Manufacture Dissent

📽️ Credit: The Tea with Myriam François/YT

We are a fully subscriber supported publication. We feature citizen journalists unapologetically. Help us grow and fuel honest, citizen journalism by becoming a paid member.

Israel and Saudi Arabia quietly aligning themselves long before the public photo ops isn’t sudden. For years, regional reporters have been writing about 'unofficial channels' between Tel Aviv and Riyadh from the early 2010s. What is new, however, is the growing understanding of how those channels were established, who was responsible for setting them up, and the role that cyber-warfare and private capital played.

Jeffrey Epstein is at the heart of this situation, not since he was a kind of geopolitical mastermind, but merely because he had access. Manhattan was his platform, and he used it to get together people who normally wouldn't end up in the same room. As reported by Haaretz and further analysed by Middle East Eye, Epstein met on several occasions with senior figures from Israeli intelligence — including those linked to Unit 8200 and former Mossad leaders — while Saudi Arabia was quietly considering technological partnerships with Israel. Gulf media outlets such as Al-Araby Al-Jadeed have also stated that Saudi intermediaries visited New York under the pretext of private business during that same period.

A recurring theme is the so-called "Shariah-compliant crypto" proposal that Epstein took part in. Financial journalists from the UAE and Bahrain observed that Saudi investors were being approached with regard to blockchain projects presented as being religiously acceptable. What was important wasn't the crypto itself but rather the access; Epstein was gaining entry to people close to Mohammed bin Salman, including advisers who subsequently played a key role in the Crown Prince's tech-security initiative. The fact that Gulf commentators reported in pieces about gifts from the Kaaba being sent to Epstein's circle demonstrates how far some of these intermediaries were prepared to go in order to show their loyalty.

The issue of cyber-surveillance is the point at which the alliance ceases to be merely theoretical. Saudi authorities had already been using Israeli military-grade spyware — particularly Pegasus from the NSO Group — years before the normalisationnormalisation talks were made public. This is no guesswork; it has been documented by Amnesty Tech and Citizen Lab and confirmed by regional media outlets such as Middle East Eye and Al-Jazeera's investigative team. Pegasus was employed to keep an eye on dissidents, clerics and journalists, and it was also used on people who were close to Jamal Khashoggi. The Saudi security services didn't simply purchase the software; they acquired a relationship with Israeli intelligence officers who developed the tools.

The fact that Khashoggi was killed in Istanbul revealed how close the relationship between the two countries really was. The Turkish media, particularly the Anadolu Agency and Sabah, published information showing that Saudi agents had been monitoring Khashoggi's communications before the operation took place. Citizen Lab subsequently verified that Pegasus had been used against people in his circle. Israeli sources, such as those writing for Haaretz, admitted that NSO had sold surveillance equipment to Saudi Arabia while obtaining export licences from the Israeli Ministry of Defence. Therefore, the cyber connection between Saudi Arabia and Israel was not a secret arrangement; it was one that had the approval of the state.

As for the money, Jared Kushner's $2 billion investment from the Saudi Public Investment Fund was not merely a political favour. As regional business publications such as Al-Araby and Gulf Business have pointed out, the fund's initial allocations corresponded with Israel's technology and defence sectors—specifically with firms in the field of cybersecurity, drone manufacturers, and companies associated with former Israeli military officers. Israeli economic reporters have observed that Saudi capital has been slowly entering the Israeli arms sector via private equity vehicles registered in the UAE and Bahrain. The Abraham Accords have made this process easier, but the necessary groundwork had already been put in place.

The result is an image of a shadow pact supported by three main elements: cooperation in the field of intelligence, surveillance technology, and private capital. Epstein’s involvement was not ideological but rather logistical; he brought together people who needed one another—Israeli intelligence officers seeking Gulf clients, Saudi advisers in search of tools to strengthen their power, and Western intermediaries who could transfer money without it being scrutinised.

