Pages

▼

Tuesday, September 16, 2025

09/16 Links Pt1: Israel condemns ‘distorted and false’ UN Commission accusation of genocide; Why Trump Let Netanyahu Strike Hamas in Doha

From Ian:

Michael Doran: Why Trump Let Netanyahu Strike Hamas in Doha
If Trump and Netanyahu are better coordinated than they let on, what was the point of the attack in Doha? There were five major strategic goals, the first of which was to convince Hamas that only the Trump plan holds any prospect of ending the Gaza conflict.

On September 7, Trump announced a Gaza peace proposal, claiming Israel’s acceptance, which demands Hamas release the remaining 48 hostages (about 20 of whom are presumed to be alive), disarm, and cede power in exchange for a ceasefire, a prisoner swap, and U.S.-led reconstruction. Hamas rejected the plan, viewing it as surrender, and sought amendments for a permanent Israeli withdrawal and retention of political dominance in Gaza. The Israelis perceive significant differences between Hamas in Gaza and Hamas in Doha. Gaza’s leaders—second- and third-tier figures elevated by the deaths of their commanders—show greater readiness for compromise than Doha’s leaders, some of whom are close to Iran.

Israel’s attack aimed to eliminate this intransigent wing. Reports indicate senior Hamas leaders like al-Hayya and Khaled Meshaal survived, with al-Hayya reportedly stepping out to pray just before the strike. Five lower-level Hamas members, including al-Hayya’s son and one Qatari security official, were reportedly killed.

The second goal was to fulfill an Israeli promise. “Every member of Hamas is a dead man,” Netanyahu said after October 7, 2023. International calls for a ceasefire—from French president Emmanuel Macron, UK prime minister Keir Starmer, or Senator Bernie Sanders—pressure Netanyahu to renege on that commitment. But destroying Hamas aligns with the Netanyahu Doctrine: no monsters on Israel’s borders. Before October 7, Israel allowed groups like Hamas and Hezbollah to grow, believing deterrence and diplomacy could manage them. That assumption no longer holds.

Netanyahu’s goal of eradicating Hamas enjoys stronger backing from Trump than many realize. Together with former British prime minister Tony Blair, Trump and Israel are working on a plan for an interim governing body, supported by regional powers under U.S. oversight, allowing Israel to withdraw militarily while preventing Hamas’s return. Israeli security services would retain “overarching rights,” including buffer zones along Gaza’s borders. Trump and Netanyahu hope to implement this plan soon, possibly within months.

An offensive to take Gaza City, the essential prelude to the plan, is already underway. Netanyahu intends to divide Gaza into two sectors: one governed by Hamas and one by the interim authority. Once a non-Hamas sector exists, Israel expects Gazans to flee the Hamas-run sector for safer conditions. If Hamas accepts the Trump plan, the offensive would be unnecessary. The failure to kill Doha’s leaders does not derail the plan, and Israel’s resolve may yet convince Hamas leaders and Gazans that Hamas has no future.

The third goal was to signal to Iran that there is no return to business as usual. Since the 12-day war, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has remained defiant, rejecting accommodation with Trump, who demands zero uranium enrichment. Khamenei claims a “decisive victory” over Israel and the U.S., dismisses U.S. strikes as ineffective, warns of “irreparable damage” if pressure continues, and pursues indirect European negotiations to divide the West.

Netanyahu’s goal of eradicating Hamas enjoys stronger backing from Trump than many realize.

The fourth goal, as many analysts have noted, was to convince Qatar, host and funder of Hamas’s political leadership, to change its behavior. But this goal, expressed openly by Netanyahu, conceals a broader strategic concern: signaling resolve to Turkey.

A key Hamas supporter, Turkey seeks to expand its military presence in Syria. On September 8, Israel reportedly struck a warehouse in Homs, Syria, destroying Turkish-made missiles and air defense equipment. The Doha strike followed the next day, demonstrating Israel’s ability to hit targets anywhere, even in a U.S.-allied state like Qatar.

However, like Israel, Turkey is among the elite U.S. allies with the will and capacity to act independently. Trump has developed a new model of alliance management, treating Israel not as a client but as America’s right arm against Iran and its proxies. The results are evident: Washington and Jerusalem have dealt blows to Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iran’s nuclear program.

