israeli citizenship as an insurance policy— as a hedge in case the situation in the US deteriorates significantly.
In making their decision to move to Israel, some cite their fear of another Holocaust or just the desire to live in a Jewish state. A number quote Ze’ev Jabotinsky, founder of the Zionist Revisionist movement, who, in the late 30s, urged his followers to leave Europe: “Liquidate the Galuth or the Galuth will liquidate you.”
In hindsight, Jabotinsky’s admonition before World War II sounds prophetic, as if he foresaw the Holocaust, but did he? The context in which Jabotinsky conveyed this warning is missing, the late Hebrew University historian Jacob Katz declared. Jabotinsky’s remarks were made, Katz asserts, “to prod his people to a more active Zionism than the leadership in charge thought possible or even contemplated.” He advocated the “evacuation” of Polish Jewry , and would “not have hesitated to enlist the assistance of the Polish government, regardless of its antisemitic motivations, to implement his plan.”
He attempted to persuade Polish Jews of the exigency of emigrating from Poland because of the worsening economic, social and political measures enacted against Polish Jews. Katz said Jabotinsky used the plight of German Jewry as an example of what Polish Jews should be doing. Jews were , since they were fleeing Germany as a result of the anti-Jewish legislation and persecution. It was in this context, that Jabotinsky used the expressions that appear to reflect the dire associations with the Shoah.
Jabotinsky “had no apprehension of a possible conquest of other countries by the Nazis.” Yet, like many Jewish intellectuals, Hhe shared with many Jewish intellectuals their “illusion about the fragility of Nazi rule,” convinced that it would collapse, either through “internal difficulties” or during Germany’s first hostile encounter with a foreign power.
How unaware Jabotinsky about was to what awaited the Jews of Poland is plainly demonstrated by his timetable for evacuating Jews from Poland. He wanted to transfer one and a half million Jews to Palestine during the next ten years beginning in the late 30s. In other words Katz concluded, “Neither the scope nor the imminence of the tragedy was foreseen in this suggestion.” His “vision, inspired though it was by a deep passion for the welfare of his people, was as limited by the impenetrability of the future as the vision of anybody else.”
Jabotinsky’s prediction about the future of Polish Jewry seemed prescient, but, with hindsigiht, we know it was greatly flawed. This illustrates the danger, Katz points out, of the futility of predicting the future. Those who attempt to warn us of the possibility of another Holocaust, “simply project the past into the future—a way of prognostication that has always turned out to be false.” What we can learn from the past, is to ask the “right question to be put in the diagnosis of the present.”
A Final Note
What is one of the major signs we need to be aware of in ascertaining the danger of antisemitism? The late George L. Mosse, one of the world’s leading historians of European intellectual and cultural history, said it is when we should determine whether antisemitism has becomes a mass movement. In other words, we need to ask whether antisemitism and the myth about Jewish power have become mainstream and acceptable to all segments of society, especially polite society.
In The Crisis of German Ideology: Intellectual Origins of The Third Reich, Mosse noted historians and laypersons questioned whether “men of intelligence and education could really have believed the ideas” espoused by the Nazis. Many, he said, thought the “ideological bases of National Socialism were the product of a handful of unbalanced minds.” Others were convinced the leaders did not share these views or that the ideas were “so nebulous and incomprehensible,” they were rejected as being insignificant. Yet, as Mosse asserted, these ideas “were embraced by many normal men… the Nazis found their greatest support among respectable, educated people.”
The late journalist and author Amos Elon observed in The Pity of It All: A Portrait of Jews In Germany, 1743–1933, how many German Jews did not want to “overreact” by uprooting their lives and families even when it became clear German oppression would continue to escalate. Once the severity of the situation became undeniable, for all too many it was too late, and they were unable to leave.
Today, antisemitism, is expressed in baseless attacks against Israel. Portraying Israel’s relationship with the Palestinian Arabs as a combination of “military occupation, colonization, ethnic cleansing and apartheid,” means that “justice and freedom for the Palestinian Arabs are incompatible with the existence of the state of Israel,” according to political scientist As’ad AbuKhalil. In other words, Israel is an illicit and immoral state that should never have been established. To counter the “Zionist entity,” the goal is to delegitimize, marginalize, and dehumanize Jews and undermine Israel’s economy. The BDS movement (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) was designed to promote these objectives.
Antisemitism under the guise of vilifying anti-Israel, permeates all sections of American society-from the halls of Congress, the academy to the members of the Right and Left groups. In assessing the danger American Jews face today, it is prudent and useful to heed the words of Bret Stephens. “American Jews, he said, “find ourselves at perhaps the most successful period in our history, at a moment when much of the progressive left has decreed that privilege is a sin and that those who hold power should be stripped of it. Anyone with a long view of Jewish history should know how quickly economic and social privilege can turn to political and personal ruin, even — or especially — in countries where it might seem unthinkable.” We have been fortunate thus far, but we must understand that some someday “our luck in America may run out.”
Dr. Alex Grobman is the senior resident scholar at the John C. Danforth Society and a member of the Council of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East. He has an MA and PhD in contemporary Jewish history from The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and heeding his own words, lives in Jerusalem.
US Foreign Aid to Israel: a Mega Billion Dollar Bonanza for the US Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger
“Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
September 1, 2025
Some influential US public opinion molders claim that foreign aid to Israel has been extended at the expense of the US taxpayer and US national security.
Really?
*Israel was compared by Admiral Elmo Zumwalt (a former US’ Chief of Naval Operations) and General Alexander Haig (a former NATO Supreme Commander and US Secretary of State) to the largest US aircraft carrier, which does not require US soldiers on board, and is deployed in a most critical area between Europe-Asia-Africa and between the Mediterranean-Red Sea-Indian Ocean-Persian Gulf. This area is the hotbed of 1,400-year-old intra-Muslim and intra-Arab terrorism and wars, the epicenter of global anti-US Islamic terrorism, the platform of 48% of global oil reserves, and a crucial intersection of Far East-Europe sea lanes.
*Comparing Israel to the largest US aircraft carrier has been a derivative of Israel’s key pro-US geo-strategic features in the face of mutual threats, such as the Ayatollah regime and The Muslim Brotherhood. These features are not typical of other allies:
<Israel’s geo-strategic location;
<Israel’s posture of deterrence, which is critical for the survival of Jordan’s pro-US Hashemite regime and other pro-US Arab regimes;
<Israel’s proven defense and commercial technological capabilities;
<Israel’s contributions to the research & development, exports, employment and superiority of the US defense industries and high tech sector;
<Israel’s rapid and massive self-manned troop mobilization;
<Israel’s game—changing, pro-active military track record has advanced US interests.
<General George Keegan, a former Chief of US Air Force Intelligence assessed that the intelligence shared by Israel with the US equals to 5 CIAs. The annual budget of one CIA is around $15bn;
<Israel’s unconditional identification with the US by the vast majority of Israel’s public and political establishment (L and R, secular and religious).
*According to General Haig, if there were not Israel in the Middle East, then the US would have to invest $15bn-$20bn annually (instead of$3.8bn annual investment in Israel) for the manufacturing of a few real aircraft carriers. These carriers would be deployed to the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean, accompanied by a few ground divisions, in order to shield US soil from the wrath of Islamic terrorism, secure US’ economic interests, sustain the survival of the US’ Arab allies, and constrain China and Russia.
*Israel’s role as a strategic asset is underscored, when comparing the $3.8bn annual US investment in Israel to the cost of manufacturing new aircraft carriers: $10bn-$13bn for one supercarrier, while smaller carriers may cost $2.5bn-$9bn each. Moreover, deploying and operating a carrier, including a full carrier strike group of destroyers, frigates, submarines, and support vessels, incurs annual costs of $900mn-1.2bn. In addition, the annual cost of deploying a single US ground division to the Middle East is $2bn, excluding the cost of munition and missiles, with higher costs in combat-intense or logistically complex environments.
The bottom line
*The US annual investment in – not foreign aid to – Israel yields a uniquely high Return-on-Investment (R-o-I) by Israel, which is acting as a force and dollar multiplier for the US economy and defense. Israel is also performing as the most productive battle-tested research and development center, as well as the showroom of the US defense and aerospace industries, and an innovation center, sharing ground-breaking battle tactics with the US Armed Forces.
*Israel’s military and intelligence capabilities have reduced the need for US military deployments in the region, enhancing the safety of US soldiers.
*Israel’s military, intelligence and technological capabilities – unmatched by any other ally of the US – have significantly lessened the burden on the US military in the Middle East, saving substantial US resources and lives, and facilitating the diversion of US resources to other regions.