Regional analysts have been open in stating what this alliance implies. Lebanese and Palestinian commentators regard it as an element of a wider strategy aimed at suppressing dissent throughout the region, while Turkish analysts view it as a security partnership based on a fear of political opposition. Moreover, even some Israeli columnists acknowledge that the relationship with Saudi Arabia has turned into one of the most important unofficial alliances in the Middle East, one that is not the result of diplomacy but rather of surveillance, repression, and money.

The discussions aimed at achieving public normalisation were merely on the surface; the actual alliance—the one that had been established in private rooms as a result of spyware contracts, secret meetings, and investment funds—was already operating. Epstein did not create it; he merely helped to make it more effective.

We are a fully reader-supported publication. We feature citizen journalists unapologetically. Help us grow and fuel honest, citizen journalism by becoming a paid member.

Sources:

📽️ Credit: DoubleDown News YT

Middle East Eye – Epstein, Israeli intelligence, Saudi ties

Haaretz Investigations – Epstein’s Israeli intelligence connections

Al‑Akhbar (Lebanon) – Saudi–Israeli covert coordination

Al‑Araby Al‑Jadeed – Saudi intermediaries and private channels

Mada Masr – Gulf–Israel tech and surveillance cooperation

Al‑Jazeera Investigative Unit – Pegasus in Saudi operations

Amnesty Tech – Pegasus deployment against Saudi dissidents

Citizen Lab – Khashoggi network targeted with Pegasus

Anadolu Agency (Turkey) – Saudi tracking of Khashoggi

Sabah (Turkey) – Istanbul investigation leaks

Gulf Business – Saudi PIF investments and regional tech flows

The National (UAE) – Saudi PIF regional investment patterns

Globes (Israel) – Gulf capital entering Israeli defence firms

Calcalist (Israel) – Israeli cyber firms and Gulf clients

Middle East Monitor – Saudi–Israel normalization groundwork

The UN General Assembly ought to have been a place where justice, accountability, and international law were promoted, but it has in fact become a platform on which an official wanted by the ICC was given a microphone and international attention.

Nasser Asadi felt no need to observe diplomatic convention when he pointed out the blatant hypocrisy; he spoke with a moral clarity that the UN discarded the moment it permitted Benjamin Netanyahu to approach that podium. What kind of morality is this when they are allowing an ICC‑wanted war criminal to speak in front of the whole world as if he's done nothing wrong, as if he did not genocide a whole populace, as if he hasn’t been killing babies in Gaza every single day.

Asadi recalled to the assembly the United Nations' original principles: preventing war, supporting justice, and safeguarding civilians. On the other hand, Netanyahu's appearance before the assembly—while he is undergoing proceedings at the ICC—showed just how far the organisation has strayed from those principles. The UN permitted a man who is accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity to speak without restriction, whereas the Palestinians, the people who have been suffering under his plans of annihilation, were not given the opportunity to have a platform. It revealed the institution's moral collapse in real time.

There is no dispute about the devastation in Gaza; it has been recorded by humanitarian organisations and international observers. Hundreds of thousands have been killed, children have been buried under the ruins, hospitals have been destroyed, universities have been levelled, neighbourhoods have been wiped out, the infrastructure has been deliberately attacked and famine conditions have been deliberately created. Aid has been blocked and water has been cut off and medicine has been withheld. Yet, while Gaza is being destroyed, the UN gives the floor to the man in charge of the destruction.

Yet Iran is subject to heavy sanctions from Western governments even though it has not committed any of the atrocities taking place in Gaza. The United States and Canada have labelled the IRGC as a terrorist organisation, while Israel—whose leader is wanted by the ICC—is regarded as a partner and a democracy. It is a twisted and upside-down world when the countries that are carrying out the bombing of civilians who claim to have moral authority, and the country that is condemning the genocide ends up being punished.