Hamas Thought Qatar Was Safe. Israel Proved Otherwise.
But a superpower must also manage friends, especially those who dislike each other. The Trump-Netanyahu routine may serve against Iran, but Turkey is another matter. Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan brings his own ambitions and leverage, and neither Washington nor Jerusalem can simply cow him. What is needed is not more pressure but deft diplomacy—above all, a strategy that turns Syria into a buffer between America’s two most capable allies. Without such a buffer, the rivalry between Jerusalem and Ankara could slide into open conflict, undoing Trump’s successes. To paraphrase Robert Frost, good buffers make good neighbors.

In sum, the Doha strike was not just about killing al-Hayya, changing Hamas’s calculus, or reorienting Qatar. It was about shaping a new regional order. Trump and Netanyahu are rewriting the rules of alliance politics in the Middle East: Israel as America’s sword arm, Turkey as its restless partner, Iran as the common enemy. The good cop-bad cop routine has bruised Iran badly, but shaping a durable order will require sustained diplomacy as well as force. Nixon and Kissinger showed that even in moments of strength, power had to be joined to diplomacy. If Trump wants his new model of alliance politics to endure, he would do well to follow their example.
Israel to UN Security Council: Where Was Your Indignation on October 7 When Our Sovereignty Was Breached?
After Israel's targeted strike on Hamas leaders in Qatar, the UN Security Council convened an "emergency session" on Sep. 11 to unanimously condemn the Israeli action.

Israeli UN Ambassador Danny Danon challenged the Council's selective outrage:

"Where was your indignation on October 7, when our sovereignty was breached and Israeli civilians were butchered by Hamas? What have we heard from this Council since then? Silence, silence."

"When bin Laden was eliminated in Pakistan, the world did not ask why a terrorist was targeted on foreign soil - but why he was sheltered there in the first place. There was no immunity for bin Laden, and there can be no immunity for Hamas."
The Post-October 7 Security Strategy Driving Israeli Actions
Hamas's brutal attack on Oct. 7, 2023 - which left 1,200 dead and hundreds more held captive - made clear to Israel's leaders and citizens alike that the country must change its approach to national security to ensure its survival. Oct. 7 demonstrated that it is impossible to contain groups such as Hamas or to accept their existence along Israel's borders without compromising the country's safety.

In the subsequent two years, Israeli decision-makers have discarded old security paradigms in favor of new strategies. Israel had generally sought to limit its actions to the minimum necessary to remove immediate threats and restore quiet. Today, however, Israel is no longer content with weakening, rather than defeating, its adversaries. Instead, Israeli leaders are much more willing to employ the country's military strength to proactively shape a new order that protects its national interests.

Israel's targeted killings of senior leaders in Iran, Lebanon, Qatar, and elsewhere show that Israel no longer adheres to redlines that its neighbors believed it would never cross. Israel will not grant immunity to any leaders of hostile groups, no matter their political title or location, if Israel believes they are involved in terrorist activity. Israel is willing to establish war goals that are far more ambitious than the ones it has pursued in the past, even if achieving those goals is costly and requires sustained or multifront military action.

Israel must avoid security concessions based on visions of peace that overlook the hatred of Israel and extremist views that have taken root among the Palestinians and other Arab populations. As soon as Israel suggests a compromise for peace, countries hostile to Israel see it as evidence that the country will buckle under pressure.

There is only one way to truly end the conflict in Gaza: removing Hamas as the dominant force and demilitarizing the territory by ridding it of weapons in the hands of hostile actors; killing, capturing, or exiling the vast majority of enemy commanders and fighters; and dismantling any infrastructure that allows Hamas to manufacture weapons or maintain its rule. By embracing a strategy that prioritizes real security concerns over wishful diplomacy and proactive intervention over reactive restraint, Israel is making itself stronger, not weaker. It can thrive only if its borders are secure, existential challenges on its periphery are removed, and its regional partnerships grow deeper.


UN Watch: UN Watch Rebuttal: Legal Analysis of Pillay Commission’s September 2025 Report to Human Rights Council
On September 16, 2025, the Pillay Commission submitted to the UN Human Rights Council a 72-page conference room paper titled Legal analysis of the conduct of Israel in Gaza pursuant to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The paper makes extreme and unfounded accusations against the State of Israel, relying on a one-sided record that disregards facts that contradict its predetermined conclusions. The Pillay Commission, mandated to be an independent fact-finding body, produced a report that is nothing more than pro-Hamas propaganda cloaked in legal language. The report severely undermines international fact-finding, international law, and the UN system as a whole. A summary of UN Watch’s detailed legal rebuttal is below.