*The intense collaboration between Israel and the US military has dramatically expanded since January 2021, when Israel joined CENTCOM (which oversees US military interests in the Middle East, Central Asia and parts of South Asia), upgrading the performance of both the US and Israel.
[Ed.:
OPERATION WARP SPEED WAS A DISASTER JAMES ROGUSKI
Please forward this article to President Donald J. Trump and share it widely across social media.
SEP 01, 2025
Most people still don’t understand Hamas’ strategy. ANDREW FOX
Ultimately, the terror group’s most significant weapon is not rockets or fighters, but its capacity to endure and adapt.
AUG 31, 2025
When conducting military tactical planning, the first question for most armies is a variation of “What is the enemy doing, and why?” to determine the enemy’s likely course of action.
The IDF is preparing to strike at the heart of Hamas’ stronghold in Gaza City. To anticipate what lies ahead, it is necessary to think like Hamas’ commanders: to ask what they value most, what options they perceive, and what actions they are likely undertaking now to ensure their movement survives.
Hamas’ aim, most generally, is survival. Hamas does not expect to win on the battlefield against a much stronger enemy. Instead, its strategy will focus on surviving as a movement, manipulating the battlefield to increase Israeli costs, and preparing to continue as an underground insurgency even if it is pushed out of open control of Gaza. Understanding this viewpoint helps explain why Hamas acts as it does, why Gaza City has become a fortress, and why the eventual fall of the city may not bring about the end of the conflict.
Hamas’ primary goal is to ensure its organisational survival. In conventional warfare, armies fight to hold territory or achieve decisive military victories. Hamas’ priorities differ. Its objectives in the current phase can be broken down into six key elements.
- Preserve leadership and organisational continuity. As long as some senior leaders and cadres remain intact, the movement can reconstitute itself, even in exile. Hamas is not confined to Gaza. They have cells in Syria, Lebanon, and the West Bank (where they poll a 70-percent approval rating). Their leadership sits in Qatar. Killing every Hamas member in Gaza does not destroy Hamas.
- Maximise the civilian death toll. Hamas sees civilian casualties as leverage. Hamas hopes it can generate international pressure on Israel to halt operations, or, just as good, delegitimise Israel, and cement its pariah status on the world stage.
- Delay Israeli advances. Every day bought through negotiation or tactical defence gives Hamas time to consolidate and increases the chance of diplomatic intervention.
- Embed for insurgency. If it loses its governing role in Gaza, Hamas intends to remain present as a shadow network and resistance movement.
- Eliminate rivals. Hamas has a long record of suppressing dissent through intimidation and assassination. As pressure mounts, it is likely tightening its grip by removing those who might collaborate with Israel or challenge its legitimacy.
- Exploit hostages. Captured Israelis remain Hamas’s most valuable bargaining chips. Beyond negotiation, hostages can be executed if Israel pushes too hard, serving both as a deterrent and as psychological warfare.
This ruthless approach indicates that Hamas’ survival strategy targets not only Israel outwardly, but also its rivals internally, and even the hostages.
Israel has spent years hunting Hamas’ senior leaders, and in this war, it has devoted enormous resources to successful “decapitation” strikes, yet Hamas has prepared for this. Its leadership is decentralised. Command and control is deliberately redundant, with communication nodes dispersed and authority shared across multiple figures. Hamas is likely no longer a centralised authority, but multiple smaller groups across the Strip, acting to a shared intent.
Hamas’ government departments are still in operation. The apparatchiks at its Ministry of Health have been Hamas’ single greatest weapon during this war and still push out their lies to a gullible world. These are not neutral civil servants who will flex to follow whoever is the next administration in Gaza. Hamas spent years ruthlessly purging government systems within Gaza. These administrators might make all the right noises, but be in no doubt: They are Hamas loyalists to the core, and they will ensure that Hamas’ influence continues to pervade Gaza’s governance systems.
The kicker: Remove them, and every governance system in Gaza collapses. The next administration will have no choice but to retain them.
Hamas has examined Hezbollah’s example in Lebanon, which has survived multiple Israeli campaigns due to a similar organisational structure. The principle is the same: Absorb the attrition, survive, and hope to regrow in the long term (even if it takes decades). From Hamas’ perspective, the risk of destruction is reduced when command is decentralised. Consequently, even if Gaza City is overrun, parts of the leadership are almost certain to remain capable of hiding and waiting things out, or regrouping elsewhere.
No aspect of Hamas’ strategy in Gaza has been more murderous than its use of civilians. From the earliest days of the conflict, Israel urged civilians in Gaza City to evacuate southwards. Hamas responded by encouraging residents to stay in their homes. Mosque loudspeakers and official spokesmen portrayed evacuation as a trick aimed at permanently displacing Palestinians, echoing memories of the 1948 “Nakba.”
This tactic serves Hamas in multiple ways. The presence of civilians complicates Israeli operations, constraining the IDF’s use of firepower. High casualties attract international attention, feeding global campaigns to halt Israel’s offensive. By tying civilians to the terrain, Hamas ensures that any advance through Gaza City is slow, bloody, and politically costly for Israel.
So far, reports indicate that out of 1.3 million people, between 10,000 and 40,000 Gazans have left Gaza City. If these figures do not increase, attacking Gaza City could result in the highest civilian death rate since the war began. I would even suggest that a major assault might not be feasible unless more civilians evacuate. The cost would be too great to justify militarily.
From Hamas’ perspective, the civilian population is not just a shield but also a weapon in the information war. The more the conflict is portrayed worldwide as a humanitarian disaster, the more Hamas hopes Israel will face pressure to cease. In this context, Hamas’ fighters are not isolated; they are surrounded by strategically valuable human terrain.
Hamas has consistently sought to draw out the conflict through negotiation. Temporary ceasefires, typically tied to hostage exchanges or humanitarian access, serve not only humanitarian purposes but also military ones. Each pause allows Hamas to regroup, resupply, and reposition. Each day of delay increases the chance of external pressure on Israel. I would not be surprised to see a ceasefire-for-hostage-release agreement in the near future. Hamas will want to buy time wherever possible.
Hostages are central to this strategy. They are bargaining chips to trade for Palestinian prisoners and political concessions, and they are also a deterrent. Hamas has openly threatened to kill captives if Israel advances too far or too quickly. From the group’s perspective, hostage execution serves two purposes: punishing Israel for its actions and shaping Israeli public opinion by turning each advance into a potential death sentence for compatriots held underground.
For Hamas, negotiation and hostages are two sides of the same coin. Both are means to buy time and to exert psychological leverage. From the enemy’s perspective, they are not humanitarian matters but tactical weapons.
Perhaps the most crucial element of Hamas’ planning is its acceptance that it may lose Gaza City. If it cannot hold the terrain, Hamas will intend to survive underground as an insurgency. Fighters can drop their weapons, melt into the civilian population, even evacuate to humanitarian areas, and re-emerge once Israeli forces withdraw (or conduct insurgent attacks on occupying troops).
At the same time, Hamas will take steps to ensure that if its political rule collapses, no rival faction can take its place. This has historically meant intimidation, arrests, and targeted killings of suspected collaborators or members of rival groups. Assassination is a tool of internal dominance. In the chaos of battle, such actions are likely accelerating, as Hamas closes ranks and eliminates figures or groups who might threaten its underground continuity.
In parallel, Hamas will maintain shadow governance structures. Hamas infests every element of life in Gaza. Its police, charities, and administrators can operate quietly, ensuring that even if overt authority collapses, its influence in daily life persists.
In the longer term, Hamas may rebrand itself, as other militant organisations have done, to escape international pressure. What matters is not the name but the continuity of networks, ideology, and capability. From Hamas’ point of view, insurgency is not failure but adaptation — a way to ensure that it remains relevant and that no post-war order in Gaza can ignore it.
Drawing these elements together, Hamas’ probable course of action in Gaza City is clear. It will not seek decisive battle, but will aim to:
- Survive as a movement by dispersing leadership and cadres.
- Impose maximum civilian and military costs on Israel to shape global opinion.
- Delay operations through negotiations.
- Exploit hostages for leverage, including execution if pressed.
- Suppress rivals internally to prevent any alternative Palestinian leadership from emerging.
- Transition to insurgency.
From Hamas’ perspective, this course of action offers the best chance of ensuring that it outlasts the Israeli campaign. Even if Gaza City falls, Hamas can still claim victory if it survives and undermines or subverts any replacement authority.
For Israel, this presents a sobering reality. The fall of Gaza City will not necessarily mean the defeat of Hamas. The group has structured itself to endure precisely this scenario. Its leaders expect to outlast Israel’s offensive and to re-emerge, whether in Gaza’s ruins or abroad, as the core of continued resistance.