The fact that Israel has for a long time carried out settlement expansions, seized land, maintained a military occupation, and launched attacks in the region is well recorded. Over many decades occupation, displacement, and aggression have determined the situation in which the Palestinians find themselves. Nevertheless the UN still regards Israel as a state that is above being held accountable, even though its actions go against every principle which the organisation says it stands for. So what does it say about the UN if not that it is a farce of an international institution?

Iran has always maintained that it will retaliate against any attack on its civilians or territory. This position is by no means new or extreme; it is the kind of attitude any country would adopt if it were repeatedly attacked. However, while Iran claims the right to defend itself, Western governments describe this as destabilising; and when Israel strikes civilians they refer to it as self-defense. This double standard is structural.

When the delegates left during Netanyahu's speech, the empty chairs provided a symbolic effect, but symbolism has no power to stop bombs. Leaving the room is not a sign of accountability and doesn't amount to justice; it achieves nothing for the families in Gaza who are burying their children. If the UN is to recover its credibility, it must enforce the ICC warrants, suspend arms transfers, impose sanctions on officials who have committed war crimes, recognise Palestine, and end the occupation. Otherwise it is merely putting on a show — a show the world sees right through.

Among the diplomats present, Iran's representative provided uncommon moral clarity by directly addressing the genocide, directly tackling the hypocrisy, and directly challenging the UN's failure. Instead of hiding behind terms such as "concern", "both sides", or "complexity", he had no problem calling out the UN for giving a war criminal a global platform while at the same time silencing the people he is killing. Iran is the only country whose military strategy never aims at civilian infrastructure and which attacks only military-related facilities, and thus it is the one voice that exposes the hypocrisy that the West tries to ignore.

We are a fully subscriber supported publication. We feature citizen journalists unapologetically. Help us grow and fuel honest, citizen journalism by becoming a paid member.

When Ms. Rachel calls what is occurring in Gaza genocide — she is challenging the whole celebrity culture which claims to be neutral while children are being killed. She has been making this point for months: if you have a platform and yet fail to speak out when families are being bombed, starved and trapped, then you are choosing comfort rather than the truth. Silence is not apolitical; silence is a form of permission.

That is the reason her remarks about Ed Sheeran have such an impact. Although he keeps saying that he is "not political", this is not true; he spoke in support of Ukraine and he advocated for the Ukrainians and used his voice even though the entire Western world had already agreed with him. This is not neutrality—it is safe activism and it is the type of "politics" that celebrities enjoy since it involves neither cost nor risk.

But regarding Gaza he becomes silent all of a sudden, takes a neutral position all of a sudden, and suddenly says that he doesn't get involved. Ms. Rachel and most of the sane moral world see right through this. She is not attacking him personally; she is exposing the hypocrisy. It's one thing to care about human rights when the victims in question are politically convenient, and it's quite another to claim to be apolitical when you've already shown that you're willing to speak up but not about the Palestinians.

It's not merely referring to him; she is criticizing the entire class of celebrities who post black squares, rainbow flags, mental-health-related graphics, and all sorts of other 'safe' causes, but who remain completely silent when the subject of Gaza comes up. She is pointing out those individuals who have built their careers on being 'kind', 'empathetic', and 'for the children', even though they are unable to use the word 'genocide' even after UN commissions have reported that Palestinian children are being targeted.

Which is why her voice is important. She isn't a politician and isn't a commentator; she's a person who really works with children and therefore understands the moral implication when a society chooses that certain children should not live. She speaks from a position of moral clarity when she states that she has read the UN genocide reports and when she says the most recent one was about children, rather than from a view point of public relations.

'Why can't we say that Palestinians should be free?' — shows that everyone else is being cowardly. She is correct in that it shouldn't be controversial to state that no child should be bombed, no family should be left trapped, and no population should have to live under apartheid. Yet the celebrities remain silent because they are afraid of losing their brand deals, their followers, and their industry connections. They fear being regarded as 'difficult' and they fear having to tell the truth.