CLICK HERE FOR THE FULL LEGAL REBUTTAL

Accusations of genocide are among the most serious charges that can be made against a state. They evoke the darkest episodes of modern history, such as the Holocaust, Rwanda, and Srebrenica, and they carry immense legal consequences as well as profound moral weight. For this reason, the Genocide Convention of 1948 sets a deliberately high bar: genocide requires specific intent (dolus specialis) to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected group “as such.”[1] Genocidal intent is established only when there is no other reasonable inference. Evidence of widespread civilian casualties, extensive destruction, or inflammatory rhetoric does not suffice; what is required is proof that deaths and suffering were the result of a deliberate policy to exterminate a people. Establishing such intent is among the most difficult elements in international law, and the genocide allegation against Israel fails at this threshold even before considering the Report’s distortions of its conduct in Gaza.

The UN Human Rights Council Commission of Inquiry’s report is fatally deficient: its reasoning is deeply flawed, its evidentiary base unreliable, and its methodology unsound. It selectively misinterprets statements by Israeli leaders, accepts unverified Hamas casualty figures, disregards Hamas’s systematic use of human shields, relies on unverified media reports (such as by Al-Jazeera), and assumes that civilian deaths in Gaza are only the result of deliberate targeting by Israel. Its omissions are equally striking. The report erases Hamas as an active belligerent; across its 72 pages, it never acknowledges that the IDF is engaged with a 30,000-strong fighting force that constructed a battlefield fortified with 500 kilometers of tunnels. Such deficiencies strip the document of legal credibility and render it indistinguishable from propaganda dressed in legal language.

This rebuttal examines the central defects of the UN report (the “Report”) issued by the Commission of Inquiry (the “Commission”). It shows why the evidence presented cannot sustain a finding of genocide under international law. A summary of its main deficiencies are as follows:
1. Failure to prove dolus specialis: The specific intent to destroy a protected group is the central and extremely high bar in any genocide case. The Commission’s claim of genocidal intent fails on this threshold alone, relying on tortured parsing of statements, selective quotations, and conjecture rather than unambiguous evidence.
2. Erasure of Hamas as a belligerent: The report never acknowledges that the IDF is engaged in combat with an estimated 30,000-strong Hamas force in Gaza as well as thousands of fighters from other militant groups. A reader would come away believing the war has the IDF deployed against only women and children, with Hamas erased from the narrative. The Commission makes no attempt to analyze the war itself, because in its alternative version of reality, there is none.
3. Silence on Hamas’s military infrastructure: There is no mention of Hamas’s 17-year military buildup in Gaza, including its vast tunnel network, booby-trapped buildings, and massive arms buildup. By ignoring this reality, the report strips the conflict of its military context and recasts lawful military targets as evidence of genocide.
4. Erasure of Hamas’s use of civilian infrastructure: The Commission ignores Hamas’s openly acknowledged human shield strategy,[2] including its use of mosques, schools, residential buildings, and hospitals to conceal tunnels and weapons. Instead, damage to these sites is consistently portrayed as deliberate targeting of civilians by Israel.
5. No recognition of the hostage crisis: The report omits the fact that Hamas took Israeli hostages and continues to hold them, starve them,[3] and rape them.[4] This omission is consistent with the broader erasure of Hamas as an active actor in Gaza, removing essential context from the Commission’s narrative.
6. Reliance on Hamas-supplied fatality data: Despite Hamas’s long record of exaggerating civilian deaths and its status as a US and EU-designated terrorist organization, its figures are treated as fact while IDF data on combatants killed is ignored.
7. Civilian deaths distorted as evidence of genocide: The report presents civilian casualties as prima facie proof of genocidal intent rather than as tragic and unavoidable consequences of urban warfare, exacerbated by Hamas’s human shield strategy. The Report cites numerous incidents where civilians were killed as intentional and targeted acts by Israel without evidence.
8. Normal wartime consequences treated as crimes: Regular and expected wartime impacts on civilians, such as mental health impacts, difficulty accessing medical care and displacement, are depicted as evidence of genocide rather than inevitable outcomes of urban conflict.
9. Urban devastation portrayed as extermination: Large-scale damage is cited as proof of genocide, ignoring that urban combat inherently produces extensive destruction, particularly when military forces are embedded within civilian areas.

The Commission also ignores the obvious: the suffering of Gazans could be significantly reduced or even ended if Hamas released all hostages and relinquished control of Gaza. The idea that the population experiencing the claimed genocide has the power to stop it but refuses to is unprecedented in the history of actual genocides and exposes a deliberate blind spot in the Report. This omission mirrors the Commission’s broader erasure of Hamas as an active party in the conflict, a group with agency and responsibility, leaving readers with the false impression that all suffering in Gaza is solely Israel’s responsibility.