The broader implication is that military success alone may not achieve Israel’s strategic objective of eliminating Hamas. Unless a credible political and governance alternative emerges, Hamas will likely persist, whether openly or underground, as a central actor in Palestinian politics and armed resistance.
From the enemy’s perspective, survival equals victory. Hamas knows it cannot succeed in conventional terms, but believes it can prevent Israel from achieving a decisive result. This belief underpins all its current actions in Gaza City: from urging civilians to stay in place, to negotiating, to assassinating rivals.
Ultimately, Hamas’ most significant weapon is not rockets or fighters, but its capacity to endure, adapt, and rebuild.
The Trump “GREAT Trust” Gaza Plan Avi Abelow
August 31, 2025 Israel Video Network – Pulse of Israel
Let’s talk about the Trump “GREAT Trust” Gaza plan and why it’s not just a mistake. It’s a moral disaster that sets the world on fire.
We don’t know if this is Trump’s actual plan, a trial balloon, or deliberate misinformation — but either way, it’s worth breaking down to expose just how dangerous and misguided it really is.
The plan says: let’s “help” Gaza by offering Gazans $5,000 in cash, four years of rent, food aid, and “digital tokens” to relocate peacefully, while rebuilding Gaza as a tourist and tech hub , the “Riviera of the Middle East.”
Sounds good on paper, right?
But here’s the problem — and I’m going to say it plainly:
You do not reward a population that cheered the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust!
On October 7th, Hamas terrorists brutally murdered 1,200 Israelis, mass raping women, burning families alive, beheading babies, and taking over 250 hostages.
And how did Arab Muslims in Gaza, Judea & Samaria respond, together with Arab Muslims all over the world respond?
They celebrated.
They danced in the streets. Handed out sweets. Hung signs praising the “martyrs.” This wasn’t just a fringe group. This is the mainstream Gazan.
Israel offered $5 million for any piece of information to help rescue even one hostage.
And guess how many Gazan civilians came forward?
Zero. Not one.
So now this U.S. plan is proposing to give this same population money, housing, and food, to “relocate them safely” while new homes are rebuilt?
Let me be crystal clear:
This is the first time in history the world is proposing to reward an enemy population, one that raised its children to murder, with cash and beachfront property.
That’s not justice.
That’s not peace.
That’s rewarding terror.
And for the West, especially Americans and Europeans watching growing jihadist movements in your own cities, this sets the worst possible precedent.
What message are you sending?
Terror works.
Massacres get results.
Hate Jews long enough, and you’ll get your own development fund and better housing.
This isn’t about “helping civilians.” It’s about ignoring decades of indoctrination, funded by the UN, by Qatar, and by Western aid, all of which raised generations of Gazans to glorify martyrdom, hate Jews, and seek Israel’s destruction.
And let’s not forget:
The Palestinian national identity itself was invented by the Soviet Union in the 1960s, not to build peace, but to destroy the Jewish state.
Before then, no Arab called themselves “Palestinian.” It was always a weapon, never a nation.
So what do we do with Gaza?
We Make Gaza Jewish again!
It’s our ancestral land. Jews lived there long before 1948, until they were expelled by the British in 1929 due to the Arab Muslim violence.
And as for the Gazans who supported Hamas and October 7th?
Let Qatar, Syria, Turkey, or Iran, the same countries that funded their terror, take them in.
We don’t need to ask. We don’t need to apologize.
You don’t bribe evil.
You don’t pay off genocidal ideology.
You confront it, uproot it, and build something moral and just in its place.
The West is standing at a crossroads.
Reward evil, and you guarantee more October 7ths. Not just in Israel. In Paris. In London. In New York.
Or take a stand.
Stand with truth. Stand with morality. Stand with the victims, not the murderers.
The world must wake up.
Because what starts with the Jews… never ends with the Jews.
And, yes, I know, Netanyahu is part of the problem. He will go along with whatever crazy and immoral plan Trump supports. But it is futile. No plan will succeed, especially if it involves Qatar, the mothership of the Muslim Brotherhood…except the one plan that accepts reality.
Eventually, we will make Gaza Jewish again! Because our enemies will never give up trying to use Gaza to destroy us.
Am Yisrael Chai!!!
To join the Israel Video Network – Pulse of Israel Group Click Here:
Telegram ➡️ https://t.me/aviabelowpulse
Whatsapp ➡️ https://chat.whatsapp.com/GkavRznXy731nxxRyptCMv
Zionism & Nazism MICHOEL GREEN
Two sides of the same coin?
AUG 31, 2025
The current era has seen the emergence of a new compound word, “ZioNazi.”
Some people object to this term, while others are puzzled by it.
Objectors misinterpret it as anti-Jewish hate speech, while others confuse it as absurd Godwin-law hyperbole. It is neither.
In fact, it’s a reasonable descriptor for Zionism for several reasons.
For starters, Zionists and Nazis were close allies in the years preceding World War II, during the war itself, and in certain respects, even after the war. This alliance is well-documented [1].
The highest-level Zionists collaborated with the Nazi regime in the mass murder of an unfathomable number of Jews. The slaughter of millions was made possible only due to well-coordinated Zionist collaboration.
Following the war, Zionists absorbed their erstwhile allies, Nazi war criminals, and helped them evade justice. And in subsequent decades, the slaughter of Jews continued unabated by the Zionist regime and their Islamist proxies, and does so till today.
It’s reasonable to conclude that Nazism and Zionism are two tentacles of the same depopulationist beast. This is not hyperbole but a tragic observation of reality.
Moreover, the corporatist system of governance that the Zionists imposed is remarkably similar to the Nazis’ Fascism in many respects. Repression, censorship, propaganda, indoctrination, forced medical experimentation, are all mainstays of the Zionist state.
While Nazis herded Jews into ghettos and concentration camps, their Zionist protégé seeks to herd Jews into fifteen-minute cities. Nazis sprayed Jews with deadly chemicals in gas chambers. Zionists spray slower-working poisons onto its Jewish population in open-air gas chambers.
Furthermore, the term Zionism itself is objectionable. It’s an affront to Jews and authentic Jewish faith since it misappropriates the word Zion. Historically, Zion referred to Mount Zion, site of scripture’s holiest shrine, the Holy Temple in the ancient Jewish capital, Jerusalem. As such, the Jews’ yearning to return to Zion had exclusively religious connotation.
Zionist revisionism subverted and undermined this hallowed aspiration, replacing it with a new-age fetish of hollow nationalist collectivism, the main objective of which was to subject Jews to the same authoritarian statism that the rest of the world’s population was getting subjugated to in the modern era.
Zionism, then, has nothing to do with Zion.
However, the mere mention of this odious ism falsely attributes it to Zion. Why should we bring ignominy upon G-d’s holy mountain by nominally associating it with something so unholy and ugly? Better attribute it to Nazism, its ideological twin.
The capitalized “N” of “ZioNazi” aptly separates “Zio” from its “n,” thereby disassociating it from Zion and exposing its true profane intent. It also highlights the curious fact that both repugnant isms share the same radicals (i.e. N, Z, I) in English, which in fact is the case in modern Hebrew (נ, צ, י) as well. Surely this too was by dark design.
Hence the preference for this new term and its spelling.
If the invoking of Nazism disturbs you, perhaps you can substitute it with another fitting N word, like “ZioNefarious” or “ZioNoxious.”
Either way, please understand that Zionism is cut from the same cloth as Nazism, authoritarian statism, and has absolutely nothing to do with the actual Zion.
Contrary to their misleading names, “Zionists,” “Poalei Tzion,” “Chovevei Tzion,” etc., were never lovers of Zion. They were haters of Zion, and their successors in power remain sworn enemies to everything Zion represents, especially the Sons and Daughters of Zion, biblical epithets for the Jewish people.
Tragically, the Jews have no bigger enemy than the predatory regime of the “Jewish State.” No one is guiltier of crimes against Jews in the past eighty years than the Zionist foe, continuing the genocidal work of its Nazi forbears. ZioNazism indeed.
A true lover of Zion rejects the ism that hijacked its name and seeks to depopulate its children.
May God Almighty liberate Zion from its ZioNazi captors.
Let’s return to Zion for real and ignore the ‘ists and their lethal isms.
Notes:
Challenging the IPC Gaza Famine Report: Examining Claims of Bias and Methodological Failures [VIDEOS] ADAM ELIYAHU BERKOWITZ
AUGUST 31, 2025
The recent declaration by the UN-backed Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) that famine exists in Gaza has sparked intense international debate and legal ramifications. However, a growing body of analysis suggests that this determination may be fundamentally flawed, riddled with methodological problems, and influenced by anti-Israel bias among its authors. This examination reveals concerning patterns in how the UN and affiliated bodies have reported on Gaza’s humanitarian situation, raising serious questions about the reliability of their conclusions.