Miss Rachel isn't; she calls it genocide because it is genocide, she speaks of freedom because the Palestinians deserve it, and she says the thing which all people know but are unwilling to say because to say it would require action.

The real issue here is that she's not merely referring to a crime—she's exposing the selective activism, the false neutrality, and the performative empathy of celebrities who only take a stand when it's safe, and she's demonstrating what true moral clarity amounts to in a situation where children's lives are considered negotiable.

Not all heroes wear capes. Some wear a pink headband and bring a level of moral bravery that’s missing in most of celebrity culture.

We are a fully reader supported publication. We feature citizen journalists unapologetically. Help us grow and fuel honest, citizen journalism by becoming a paid member.

Video Credit & Full Episode: Ilana Glazer/YT

We are a fully subscriber-supported publication. We feature citizen journalists unapologetically. Help us grow and fuel honest, citizen journalism by becoming a paid member.

The Broadway stage creates an intoxicating illusion of complete artistic freedom. The warm light, performers commanding the room channel raw human emotion to challenge power and move audiences to tears. Yet, as industry revelations highlight, the spotlight is rarely an emblem of autonomy. Instead, it functions as a strictly engineered, tightly controlled space where stepping even a fraction outside the line means risking total career erasure.

But striking allegations from actress Allie Trimm, who played Glinda in Broadway’s mega-hit Wicked, have pulled back the curtain on the shady business behind the bright stage. Trimm described an active “censorship regime” enforced by top theatrical leadership, specifically zionist mega-producer Marc Platt.

According to Trimm, actors were handed rigid boundaries regarding their public commentary. When testing the limits of these parameters, Trimm inquired whether hypothetical anti-trans statements would be tolerated, a topic typically treated as a career-ending third rail in Broadway’s progressive circles. Bafflingly, the leadership allegedly permitted broad leeway on cultural issues—with one rigid, non-negotiable exception: Palestine. The enforcement was immediate. When Trimm posted in support of the Palestinian Children’s Relief Fund, a recognised medical charity, management explicitly instructed her to excise the word “Palestine” entirely.

This alleged top-down control was echoed in broader reports across the industry, including claims that Platt flew across the country from New York to Los Angeles to personally pressure actress Rachel Zegler into deleting a “Free Palestine” tweet. Bypassing standard layers of publicists, legal buffers, and crisis managers for an in-person, cross-country intervention underscores the asymmetrical power dynamic at play. It serves as a physical demonstration of expendability, signalling that even marquee talent remains vulnerable to wage labour under the thumb of capital.

To understand this double standard, one must look at the financial foundation of commercial entertainment. While Broadway markets itself as a bastion of radical inclusion and speaking truth to power, its funding apparatus is deeply risk-averse. Mega-producers must protect massive investments pooled from wealthy donors and institutional boards. In this environment, executive leadership performs cold, algorithmic calculations. Standard PR controversies can be navigated, but any mention of Palestine is treated as an existential risk to investor capital.

For a performer, this algorithmic control inflicts profound moral injury. Hired to summon boundless empathy under the proscenium arch, artists find their off-stage empathy aggressively policed and commodified. When basic humanitarian concern for children is deemed a terminable liability, the artist’s public persona ceases to be their own.

As audiences grow increasingly cynical toward hollow corporate posturing, this dynamic forces a vital realisation: celebrity activism is often carefully sanitised through invisible workplace censorship. When an artist’s livelihood hinges on silence, what remains visible is not the conscience of the performer, but the carefully managed comfort of the billionaires who own the stage and love Israel.

We are a fully subscriber-supported publication. We feature citizen journalists unapologetically. Help us grow and fuel honest, citizen journalism by becoming a paid member.

📽️: 1st video — JULIESAYSTHINGS on Tiktok

2nd video — https://x.com/academic_la/status/2103038591953993859

We are a fully reader supported publication. We feature citizen journalists unapologetically. Help us grow and fuel honest, citizen journalism by becoming a paid member.