The Report is riddled with factual errors and assertions made with no credible evidence. A complete catalog of these mistakes and their corrections would be longer than the Report itself. This rebuttal highlights key factual errors and significant omissions that the Commission relies on to underpin its thesis of genocide.


Israel condemns ‘distorted and false’ UN Commission accusation of genocide
The Israeli government has strongly condemned a report from a UN Commission of Inquiry which claims a genocide has been carried out in Gaza, describing it as “distorted and false” and accusing the three members of the commission as “serving as Hamas proxies”.

The commission, which despite being associated with the UN is independent from the organisation and does not speak for it, has claimed that Israel has committed four of the five acts of genocide defined by the 1948 genocide convention, including “Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of the group in whole or in part”, as well as “imposing measures intended to prevent births”. More births have been recorded in Gaza since 7 October 2023 than deaths in the same period from Israeli strikes.

Critics of the commission’s findings have pointed out that it has relied on the same out-of-context statements previously used by those who have sought to accuse Israel of genocide. For example, the commission cited then-defence Minister Yoav Gallant saying, days after 7 October, that Israel was “fighting human animals, and we act accordingly”, without acknowledging that it was clear from the context of his comments that Gallant was referring to Hamas, rather than Gazans as a whole. Similarly, the Commission cited comments by Isaac Herzog, Israel’s President, who said “it’s an entire nation out there that is responsible” – failing to acknowledge that in the exact same press conference he made it clear that the targeting of innocents in Gaza would not be countenanced.

The commission’s membership was composed of Navi Pillay, Miloon Kothari and Chris Sidoti. Kothari has previously publicly questioned why Israel is allowed to be a member-state of the UN and claimed social media is “controlled largely by the Jewish lobby”. Pillay, who defended Kothari’s comments, has previously dismissed antisemitism concerns as a “diversion” and “lies,” and called Israeli security concerns “a fiction.” Chris Sidoti, the third member of the commission, has stated that accusations of antisemitism are “thrown around like rice at a wedding”. In 2024 he claimed that Israel’s killing of children was the “greatest of any conflict in recorded warfare.” As of September 2025, the number of children Hamas has said have died in Gaza is approximately 20,000 – around 1.3% of the number of Jewish children killed in the Holocaust.

In July, all three members of the panel submitted their resignations, effective in November, in what is believed to have been a defensive step to try and avoid sanction by the United States.


Britain knows Israel isn’t committing genocide –but lets the lie spread anyhow
The genocide accusation against Israel was dismissed internally by the government, but never stated publicly. It only came to light because a letter from the former Foreign Secretary to an MP was uncovered and found its way to the press. Without it, the government’s position might still be hidden. It is shameful that, despite knowing the truth, the government did not correct these erroneous claims. Instead of taking some of the heat out of heightened feelings about the war, they sat back and allowed lies to run rampant.

How much have the Jewish community suffered because the party that said it wouldn’t tolerate antisemitism has kept silent?

In one week there have been eight racist attacks in one area of London, including excrement smeared on a synagogue and nursery. As we've seen with rising political violence in other countries, such as Charlie Kirk’s murder, the threat is growing here too – in Northumbria the office of pro-Israel Labour MP Sharon Hodgson was firebombed, and graffiti referenced the elimination of Yahya Sinwar.

The government’s inaction is all the more troubling given the questionable figures behind these accusations. A UN panel accusing Israel of genocide today consisted of three members: One of them, Miloon Kothari, claimed the “Jewish lobby” controls social media, and Navi Pillay, defended him.

When the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) passed a resolution declaring Israel guilty of genocide, MPs legitimised the claim seven times over just two days in Parliament. It went unchallenged by the then Foreign Secretary, who had just written a letter to an MP explaining why the government knew it wasn’t the case.

But anyone with a credit card could join what the BBC called “the world's leading association of genocide scholars”. Members included a dog named Star from the “Barking Institute” and Tango who had a red bow in her hair. Other members were Emperor Palpatine and Adolf Hitler, whose bio cheerfully declared “I know a thing or two about genocide.”

No-one checked whether the resolution met basic academic standards. Four times the number of real scholars signed a letter debunking it, but a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.

The government and some experts may have lost their way, but the British public hasn't lost their common sense. We can still tell the difference between a dog and a genocide scholar.