The IPC’s Controversial Famine Declaration
On August 22, the IPC’s Famine Review Committee officially declared that famine was unfolding in the Gaza Governorate, encompassing Gaza City and its surrounding areas. The report warned that this famine could potentially spread to Khan Younis and Deir al-Balah in the coming weeks. International media outlets immediately amplified these findings, with major publications treating the declaration as established fact from a credible, neutral international body.
The IPC’s conclusions were stark and unequivocal. The report classified the Gaza Governorate as experiencing Phase 5 famine conditions, claiming that over half a million people in parts of the Gaza Strip face “catastrophic conditions characterized by starvation, destitution and death.” The assessment projected that 132,000 children under five would suffer from acute malnutrition through June 2026, including 41,000 severe cases described as being “at heightened risk of death.” These findings formed the basis for renewed international condemnation of Israel and fresh calls for immediate intervention to prevent what the IPC characterized as a man-made humanitarian catastrophe of unprecedented scale.
However, this latest report represents just one chapter in a troubled history of questionable UN reporting on Gaza’s humanitarian situation. The pattern of problematic assessments began early in the conflict and has continued despite repeated corrections and contradictory evidence.
A History of Inaccurate Predictions
The IPC’s track record on Gaza famine predictions has been notably poor. In March 2024, the organization predicted that famine would occur in northern Gaza between March and May 2024, subsequently spreading to the rest of the Strip by July. The report classified 50% of Gaza’s population (1.11 million people) as facing “catastrophic conditions” or Phase 5 food insecurity.
These dire predictions proved incorrect. By June 2024, the IPC’s own Famine Review Committee acknowledged that “the evidence on acute malnutrition and mortality does not indicate that famine thresholds have been passed” for both northern and southern Gaza. The committee found that “the available evidence does not indicate that famine is currently occurring,” forcing the IPC to revise its assessment dramatically downward.
The June revision reduced the classification of people in “catastrophic situations” from 1.11 million (50% of the population) to 495,000 (22% of the population) – a reduction of more than half. Despite this significant correction, the UN continued to use inflammatory language, with some officials declaring that “famine has spread throughout the Gaza strip” even after their own reports contradicted this claim.
Methodological Flaws in the August 2025 Report
Critics have identified numerous methodological problems with the latest IPC famine declaration that appear to violate the organization’s own established standards:
Inappropriate Use of MUAC Measurements
The IPC relied on Mid-Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC) measurements rather than the more reliable weight-for-height scores to determine acute malnutrition among children. While MUAC can be used in emergency situations, it is specifically “limited to classifying Phase 4 (Emergency), not Phase 5 (Famine).” The use of MUAC measurements to justify a Phase 5 classification directly contradicts established IPC protocols.
Additionally, pre-war Gaza had significantly higher MUAC prevalence rates compared to weight-for-height rates – an anomaly that should have led to adjusted thresholds. The IPC failed to account for this baseline difference, potentially inflating malnutrition assessments.
The IPC’s claim of a 16% malnutrition rate among children under five was based on only a partial sample of July’s data. When complete data for July became available on August 6, showing a malnutrition rate of 12.2%, the IPC chose not to incorporate this updated information into its findings – a decision that raises serious questions about selective data usage.
Furthermore, the report relied heavily on hospital records rather than community-based surveys, which skews results toward sicker children and excludes healthy populations. This approach directly contradicts IPC guidelines that typically prohibit using hospital-based data for population-wide assessments.
Perhaps most problematically, the IPC made extraordinary assumptions about unreported deaths to meet famine thresholds. While official sources reported an average of six malnutrition-related deaths per day, the IPC assumed that the actual number was significantly higher – despite lacking evidence for this claim. To meet the famine threshold of two deaths per 10,000 people daily, approximately 130 malnutrition-related deaths would need to occur daily in the Gaza Governorate. The assumption that over 20 times more deaths are occurring than reported lacks credible justification.
The foundation of the IPC’s assessments rests on data provided by UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), which has been collecting information through UNRWA since October 7, 2023. However, analysis reveals systematic problems with this data collection process.
UNRWA’s data collection method captures only aid observed at specific southern crossings (Kerem Shalom and Rafah) while representatives are present. This approach systematically excludes:
- Aid delivered through air drops
- Supplies arriving via the US floating pier
- Aid received through the northern Erez crossing
- Deliveries when UNRWA representatives are absent
- Private sector goods and fuel shipments
- Flour deliveries to northern Gaza bakeries
The result is a dramatic undercount of aid entering Gaza. For example, in May 2024, OCHA initially reported approximately 2,790 trucks entering Gaza, while Israel’s Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT) documented 6,359 trucks – a discrepancy of nearly 4,000 trucks. Over the entire period from the war’s beginning through June 2024, OCHA counted 28,818 trucks while COGAT recorded 38,212 trucks, representing a gap of almost 10,000 trucks.
Lack of Transparency and Verification
The UN consistently presented incomplete data without acknowledging its limitations. It wasn’t until late April 2024 that OCHA first added a disclaimer noting that figures only included “supplies observed or registered by the UN” at specific crossings. This critical limitation should have been disclosed from the beginning, especially given the serious accusations being leveled against Israel based on this data.
The UN also failed to verify figures from Gaza-based sources, many of which are controlled by or closely aligned with Hamas. Meanwhile, Israeli data was consistently dismissed without explanation, despite Israel being a democratic state with independent media, civil society oversight, and judicial review.
Anti-Israel Bias Among Report Authors
Beyond methodological concerns, the credibility of the IPC report is further undermined by the inclusion of authors with documented anti-Israel bias and activism.
Andrew Seal, an associate professor at University College London, has demonstrated clear anti-Israel bias through his social media activity and public statements. He accused Israel of genocide as early as October 28, 2023, just weeks after the Hamas attack and before Israel’s ground operation had fully commenced. His social media presence includes:
- Defending Houthi attacks against international shipping
- Accusing Israel of apartheid
- Drawing moral equivalencies between Israel and Hamas
- Spreading Iranian regime propaganda
- Dismissing the threat posed by Hamas despite their explicit calls for repeated October 7-style massacres
Zeina Jamaluddine, an assistant professor at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, co-authored a controversial study on Gaza death tolls published in The Lancet that was criticized for faulty methodology and political bias. Notably, she and her team were granted exclusive access to data by the Hamas-run Ministry of Health, raising questions about potential manipulation of information.
Jamaluddine has also:
- Described Israeli defensive actions against Hezbollah as “terror”
- Called for an end to the war as early as October 16, 2023 – just nine days after the Hamas massacre
- Advocated for “decolonization” in the context of Israel and Gaza
Another key figure, Alex de Waal, heads an organization that has been described as “a leader of the ‘starvation as a weapon’ narrative against Israel” since the beginning of the war. Prior to the IPC report’s publication, de Waal used Qatar-funded media platforms to accuse Israel of “precisely engineered starvation” and “genocidal starvation” – predetermined conclusions that he later incorporated into supposedly objective scientific analysis.
The Real Humanitarian Picture
While no one disputes that Gaza’s population faces genuine hardships due to ongoing conflict, the evidence suggests a more complex reality than portrayed in UN reports.
According to COGAT data, humanitarian aid entering Gaza has actually exceeded minimum requirements. The organization tracks all aid entering through all crossings and routes, including supplies from international organizations, private sector goods, and deliveries via air, sea, and land. Monthly totals show significant increases in aid flows, with the number of trucks nearly doubling between February and April 2024.
At times, aid has accumulated faster than it could be distributed, with COGAT reporting 1,500 trucks waiting for collection from Kerem Shalom and the floating pier in June 2024. This backlog contradicts claims of deliberate aid restriction.
Reports from Gaza itself suggest food availability that contradicts famine conditions. Images of functioning markets, decreasing food prices, and testimonies about food accessibility paint a different picture than the one presented in UN assessments. The World Health Organization, as of June 2024, reported only 32 deaths from acute malnutrition and starvation – far below the thousands that would be expected under true famine conditions as predicted by the IPC.
Hamas’s Role in Aid Obstruction
UN reports consistently downplay or ignore Hamas’s role in obstructing aid distribution. The organization has:
- Attacked border crossings with rocket fire, forcing temporary closures
- Controlled convoy routes and distribution points
- Looted aid trucks and storage facilities
- Used civilian infrastructure for military purposes
- Attacked humanitarian installations, including the US floating pier
The UN’s own acknowledgment that close to 90% of its aid is looted by “armed actors” or others further undermines claims that Israel is systematically preventing aid delivery.