The fact that Israel is taking action against Britain is not merely a one-off diplomatic disagreement. It is part of a long-standing and foreseeable pattern: whenever anyone criticises Israel they receive a retaliatory response. Whether the critic is a government, a journalist, a human rights organisation or a celebrity makes no difference. As soon as someone goes against Israel, the country responds not with argument or with evidence but with punishment.

Britain had prohibited the import of settlers and had used the term “ethnic cleansing” to describe the situation in the West Bank is no radical thing; that expression has in fact been employed for years by human rights organisations, UN experts and legal scholars. But when a major Western government used it, it broke the silence and ended the taboo. And Israel has always reacted in this way by trying to make the critic pay.

The UK consulate in Jerusalem has been located there since 1838 and thus predates the state of Israel by over a hundred years; it has survived the Ottoman period, the British Mandate, Jordanian rule and all the various stages of Israeli administration. Israel now wishes for it to be closed — not since the building poses a threat, not because of security considerations, not because of any policy reason. The reason Israel wants it closed is that Britain dared to speak plainly.

That is the way in which Israel functions. It does not respond to allegations with facts. It does not address the actual issues. Instead, it moves directly to intimidation, then to erasure, and then to consequences.

On the publication of its report on apartheid, Israel did not challenge the findings but instead launched an attack on Amnesty, banned its staff, and sought to undermine the organisation. The Israeli foreign ministry described Amnesty’s report as “a collection of lies” and then urged European governments to break relations with the group; it also attempted to prevent Amnesty’s director in Israel from travelling.

When Human Rights Watch published its own report on apartheid, Israel expelled HRW’s director, Omar Shakir, completely from the country—for the first time in the organisation’s history has a government physically removed a senior researcher for having documented abuses. Israel did not challenge the evidence; it just got rid of him.

When the ICC started to look into war crimes, Israel neither co-operated nor defended its actions. The country described the Court as antisemitic, urged its allies to prevent funding from going through, and even threatened ICC officials with personal sanctions. The Israeli government publicly said that the ICC judges were “targeting Jews”, a move intended at stopping the investigation before it could get under way.

When the UN agencies recorded cases of civilians being killed, Israel never dealt with the evidence. Instead, it attacked the UN, disgraced the investigators, and attempted to close off the channels for reporting. Israel repeatedly refused entry to the UN Special Rapporteurs, such as Michael Lynk and Francesca Albanese, which meant that they were unable to carry out on-the-ground investigations.

When journalists were reporting from Gaza, Israel referred to them as terrorists, took away their credentials, or attacked their offices. During the 2021 attack on Gaza, Israel carried out bombing raids on both the AP and Al Jazeera buildings, stating — although providing no evidence — that Hamas was within them. In 2022, when Shireen Abu Akleh was killed, Israel first put the blame on the Palestinians, then blamed her, and afterwards criticised media organisations for being ‘biased’, rather than acknowledging the fact that she had been shot even though she was clearly identifiable as a member of the press.

Those are not the only instances either. Israel has a well-documented history of retaliating against journalists: Gideon Levy has suffered physical attacks and threats because of his reporting on civilian deaths in Gaza; Al Jazeera has had its offices closed down and its equipment seized; and Middle East Eye reporters have been prevented from entering and have been described as “hostile actors”.

Whenever celebrities took a stand, Israel brought in lobbying groups, public relations firms, and exercised political pressure in an attempt to have them silenced. Following Bella Hadid’s posting on Palestinian rights, Israeli authorities publicly charged her with “advocating genocide”, and pro-Israel organisations started campaigns urging companies to withdraw their support from her. When Natalie Portman declined to attend an Israeli award ceremony, the minister of culture in Israel accused her of “falling into the hands of BDS”. After The Weeknd donated two million dollars to Gaza relief, Israeli lobbying groups asked his management to “clarify” their position. Roger Waters was described as a “Jew-hater”, venues were pressured to cancel his concerts, and governments were lobbied to ban him. Zayn Malik also came under coordinated smear campaigns alleging that he was “supporting extremism” after he posted about Gaza.