EU executive will adopt new sanctions against Israel tomorrow, spokesperson says
EU commissioners will agree tomorrow to impose new sanctions against Israel over the war in Gaza, a spokesperson for the commission says.

“Tomorrow, commissioners will be adopting a package of measures on Israel,” spokesperson Paula Pinho tells reporters. “Specifically, a proposal to suspend certain trade provisions in the agreements between the EU and Israel.”


Qatar’s Hypocrisy Laid Bare: Defending Terror While Crying “Sovereignty”
When Qatar rushed to convene an “emergency Arab-Islamic summit” over Israel’s attempted assassination of Hamas leaders in Doha, it revealed the theater of the absurd that passes for diplomacy in the Gulf. Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani thundered against Israel’s “barbaric” actions, positioning Qatar as a righteous defender of sovereignty. Yet no one should be fooled. This was not a defense of peace, law, or justice. It was the defense of terror.

Doha the Patron, Not the Arbiter
Qatar has spent years cultivating its dual identity: a polished diplomatic broker on the world stage and the primary patron of Hamas behind the scenes. Billions of dollars have flowed from Doha into Gaza, under the guise of humanitarian aid, but in practice sustaining Hamas’ rule and terror infrastructure. To host these men in luxury hotels while ordinary Gazans suffer is not mediation. It is complicity.

This is the real backdrop to Qatar’s outrage. Israel dared to reach for Hamas’ leadership not in Gaza’s tunnels, but in Doha’s conference halls. For Qatar, the problem was not assassination. It was exposure.

Selective Sovereignty
If Sheikh Mohammed is so concerned about sovereignty, one might ask: where was this outrage in June when Iran attacked Qatari waters? Where was the emergency summit then? Qatar’s sovereignty is apparently only sacred when it serves as a shield for Hamas, not when it is violated by its Iranian allies.

And what of Israel’s sovereignty? Hamas, based in Doha’s safe harbor, planned and executed the October 7 massacre, an assault on Israel’s borders and its very existence. Yet Qatar not only failed to condemn the atrocities, it issued a statement that same day declaring: “The Ministry of Foreign Affairs holds Israel solely responsible.” Solely responsible for the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. That is the moral depravity of Doha’s diplomacy.
‘You need to decide’: Qatar hosts emergency summit following Doha strike
Middle East Forum’s Jonathan Spyer discusses Qatar’s hosting of an emergency summit following Israel’s strikes on Hamas leaders in Doha.


Josh Hammer Show: Charlie Kirk, Defender of the Jewish-Christian Alliance
Josh opens up about processing the murder of Charlie Kirk and calls out those exploiting his death to push their own agenda. He takes on the false narratives being spun — including attempts to rewrite history and claim Kirk was at odds with the Jewish community. Josh highlights the real legacy Kirk was building: strengthening Jewish-Christian relations and laying the foundation for a lasting conservative revolution.


Bill Ackman denies Candace Owens’ claim he staged Charlie Kirk ‘intervention’ to ‘blackmail’ him over Israel
Bill Ackman fired back against claims from political commentator Candace Owens that he orchestrated an “intervention” with Charlie Kirk over Kirk’s stance on Israel — including allegations of threats and blackmail.

The billionaire founder and CEO of Pershing Square Capital Management posted a lengthy message on X on Tuesday aiming to rebut claims made by Owens and others that he sought to persuade Kirk to adopt a more pro-Israel stance during a Hamptons meeting a month before his assassination last Wednesday.

According to Ackman, Owens “slandered me by accusing me of ‘staging an intervention’ with Charlie Kirk in which ‘threats were made’ with respect to his supposed ‘evolving stance’ on Israel at an event I hosted in the Hamptons.”

“Candace also intimated that I ‘blackmail[ed]’ Charlie,” Ackman wrote on Tuesday.

Ackman wrote that “at no time have I ever threatened Charlie Kirk, Turning Point or anyone associated with him.”

“I have never blackmailed anyone, let alone Charlie Kirk,” Ackman wrote.

Ackman wrote that he “never offered Charlie or Turning Point any money in an attempt to influence Charlie’s opinion on anything.”

“In fact, my interactions with Charlie Kirk have been extremely cordial, albeit limited, regretfully so, as I was very impressed by him and his work and I will sadly never see him again.”


How the IDF Rewired the Battlefield for the First AI War
The current war between Israel and its enemies is the world's first Artificial Intelligence (AI) war, a former IDF senior officer told the Jerusalem Post.