International Legal Implications
The flawed UN and IPC reports have had far-reaching consequences beyond public opinion. International legal proceedings have heavily relied on these assessments:
In three separate instances where the ICJ issued provisional measures against Israel in the genocide case filed by South Africa, the majority of judges based their decisions on UN reports and IPC famine predictions. The court quoted statements by UN officials that characterized Gaza’s situation as “catastrophic” based on these problematic assessments.
ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan referenced IPC findings when requesting arrest warrants against Israeli officials, specifically citing claims about 1.1 million people facing “catastrophic hunger.” These legal proceedings are thus built upon a foundation of questionable data and biased analysis.
UN Opposition to Alternative Aid Mechanisms
The UN’s objections to the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) provide perhaps the most revealing evidence of institutional bias prioritizing political control over genuine humanitarian relief. The humanitarian community, led by UNRWA, has called for an end to the GHF, describing it as providing “nothing but starvation and gunfire to the people of Gaza”. UN experts have demanded the “immediate dismantling” of the GHF, calling it “an utterly disturbing example of how humanitarian relief can be exploited for covert military and geopolitical agendas”.
This opposition is particularly striking given the UN’s simultaneous claims of dire humanitarian conditions in Gaza. If the situation were truly as catastrophic as portrayed in IPC reports, one would expect international organizations to welcome any additional aid delivery mechanism, regardless of its sponsor. Instead, UNRWA has demanded “urgent clarification” from UN leadership over any meetings with the GHF, warning that failing to criticize the initiative risks being seen as complicity in war crimes.
The institutional resistance to alternative aid delivery suggests that maintaining control over humanitarian operations – and by extension, allowing Hamas to continue hijacking aid – may be more important to these organizations than actually alleviating suffering. This pattern reinforces concerns that UNRWA and other UN agencies may be inadvertently or deliberately helping Hamas maintain its grip on power by preserving aid distribution systems that the terrorist organization can manipulate and exploit.
Misleading Imagery and Propaganda Campaigns
The humanitarian narrative has been further undermined by revelations about staged and manipulated imagery designed to amplify claims of famine and starvation. German newspaper Bild revealed photos of Gazans holding empty pots posing in front of photographers, rather than actually waiting in line for food aid. These photographers often have documented ties to Hamas, and some were actively embedded with terrorists during the October 7 massacre.
WATCH [2:30]
The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs has documented “a concerning surge of misleading information, manipulative narratives and fabricated or AI-generated images” targeting Israel and misrepresenting Gaza’s humanitarian situation. Examples include Hamas propaganda exploiting images of seriously ill children, with some Western media outlets publishing them, including a widely shared image of a child that was actually a recycled photo of a Yazidi girl from 2014.
WATCH [17:04]
Israeli military officials have stated that “no real hunger crisis exists in Gaza” and accused Hamas of using “fake images of malnourished children from Yemen” to manufacture evidence of famine conditions. Israeli military spokesperson Brigadier General Effie Defrin told reporters that “the claims of starvation are fake, and it’s an organized campaign by Hamas in order to fight us”.
WATCH [26:25]
These revelations about staged photography and recycled imagery call into question the visual evidence that has been central to international perceptions of Gaza’s humanitarian crisis. The systematic nature of these deceptions suggests a coordinated propaganda effort designed to shape international opinion and legal proceedings against Israel.
The Broader Pattern of UN Bias
The problems with Gaza reporting reflect a broader pattern of UN bias against Israel. This bias manifests in several ways:
UN reports consistently emphasize negative aspects of Israeli actions while ignoring or minimizing:
- Israel’s opening of additional aid corridors
- Humanitarian pauses in fighting to facilitate aid delivery
- Infrastructure improvements to aid routes
- Coordination with international relief efforts
- Steps taken to prioritize humanitarian trucks over commercial vehicles
The UN dismisses Israeli government data without explanation while accepting information from Hamas-controlled sources at face value. This represents a troubling preference for information from a designated terrorist organization over a democratic government with transparent institutions and independent oversight.
UN officials have used inflammatory language to describe Israel’s actions, often timing statements to coincide with international legal proceedings or diplomatic pressure campaigns. The consistency of this pattern suggests coordinated messaging rather than objective assessment.
Recommendations for Media and Policymakers
Given these documented problems, several recommendations emerge:
For Media Organizations
- Critically examine UN and IPC reports rather than treating them as unquestionable authority
- Investigate the backgrounds and potential biases of report authors
- Compare multiple data sources and highlight discrepancies
- Provide context about the complexity of humanitarian operations in active war zones
- Acknowledge when organizations have been forced to revise previous assessments
For Policymakers
- Demand transparency in data collection methodologies
- Require verification of information from conflict zones
- Consider multiple sources when making policy decisions
- Investigate potential bias in international monitoring organizations
- Ensure that legal proceedings are based on verified, complete information
For International Organizations
- Implement stricter standards for author selection to ensure objectivity
- Require full disclosure of data limitations and sources
- Establish independent verification mechanisms
- Address documented cases of bias and methodological failures
- Separate humanitarian assessment from political advocacy
The Israeli goverenment responded to the reporting with heavy criticism:
“Unbelievably, the IPC twisted its own rules and ignored its own criteria just to produce false accusations against Israel: the IPC changed its own global standard, cutting the 30% threshold to 15% for this report only, and totally ignoring its second criterion of death rate, solely to serve Hamas’s fake campaign,” the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated.
“The entire IPC document is based on Hamas lies laundered through organizations with vested interests.”
There is no famine in Gaza. Over 100,000 trucks of aid have entered Gaza since the start of the war, and in recent weeks a massive influx of aid has flooded the Strip with staple foods and caused a sharp decline in food prices, which have plummeted in the markets.
The laws of supply and demand don’t lie – the IPC does. Every forecast the IPC has made regarding Gaza during the war has proven baseless and completely false.
This assessment too will be thrown into the despicable trash bin of political documents.
Conclusion
The evidence presented by multiple Israeli institutions, independent analysts, and even the IPC’s own subsequent revisions suggests that the famine declaration in Gaza is built on a foundation of flawed methodology, incomplete data, and biased analysis. The inclusion of demonstrably anti-Israel activists as report authors further undermines the credibility of these assessments.
What a dictator! TIERNEY’S REAL NEWS
AUG 30, 2025
Carjackings are already down 87% in Washington, DC since President Trump brought in the National Guard and started DEFENDING innocent Americans in our Nation’s Capitol from criminals, gangs and aliens. What a dictator!
This has been confirmed by DC Mayor Bowser.
BOWSER: “The difference between this 20-day period of this federal surge and last year represents a 87% reduction in carjackings.”
Fox News reported that DC homicides are down 71%, robberies down 60%, property crime down 20% and assault with dangerous weapons is down 10% as well.
I remember, when I lived in Minneapolis, that there were signs in the health club locker room warning us that the juvenile Somali gangs were carjacking people in the round-a-bouts, so they told us not to slow down (because they jump on your car) and to keep our car doors locked and our windows rolled up. There were at least 5 round-a-bouts that I had to navigate every day, just to leave my house to run errands, so it was a constant worry.
BREAKING: Israel WIPES Out ENTIRE Houthi Islamist Leadership Cabinet [37:22] Mahyar Tousi
August 30, 2025 Tousi TV
POST SHABBAT WAR UPDATE Avi Abelow
August 30, 2025 Israel Video Network – Pulse of Israel
Israel is currently engaged in a war like no other, a multi-front battle across the Middle East, coordinated by Iran and fought through its vast network of terror proxies. But what our enemies envisioned as Israel’s moment of collapse is fast becoming their strategic disaster.
From Gaza to Yemen, from Lebanon to Tehran, Israel is not just surviving, we’re dismantling an empire of terror, over two years. And in doing so, we are exposing the deeper battle for the future of the Middle East.
GAZA
This week, the IDF officially ended its daily tactical pause, signaling the beginning of a relentless new phase to destroy Hamas once and for all and take full control over Gaza.
In a targeted strike, Israel also eliminated Hamas’ spokesperson, a central figure in the terror group’s propaganda campaign. And in a tragic but crucial operation, our soldiers retrieved the bodies of two hostages murdered by Hamas on October 7th. Their return gives their families the dignity of closure.
Forty-eight hostages now remain in Gaza. Israel will not rest until every one of them is brought home.
YEMEN
Let’s be crystal clear:
Israel did not attack Yemen. Yemen, as a fully integrated Iranian proxy, chose war with Israel, continuously launching ballistic missiles at our population centers, all with the singular goal of mass civilian death.
This Houthi threat in Yemen is no joke, as they have an army of hundreds of thousands, in addition to their ballistic missiles.
Israel’s response over the weekend was surgical.