Manufacture Dissent is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Governments also suffer in return. When Spain recognised Palestine in 2024, Israel prevented Spanish humanitarian workers from entering Gaza and launched a public attack on Spain’s foreign minister. Ireland criticised Israel’s bombing of Rafah, whereupon Israel recalled its ambassador and threatened to “reassess relations”. South Africa brought the genocide case before the ICJ and as a result Israel severed diplomatic ties and accused the whole government of supporting terrorism. Having condemned Israel’s bombing of Gaza in 2014, Brazil was mocked by Israel, who referred to Brazil’s military as “a diplomatic dwarf”. Norway’s support of a women’s centre named after a Palestinian figure led Israel to freeze cooperation agreements and urge Norway to withdraw its funding.

Even Israeli academics can come under retaliatory measures. Neve Gordon was the subject of pressure from politicians who wanted him dismissed for having written on the subject of apartheid. Ilan Pappé was expelled altogether from Israeli academia after he had recorded the 1948 expulsions. Israel has prevented access to its archives, reclassified documents, and threatened to take legal action against historians who question the official version of events.

Neither technology companies nor corporations have escaped such treatment. When Ben & Jerry’s ceased selling ice cream as a result of the settlements, Israel threatened to take legal action, pressured Unilever, the parent company, and encouraged the various U.S. states to finanically penalise the brand. Meta came under pressure to censor content relating to Palestine, and when internal reports revealed this, Israel targeted the researchers rather than responding to the findings.

The United Nations organisations come under constant retaliation. Israel has severed its connections with the UN Human Rights Council, refused to allow investigators entry and induced its allies to withdraw funding from the council. It labelled the commissioners on the UN Commission of Inquiry as ‘antisemitic’ and has made an attempt to halt the entire inquiry. Moreover, Israel has threatened diplomatic retaliation against members of the UN Security Council who vote in favour of ceasefire resolutions.

Retaliation specific to Gaza goes on continuously. Journalists who are recording the famine are accused of “lying for Hamas”. Aid groups which are reporting cases of starvation have their permits taken away and their trucks prevented from moving. Doctors who talk about hospital bombings are labelled as “propagandists”, their hospitals are then attacked, and international medical organisations are put under pressure to silence them.

It is a reflexive act of retaliation, used as a shield, and serves as a warning to all others: “If you criticise us, we’ll make you regret it.”

This action taken against Britain is merely the most recent instance, but it has been more conspicuous since Britain is a major Western government, a long-time ally and a country which generally avoids coming to confrontation with Israel. Instead of expressing a diplomatic disagreement, Israel responded with a threat to wipe out a consulate that has existed for centuries.

Israel is not afraid of the sanctions in themselves, but is afraid of the precedent they might set. If Britain can ban imports of settlement goods, then other countries can as well. If Britain can use the term ‘ethnic cleansing’, then others can do so too. Israel’s concern is that Western governments may cease to protect it from being held accountable.

Israel then responds in a severe, dramatic and punitive manner because its objective is not to deal with the problem but to frighten all the other countries into not imitating Britain’s actions.

This time, however, the retaliation is having the opposite effect. Britain has not changed its decision, the EU is currently discussing analogous measures, human rights organisations are reinforcing their position, and in the United States cracks are showing in the political barrier which has for decades protected Israel; some members of Congress have openly raised questions about military aid, several American universities have severed their connections with Israeli institutions because of concerns regarding human rights, and major churches — such as the Presbyterian Church USA — have officially declared that Israel is an apartheid society.

The fact that Israel is responding aggressively is not causing the criticism to cease; on the contrary, it is showing that there is reason for the criticism.