In a devastatingly precise strike, Israel eliminated the upper leadership of the Houthis:
– Prime Minister
– Head of the Political Bureau
– Ministers of Welfare, Agriculture, Economy, Justice, Information, and Foreign Affairs
– Government Secretary
– Government Chief of Staff
With their Minister of Defense and Chief of Staff potentially seriously wounded.
This is what happens when a terror state behaves like a terror organization.
LEBANON
Hezbollah is threatening violence if the Lebanese government proceeds to take away their weapons, as Lebanon agreed to do in talks with the Trump administration. And as a senior commander of the Lebanese army recently said, ‘do not expect our Shia soldiers to shoot at their Hezbollah brothers’.
With diplomatic channels now shut and Hezbollah increasing its provocations, the northern front is nearing escalation.
If Hezbollah remains armed on our Northern border, expect Israel to finally militarily destroy Hezbollah and push them out of Southern Lebanon, to provide the necessary security to our Northern border communities. Hopefully, we will go all the way to the Litani River and remain there, as we should have done initially.
IRAN
The international community has reactivated the snapback sanctions mechanism, a long-overdue diplomatic victory for Israel and a crippling blow to Iran.
Even Iran’s foreign minister publicly admitted that another direct confrontation with Israel is inevitable.
Expect the direct confrontation with Iran to continue someday in the near future.
JUDEA & SAMARIA
As I posted on Friday, the Trump administration has officially barred Mahmoud Abbas’ Palestinian Authority team from entering the U.S. to attend the upcoming United Nations General Assembly. The reason? The PA’s continued financial and political support for terrorism.
This could mark more than a symbolic shift. It may well be the beginning of a broader policy realignment laying the groundwork for U.S. support for Israel to formally apply sovereignty over Judea and Samaria. After years of international appeasement, reality is setting in: the Palestinian Authority will finally be punished for supporting terror and the destruction of Israel.
That’s all the good news on the current war front.
Now, for the update about the war that nobody is talking about.
The Axis Is Shifting.
As Israel continues to successfully destroy the Iranian Shiite axis, Iran’s partner, Qatar, is busy establishing a new and equally dangerous Islamic axis of evil threat to Israel and the freedom-loving world.
In a recent statement, Israeli Minister Amichai Chikli identified the emerging Sunni Axis of Evil, comprising two dangerous imperial visions:
– Qatar ( Muslim Brotherhood)
– Turkey (Erdogan is also Muslim Brotherhood, interested in re-establishing Ottoman caliphate)
– Syria under the caliphate vision championed by Jolani’s al-Qaeda leadership
These are not isolated actors. With their greatest rival, the Iranian-led Shiite axis of evil, now in ruins thanks to Israel, they are increasingly aligning ideologically and politically around a common goal: to reassert Sunni Islamist dominance across the region and to eliminate Israel as a free, democratic, Jewish state.
Anyone who fails to see this, fails to understand both fundamentalist Islam and the true nature of the Middle East.
CONCLUSION: ISRAEL IS WINNING
While headlines and Jewish pundits scream about Israel potentially taking over Gaza, ultimately, we are not fighting for land. We are fighting for our right to exist, to live in peace, and to protect our people from those who glorify death, and that necessitates taking our land back.
This war is exposing the hypocrisy of our enemies, the strength of our people, and the collapse of an axis that thought we were weak.
As we face this shifting reality, Israel remains the front line of the freedom loving world’s defense.
We will not apologize for doing what we have to do. We will not retreat. We will lead.
And to all those worried about the reporting of this war and the number of Jewish voices, including Rabbis, throwing Israel and the Jewish people under the bus, calling for Israel to end this war, just ignore them.
They lack any real understanding of the evil we’re facing or the military and diplomatic precision required to ensure we never experience another October 7th, while Israel continues to achieve extraordinary things to protect not just itself, but the entire freedom-loving world. So stop believing the mainstream narrative and strengthen your faith in Hashem above.
We are winning this multifront war, and we will win. That victory will necessarily include maintaining a permanent presence in Gaza, southern Lebanon, and southern Syria, not simply because these are our biblical lands, but because reality has made one thing clear: despite every diplomatic effort to avoid it, true security will only be achieved when Israel is sovereign in its God-given homeland.
Things still might take some time, but the process is in full swing.
Be proud of that and share this message.
Am Yisrael Chai.
To join the Israel Video Network – Pulse of Israel Group Click Here:
Telegram ➡️ https://t.me/aviabelowpulse
Whatsapp ➡️ https://chat.whatsapp.com/GkavRznXy731nxxRyptCMv
WOKE up! TIERNEY’S REAL NEWS
AUG 30, 2025
Many people wonder how in the world the planet got so crazy and woke, so fast, including me. I know there are lots of historical precedents to woke concepts like transgenderism, DEI, ESG and climate change, but, as usual, we can follow the money to see how it all exploded so quickly in just the past few years. And when we do that, we can pretty much pin much of the blame on this guy: Larry Fink, the CEO of BlackRock – and I can prove it to you by using his OWN words against him.
This article is less than 10 minutes long, but takes a complex topic and makes it easy to understand. It’s a must-read if you want to understand the financial future of America and her citizens. I learned a lot writing it.
Larry Fink, who also serves on the board of the WEF, has almost single-handedly blackmailed the entire corporate world to turn WOKE – or BlackRock would defund them and destroy them.
BlackRock controls more than $12.5 trillion in assets worldwide, as of the second quarter of 2025, making it the world’s largest asset manager by far. This figure exceeds the GDP of most countries, except the United States and China. BlackRock and their partners also invest and direct the money for many of the world’s Puppet Masters and the so-called New World Order – and their plans for a One World Currency that they control.
BlackRock holds significant shares in thousands of companies globally (including most of the fake news) and is the largest shareholder in dozens of major multi-national firms. BlackRock represents roughly a quarter of the world’s total financial assets considered “in circulation” by some estimates.
Every year, Larry Fink and BlackRock issue letters to CEOs and global investors and basically TELL THEM WHAT TO DO with their corporations, their countries and their money – OR ELSE.
On March 26, 2025, as usual, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink released his annual Chairman’s Letter to Investors. Compared to previous letters in 2018 and 2022, BlackRock has completely omitted demands in the 2025 letter that countries and corporations succumb to BlackRock’s WOKE ESG policies if they want to survive. BlackRock’s 2025 letter was a major pivot in strategy that the fake news has NOT reported on. I’ve written much about this in the past (and include links to those articles in red in this post) but BlackRock’s 2025 letter is a clear sign they have admitted defeat over WOKE and are moving on to their next scam.
To remind you, ESG is a type of investing where non-financial factors are considered when making investment choices. ESG has grown significantly over the past few years following a push from the United Nations. In a very short time, ESG became an unregulated staple of corporate financial reporting. BlackRock was an early acceptor and advocate for ESG, with Fink leading the charge. As conservatives began pushing back on ESG, criticism of BlackRock and Fink quickly escalated.
In his latest Chairman’s Letter to Investors, Fink avoided the phrase ESG – as it had become too political. Instead of ESG and DEI – he is now opting instead for terms like stakeholder capitalism, sustainable investing, energy pragmatism, energy security, democratization of private markets and climate investing.
Fink said that there is a need for “energy security” spurred by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In other words – BlackRock wants war in Ukraine (and everywhere else) – because they can use it to justify the need for “energy security” and private investment for “infrastructure” and AI projects all over the world.
BlackRock claims that wars and instability create the narrative for why trillions need to be spent THROUGH BlackRock. BlackRock benefits no matter which side wins — they sell the investment products that “solve” the problem.
Larry Fink’s 2025 investor letter also pushes the democratization of private markets, arguing that access to assets like data centers, private credit, power grids, and infrastructure should expand beyond institutions to include retail investors, particularly within 401(k)s. Fink is calling his new guidance the “democratization of investing” using globalization and capital markets. Fink says that the need for new infrastructure investment around the world will be HUGE and he wants private investors, like you and me, to be a part of it. Fink says that by 2040, the global demand for new infrastructure investment is $68 trillion.
Larry Fink is saying BlackRock wants to move away from the term ESG but still push big themes like sustainability and energy security. He sees wars and global instability as justification for more reliable energy and infrastructure. Fink said that means trillions in spending worldwide—the biggest investment opportunity of the next 15 years. And instead of keeping it just for big Wall Street players, he wants to let everyday investors (through their 401(k)s, for example) buy into these large-scale projects. Isn’t that special? Fink is so kind – always thinking of us! NOT.
This isn’t about values; it’s about de-risking BlackRock’s brand while keeping the same investment agenda.
- The pitch: let everyday investors (through 401(k)s or retirement accounts) buy into private assets (infrastructure, private credit, etc.) that used to be for the wealthy only.
- Reality: private assets are harder to value, less liquid, and more opaque than public stocks. That means more risk for retail investors, less accountability for big firms.
Democratization here really means “shifting risk from big institutions onto ordinary people’s retirement savings” while BlackRock collects management fees either way. Calling it a “need” is a sales tactic. The real goal: persuade governments and individuals to funnel money into BlackRock-managed assets under the guise of progress. It’s Wall Street’s classic playbook — turn global instability and genuine human needs (energy, infrastructure) into investment narratives, then channel both government money and individuals’ savings into products that enrich asset managers.
Citizens are locked in on both sides — through taxation (public subsidies) and retirement savings (private contributions). BlackRock positions itself as the trusted “neutral allocator,” but in reality, it becomes the power broker directing global capital flows.
What most people don’t realize is that Trump’s tariffs (and his entire plan based on economic protectionism for We the People) can, in theory, protect us from predators like BlackRock and act as a buffer between ordinary people and the risks of globalization-driven finance.
Without tariffs: people’s retirement savings (401ks, pensions) are tied to globally exposed private investments (ports in Africa, pipelines in Europe, Asian data centers). If instability hits, citizens bear that risk.
This is the real reason that BlackRock, the Communists, the open-border Koch Libertarians and the globalists hate tariffs – because it limits their ability to STEAL MORE OF OUR MONEY.
For proof, compare that to what Fink and BlackRock said in 2018 and 2022. It’s a complete pivot away from DEI, transgenderism and climate change – but the end result is the same. More money for BlackRock – less money and MORE RISK for you and me.
BLACKROCK 2018: Society is demanding that companies, both public and private, serve a social purpose. To prosper over time, every company must not only deliver financial performance, but also show how it makes a positive contribution to society. Companies must benefit all of their stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, customers, and the communities in which they operate.
In the $1.7 trillion in active funds we manage, BlackRock can choose to sell the securities of a company if we are doubtful about its strategic direction or long-term growth. To sustain financial performance, however, you must also understand the societal impact of your business.
We also will continue to emphasize the importance of a diverse board. Boards with a diverse mix of genders, ethnicities, career experiences, and ways of thinking have, as a result, a more diverse and aware mindset. A company’s ability to manage environmental, social, and governance matters demonstrates the leadership and good governance that is so essential to sustainable growth.
Companies must ask themselves: What role do we play in the community? How are we managing our impact on the environment? Are we working to create a diverse workforce? Are we adapting to technological change?
BLACKROCK 2022: Stakeholder capitalism is not about politics. It is not a social or ideological agenda. It is not “woke.” It is capitalism, driven by mutually beneficial relationships between you and the employees, customers, suppliers, and communities your company relies on to prosper. This is the power of capitalism.
It is through effective stakeholder capitalism that capital is efficiently allocated, companies achieve durable profitability, and value is created and sustained over the long-term.
At the foundation of capitalism is the process of constant reinvention – how companies must continually evolve as the world around them changes or risk being replaced by new competitors.
Political activists, or the media, may politicize things your company does. They may hijack your brand to advance their own agendas. In this environment, facts themselves are frequently in dispute, but businesses have an opportunity to lead. Employees are increasingly looking to their employer as the most trusted, competent, and ethical source of information – more so than government, the media, and NGOs.
That is why your voice is more important than ever. It’s never been more essential for CEOs to have a consistent voice, a clear purpose, a coherent strategy, and a long-term view. Your company’s purpose is its north star in this tumultuous environment. The stakeholders your company relies upon to deliver profits for shareholders need to hear directly from you – to be engaged and inspired by you. They don’t want to hear us, as CEOs, opine on every issue of the day, but they do need to know where we stand on the societal issues intrinsic to our companies’ long-term success.
Putting your company’s purpose at the foundation of your relationships with your stakeholders is critical to long-term success. Employees need to understand and connect with your purpose; and when they do, they can be your staunchest advocates. Customers want to see and hear what you stand for as they increasingly look to do business with companies that share their values.
As companies rebuild themselves coming out of the pandemic, CEOs face a profoundly different paradigm than we are used to. Companies expected workers to come to the office five days a week. Mental health was rarely discussed in the workplace. And wages for those on low and middle incomes barely grew. That world is gone.
CEOs need to be asking themselves whether they are creating an environment that helps them compete for talent. At BlackRock we are doing the same: working with our own employees to navigate this new world of work.
The pandemic also shone a light on issues like racial equity, childcare, and mental health – and revealed the gap between generational expectations at work. These themes are now center stage for CEOs, who must be thoughtful about how they use their voice and connect on social issues important to their employees. How is your company’s culture adapting to this new world?
Capital markets have allowed companies and countries to flourish. But access to capital is not a right. It is a privilege. And the duty to attract that capital in a responsible and sustainable way lies with you.
Most stakeholders – from shareholders, to employees, to customers, to communities, and regulators – now expect companies to play a role in decarbonizing the global economy. It’s been two years since I wrote that climate risk is investment risk. And in that short period, we have seen a tectonic shift of capital. Sustainable investments have now reached $4 trillion. Actions and ambitions towards decarbonization have also increased. This is just the beginning. Every company and every industry will be transformed by the transition to a net zero world. The question is, will you lead, or will you be led?
I believe the decarbonizing of the global economy is going to create the greatest investment opportunity of our lifetime. How are you preparing for and participating in the net zero transition? As your industry gets transformed by the energy transition, will you go the way of the dodo, or will you be a phoenix?
We focus on sustainability not because we’re environmentalists, but because we are capitalists and fiduciaries to our clients. As part of that focus, we are asking companies to set short-, medium-, and long-term targets for greenhouse gas reductions. Governments and companies must ensure that people continue to have access to reliable and affordable energy sources.
As stewards of our clients’ capital, we also ask businesses to demonstrate how they’re going to deliver on their responsibility to shareholders, including through sound environmental, social, and governance practices (ESG) and policies.
The Plot to Get RFK BY JAMES LYONS-WEILER
JULY 1, 2025 Brownstone Institute
An apparent leaked minutes document suggests that a trade association held a meeting in April to undo the confirmation of Kennedy by the duly elected US Senate. It is embedded below.
Caveat and Clarification
All references to individuals, statements, or actions attributed in the leaked minutes of the BIO Vaccine Policy Steering Committee meeting held on April 3, 2025, should be understood as excerpts from an internal document that has not been publicly authenticated by the named parties. These statements represent the content of the document as obtained and published, and do not constitute confirmed factual claims about the intent, conduct, or positions of any individual mentioned. The document reflects the internal framing and strategy of BIO and is presented here for the public to assess, interpret, and investigate. Readers are encouraged to seek independent confirmation, request public statements from the individuals involved, and draw conclusions based on full context and corroborating evidence. The document was received anonymously by whistleblowers and provided to Popular Rationalism for public analysis. Its provenance is under review.
On the eve before the US Senate reconvenes, a detailed secret trade-association memo plotting the removal of US Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has leaked. It reads like a coup attempt against regulatory reform—and they are spending millions to make sure Kennedy is out of office by September.
It seems that the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO), whose membership includes Pfizer, Merck, Novavax, Vaxcyte, and hundreds of biotech firms that profit from regulatory insulation, has a mole. This article critiques the documented lobbying behavior of the trade group BIO, not the internal operations or clinical data of its member corporations.
When the nation’s leading pharmaceutical trade group convenes a closed-door strategy meeting and openly discusses the need to “go to The Hill and lobby that it is time for RFK Jr. to go,” the issue is no longer health policy—it is democratic integrity.
According to the apparent leaked minutes, verified by the name of the creator of the file, on April 3, 2025, BIO held a “Vaccine Policy Steering Committee” (VPSC) meeting whose internal summary, soon to be publicly available thanks to whistleblowers, reveals a campaign of strategic deception, institutional capture, and psychological warfare and exposes a campaign of institutional deception, investor protection, and coordinated sabotage of the MAHA reform platform.
According to the leaked document, titled “BIO Vaccine Policy Steering Committee – April 3, 2025”, BIO has committed $2 million—half of its cash reserve—to counter what it calls the “threat” posed by Kennedy’s rise. But this is no ordinary PR push. It is a multi-pronged campaign designed to deceive the public, silence dissent, and preserve industry dominance through influence operations masquerading as science.
The Plot Exposed
The document opens with a blunt political calculation: Kennedy’s candidacy threatens investor confidence, regulatory predictability, and the long-term viability of the vaccine business. BIO leadership in the apparent leaked document states plainly: “It is time to go to The Hill and lobby that it is time for RFK Jr to go.”