The pattern is now being seen by the world: Israel regards accountability as a form of attack, sees criticism as a threat, and views anyone who speaks out as an enemy to be punished. Each retaliatory action only makes the pattern more clear.

Britain spoke of ethnic cleansing. In reply, Israel attempted to destroy a consulate which predates the state itself. That isn’t diplomacy; it’s fear; it’s a lack of security; it’s a country so used to going unchecked that any challenge seems like a threat to its very existence.

The greater the retaliation by Israel, the more governments come to the realization that silence had never been neutrality—it had been equivalent to enabling.

We are a fully reader supported publication. We feature citizen journalists unapologetically. Help us grow and fuel honest, citizen journalism by becoming a paid member.

Sources:

📽️: https://x.com/MiddleEastEye/status/2102784951888359657

UK – Settlement Ban & “Ethnic Cleansing” Statement https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/sep/23/uk-ban-israeli-settlement-imports https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-69043211 https://www.gov.uk/world/organisations/british-consulate-general-jerusalem

Amnesty International – Apartheid Report Retaliation https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid-against-palestinians https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-slams-amnesty-report-as-antisemitic-and-false

Human Rights Watch – Omar Shakir Expulsion https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/04/27/israel-apartheid-threshold-crossed https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/11/25/israel-expels-human-rights-watchs-omar-shakir

ICC War Crimes Investigation Retaliation https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/icc-prosecutor-opens-investigation-situation-palestine https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-condemns-icc-decision-open-war-crimes-probe-2021-03-03

UN Special Rapporteurs – Denied Entry https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2017/06/israel-refuses-cooperate-un-human-rights-expert https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/12/15/israel-denies-entry-to-un-rapporteur-on-palestine

Journalists – Retaliation https://apnews.com/article/israel-middle-east-gaza-violence-media-targeted-2021 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/5/26/un-says-israeli-forces-killed-shireen-abu-akleh https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2014-07-14/ty-article/.premium/gideon-levy-attacked-at-ashkelon/0000017f-e1e4-df7c-a5ff-f3e4b6e30000 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/5/israel-shuts-down-al-jazeera-offices

Celebrities – Retaliation https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/bella-hadid-israel-palestine-instagram-b1852847.html https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43839778 https://www.theguardian.com/music/2023/jun/06/roger-waters-berlin-police-investigation https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/zayn-malik-targeted-israel-supporters-palestine-posts

Governments – Retaliation https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-criticises-spain-recognising-palestine-2024-05-22 https://www.irishtimes.com/world/middle-east/2024/06/04/israel-summons-irish-ambassador-over-criticism https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/12/29/south-africa-files-genocide-case-against-israel-at-icj https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/24/israel-brazil-diplomatic-dwarf-gaza https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-freezes-cooperation-norway-over-palestinian-centre-2017-05-28

Israeli Academics – Retaliation https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/aug/14/israel-academic-boycott-neve-gordon https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2017/3/30/ilan-pappe-the-israeli-historian-who-was-forced-out https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2022-07-21/ty-article/.premium/israel-reclassifies-documents-on-1948-war/00000182-0f7e-df5e-a1fb-7f7e8f8e0000

Corporations / Tech – Retaliation https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/19/business/ben-and-jerrys-israel.html https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/10/25/facebook-censorship-palestine-israel https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/facebook-censored-palestinian-content-israel-pressure-report

UN Bodies – Retaliation https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/6/13/israel-quits-un-human-rights-council https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-slams-un-inquiry-palestinian-territories-2022-06-07 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/26/un-security-council-votes-on-gaza-ceasefire-resolution

Gaza-Specific Retaliation https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/3/18/gaza-journalists-face-starvation-threats-israel https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-blocks-aid-gaza-famine-worsens https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/14/gaza-doctors-hospitals-israel-attacks

In this video we highlight a young creator from Iran, Mohsen Johari. He talks about the reality of Hijab in Iran from a pro-Iran perspective.

His arguments include rebutting western media narrative about Hijab and opression of women in Iran.