To achieve this, according to the document, BIO intends to deploy surrogates across the political spectrum, co-opt conservative influencers, and bypass direct engagement with the Kennedy campaign altogether. Among the figures named as potential allies in this covert effort: Dr. Mehmet Oz, former Senator Richard Burr (former Senator NC; Advisor DLA Piper Health Policy Steering Committee), Senator Bill Cassidy (in a section of the document focused on strategic influencer engagement and legislative positioning), and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). These individuals and institutions, the memo suggests, can provide a veneer of bipartisan legitimacy to BIO’s core aim: neutralize Kennedy without ever addressing the substance of his critique.
Follow the Money
The most revealing detail is that $2 million—precisely half of BIO’s entire $4 million reserve—has been allocated to vaccine communications, specifically a D.C.-area pilot campaign called “Why We Vaccinate.” The purpose is not education, but behavioral influence: to combine “inspire and frighten” tactics in order to manipulate public sentiment and legislative behavior.
Internal documents state clearly that the campaign’s goal is to appeal to the “movable middle” using emotionally charged messaging, capitalizing on fear messaging tied to national security, workforce resilience, and economic productivity.
Why such an aggressive push? Because, as Vaxcyte COO Jim Wassil apparently warned, “investors have stated they are leaving until the next data readout,” citing Kennedy’s “unpredictability” as a systemic disruption to the vaccine capital pipeline.
Given Kennedy’s demand for restored liability, long-term data, and placebo-controlled trials, BIO appears to view Kennedy’s proposals as a threat to the entire shortcut pipeline BIO built under EUA conditions.
BIO’s fear is not scientific opposition—it’s that Kennedy’s regulatory scrutiny may render their current profit model obsolete. “According to the document’s summary, one participant expressed concern that “Investors are sitting on the sidelines for the next 6–9 months.“ Capital has fled the vaccine sector, and Kennedy’s reform agenda is making it difficult for pharma executives to assure investors that the regulatory terrain remains exploitable.
As a reminder, these statements are drawn from the contents of an internal memo that has not been publicly confirmed by the named individuals. Interpretations remain provisional.
Hijacking Language
The VPSC meeting wasn’t just about funding. It was also about redefining language. BIO officials emphasized a shift in framing—from “protect,” “defend,” and “maintain” to “streamline,” “optimize,” and “enhance.”
But these are not reforms. They read as an attempt at narrative laundering operations. When BIO says “efficiency,” it means fewer safety requirements. When it says “resilience,” it means consumer obedience, not protection from harms from vaccines held to the Kennedy Bar. And when it says “transparency,” it means secretive PR-managed theater, not data disclosure.
This is rhetorical mimicry—a deliberate tactic to adopt the aesthetic of reform while preserving the machinery of capture. This differs from standard PR in that it aims to overwrite language itself: ‘transparency’ is redefined as brand polish; ‘efficiency’ as exemption from oversight—a deliberate attempt to steal the language of biomedical reform while ensuring that no structural reform ever occurs—and no one notices the difference.
Divide and Conquer
BIO’s strategic calculus is unmistakable: avoid confronting RFK, Jr. head-on and instead flood the surrounding narrative space with surrogate voices engineered to appear neutral, authoritative, and scientifically grounded.
The April 3 memo explicitly recommends targeting “Makary and Trump Insiders vs RFK, Jr.,” signaling an intention to bypass public debate in favor of internal triangulation. Within this framework, Dr. Mehmet Oz is floated as a potential “public health voice of reason within WH,” praised for his healthcare credentials and presumed credibility with conservative audiences.
While no specific action is proposed, the implication is clear—the document suggests BIO may aim to elevate Oz as a counterweight to Kennedy’s reform agenda by leveraging his media fluency and perceived scientific legitimacy to repackage industry talking points under the guise of responsible governance. This is not policy—it’s psychological misdirection through proxy, as the document implies.
The document also names AEI as a “trusted” conduit for pro-vaccine messaging, with Scott Gottlieb calling the MAHA movement a “cover for an anti-vaccine campaign.” It floats Dr. Oz as a possible public face of White House-aligned medical messaging. It outlines plans to use conservative constituents and influencers not to question BIO’s agenda, but to normalize it among skeptics.
Nowhere in the document is there any serious discussion of scientific debate. Nowhere is there a plan to confront Kennedy’s actual policy proposals—such as the Kennedy Bar, which calls for preclinical safety testing, raw data publication, long-term health tracking, and restoration of manufacturer liability. Instead, BIO’s plan is to erase Kennedy’s credibility through managed optics and surrogate deployment.
Fear of the Public
BIO’s own admissions reveal the true motive behind this campaign: fear. Not of disease, but of regulatory disruption. With RFK, Jr. and Commissioner Makary and team tightening standards, BIO executives are alarmed that predictable, post-market surveillance standards are expected to be enforced—and with them, the rapid market influence leverage built during Operation Warp Speed. Behind this campaign: fear. Not of disease, but of accountability.
Novavax, Merck, and Vaxcyte executives appear to express concern over ACIP’s new caution, the FDA’s slow-walking of approvals, and the crumbling of once-reliable regulatory shortcuts. With Kennedy and Commissioner Makary tightening the reins, BIO fears it can no longer exploit the revolving door between industry and agency.
One quote in particular encapsulates the panic: “They keep moving the goalposts on vaccines.”
This is simply not true. The goalposts aren’t moving. For the first time in decades, they are being reinstalled on the actual playing field of science, safety, and consent.
Why September Matters
Though the leaked memo from BIO’s Vaccine Policy Steering Committee never names September outright, its entire architecture reveals a timeline racing toward it. September marks a convergence point—political, narrative, and financial—where BIO knows it must have reshaped the battlefield or risk losing control of it entirely.
By then, Congress will be back in full session after its summer recess, and the fiscal year will near its end, placing vaccine policy, public health budgets, and FDA funding under the spotlight. Appropriations negotiations are not neutral in this climate—they are leverage points. If RFK, Jr. maintains or grows his influence through the summer, BIO faces the real possibility that reformist voices could restrict their easy funding pipelines, delay regulatory approvals, or demand hearings that expose industry-government entanglements.
September is also the reopening of the American schools – and the media mind. Fall marks the relaunch of political programming, the release of think tank policy reports, and the return of the elite opinion economy. BIO’s $2 million “Why We Vaccinate” campaign isn’t just a marketing push—it’s a narrative strike, timed to reassert emotional control over an audience emerging from summer’s distractions. They want to preempt Kennedy’s messaging before he dominates the fall discourse with facts, reform principles, and the moral clarity of a movement demanding consent.
Finally, September sets the tone for the next political cycle. Though national elections won’t be held until later, two House special elections will serve as bellwethers. Candidate filings, local endorsements, and policy positions will crystallize as donors and power brokers assess momentum. BIO knows it has a narrow window to discredit Kennedy before he becomes not just a candidate—but a coalition. That’s why the clock in the memo isn’t ticking toward November. It’s ticking toward September.
Global Implications
BIO’s apparent plot is not isolated. If the leak is genuine, and it appears so far to be, it aligns with other suppression architectures: ESG-based financial pressure on corporations to support mandates, WHO treaty harmonization that threatens sovereign health policy, and social media and AI systems that algorithmically suppress dissent.
- ESG-driven pharma score systems that reward coercive health mandates
- WHO treaty harmonization that threatens national sovereignty
- AI-based censorship systems that erase dissenting medical viewpoints
The April 3 memo must be read not just as a domestic political act, but as a nodal maneuver in a transnational agenda to control the terms of health, science, and consent.
One AEI-aligned strategist even claimed that MAHA was a ‘cover for an anti-vaccine campaign’—a telling attempt to delegitimize not arguments, but their right to exist. Pro-science is now anti-vaccine, and it has been for some time.
This isn’t a war against misinformation. It’s a war against public transparency in science. BIO fears Kennedy not because he is wrong, but because he has exposed the scaffolding of a regime that substitutes marketing for medicine. He has publicly pledged reforms that, if enacted, could disrupt the financial and regulatory relationships this memo appears to protect by requiring the firms actually follow the rules.
The $2 million smear campaign is not a show of strength. It is a confession of institutional fragility—a desperate gambit to buy time before the public finally demands the truth.
This is not a referendum on Kennedy. It is a referendum on whether regulatory science will serve the people or the shareholders.
And this time, the people have the receipts.
James Lyons-Weiler Dr. James Lyons-Weiler is a research scientist and prolific author with over 55 peer-reviewed studies and three books to his name: Ebola: An Evolving Story, Cures vs. Profits, and The Environmental and Genetic Causes of Autism. He is the founder and CEO of the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge (IPAK) and Strategic Director of Policy Integration and Research Realignment at MAHA Institute.
Comments
Comments are closed.