He talks about the history of pre-Islamic culture of Hijab.

He highlights cross cultural parallels of the Abrahamic cultures.

The Goharshad Mosque Massacre

Reza Shah's forceful unveiling of women

Hijab Law

Comparison with western culture and pressure on women

Israel is now a fully genocidal terrorist state, whose only goal is to kill as many arabs as possible. While the world is focused on what the clowns of the USA are doing in and to Iran, Israel has been continuing to commit genocide against people; this time it’s in Lebanon.

Southern Lebanon has been absorbing Israeli assaults for decades, but the past three months have been the Gazafication of the region. Entire families are being wiped out, which begs the question that Steve Sweeny is rightly asking. My answer is, yes. Israel never stopped committing a genocide; it only relocated the genocide from Gaza to Southern Lebanon.

Israeli violence and bloodlust are so apparent that even mainstream news outlets are pointing out the genocidal actions, although without referring to it as a genocide. Israel's strikes keep hitting civilian homes, cars, entire neighbourhoods, and add family gatherings to it, including funerals. This is not striking Hezbollah; this is the killing of generations of Lebanese Shia’s.

Three Generations Gone

According to Common Dreams, an Israeli strike on Kfar Rumman killed three generations of a single family, including a two-month-old infant, in a residential building with no apparent military target. However, this is not an isolated incident; it's merely the newest end of an entire family tree. Al Jazeera has continually reported how such strikes have destroyed several families in Tyre, Sidon, Nebatieh, and the list goes on. An investigation from Amnesty International has concluded that several of these strikes in the region constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity. Again, just refraining from using the obvious word to be used, GENOCIDE.

CBS reported an incident of a father and his three children being killed in a strike that the Israeli military took responsibility for. Their statement: civilians were killed while targeting a Hezbollah target. Who was the Hezbollah target? Israel never named the operative, so it is safe to assume it was “strike anything that moves.”

Only Escalation. No Going Back Now.

While Lebanese officials, including the US-installed Prime Minister, Nawaf Salam, are calling these daily strikes from Israel massacres, Israeli officials continue using Hezbollah as a pretext to kill as many Lebanese people as possible every day. Israeli Terrorist Military statements are clear: there will be no withdrawal of troops from Southern Lebanon. This means there will be no ceasefire, even if it’s just for PR.

Is This Genocide?

Steve Sweeney’s question- is Israel committing genocide in Lebanon? — is no longer rhetorical. When you have:

* Entire families wiped out

* Civilian homes repeatedly targeted

* No military objectives found

* No warnings issued

* Thousands killed and tens of thousands injured

* A pattern continuing despite ceasefire agreements

Your eyes are not lying. For Israel, this is about the erasure of Lebanese in Southern Lebanon. One of the main reasons we know what Israel is doing is horrific and possibly a genocide is the effective media blackout of coverage of Lebanon on prime time about the scale of casualties in Lebanon so far.

Lebanese Ministry of Health reports 9000 deaths, over 30600 injured, and countless homes levelled. The erasure of entire families for months without reprieve definitely means one thing in the least, intent to commit genocide.

How long will the world take to call what is happening in Southern Lebanon a genocide? Do we have to wait for hundreds of thousands more to die, like in Gaza, for the world to concede Israel is committing a genocide in Lebanon?

We are a fully subscriber-supported publication. We feature citizen journalists unapologetically. Help us grow and fuel honest, citizen journalism by becoming a paid member.

📽️ Source: https://x.com/SweeneySteve/status/2102654713925603651

Other Sources:

Common Dreams – Israeli strike kills three generations of a Lebanese family

Al Jazeera – Israeli strikes kill families across southern Lebanon

Eastern Herald – Israeli strike on Ansar kills children and family members

CBS / Associated Press – Israeli strike kills father and three children in Lebanon

Amnesty International – Israel’s unlawful strikes on homes in Lebanon