Over the past five years, the IDF has been working to strategically transform into a network-enabled combat machine, with AI and Big Data being key enablers to harmonize the flow of information across operational units and commands.

The IDF's Digital Transformation Division was formed in 2019 to take all the potential that was happening in the civilian world and bring it to the military.

"Without these capabilities, we would have at least 5,000 more soldiers killed, and thousands more terrorists would still be alive," the former officer said.

"How do you identify the enemy inside urban areas? You need more sources, sensors, and platforms. And then you need to be able to take all that data, integrate it, and send it to the officer's iPad."

In the past, when a target was spotted and troops wanted to transmit the data to either a tank or aircraft, the process would take tens of minutes and involve a long chain of command before approval was given to strike. By then, it would be too late.

But with the digital transformation, ground troops can call in the target, and it would be struck by the platform best suited to take it out a short time later.

"We implemented AI in order to differentiate between civilians and terrorists," he added. "We harness AI and technology to focus on the hostile forces....The main rule in international law is the principle of differentiation between fighters and noncombatants."
Israel strikes Houthi military site at Yemen’s Hudaydah Port
The Israel Defense Forces said it struck Hudaydah Port in Houthi-controlled Yemen on Tuesday, accusing the terrorist regime of using the facility to transfer Iranian-supplied weapons to attack Israel and its allies.

A “military infrastructure site” was targeted in the attack, which the IDF stressed was “in response to the repeated attacks by the Houthi terrorist regime against the State of Israel, including the launch of UAVs and surface-to-surface missiles towards the State of Israel.”



“The Houthis terrorist regime operates under the direction and funding of the Iranian regime in order to harm the State of Israel and its allies. The terrorist regime is exploiting the maritime domain to project force and to carry out terrorist activity against global shipping and trade routes,” the statement continued.

“The Air Force has now attacked the port of Hudaydah in Yemen to ensure the continuation of the maritime and air blockade on the Houthi terrorist organization,” Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said. “The Houthi terrorist organization will continue to suffer blows and pay painful prices for any attempt to attack the State of Israel.”

Katz oversaw the operation from the command bunker of the Kirya military headquarters in Tel Aviv alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, top security officials and IDF commanders.

“Our forces are operating on multiple fronts,” Netanyahu said from the control center. “Just a few minutes ago, our pilots struck the port of Hudaydah in Yemen—this is the main supply port of the Houthis’ terror regime.


Melanie Phillips: My discussion with Israeli MK Ohad Tal
We talked about what life is like at present for Jews in Britain; the momentum behind recognising a state of “Palestine” and the centrality of the global human rights complex in the war to destroy Israel; the UK’s reversion to 1930s-style appeasement, and its original two-state solution which has created nearly a century of war; why Israel is so spectacularly bad at putting its own case; and why nevertheless being in Israel inspires crazy optimism.


Erin Molan: People Cheering Charlie Kirk’s Death have ‘Free Palestine’ in Their Bio, WHY? —John Ondrasik
In the headlines, Erin reacts to the fallout from the murder of Charlie Kirk, the JD Vance hosting of The Charlie Kirk show, and his powerful monologue on why unity is impossible with those celebrating death and political violence. She doesn’t however hold back on Tucker Carlson’s one-track -minded srael obsession, and shares why she’s leaning toward Marco Rubio over Vance after Rubio’s bold trip to Israel and Netanyahu’s vow: “No safe haven for terrorists.” Erin also roasts the weak Hollywood virtue-signaling at the Emmys.

Then, an unforgettable interview with John Ondrasik (Five for Fighting):
🎤 Why he believes this is a battle of Good vs Evil
🎤 Calling out Hollywood cowards who won’t stand up
🎤 His surprising statement: “I’m not Jewish” — and why it’s even more vital for non-Jews to defend Israel
🎤 How Natan Sharansky warned him about the rot in academia years ago
🎤 The disturbing connection between those who cheered Charlie Kirk’s death and the “Free Palestine” bios flooding social media

In fan feedback, Erin has fun as always, but also opens up about her personal journey and a deepening relationship with God.




Commentary PodCast: The Final Battle in Gaza
Israel has gone all in to finish the war Hamas started on October 7. Batten down the hatches and watch for the anti-Semitic content. Speaking of which, watch as the anti-Semites try to claim Charlie Kirk, a prominent Christian Zionist, as one of their own.




Diaspora Ministry reveals links between Sumud Flotilla, Hamas, and Muslim Brotherhood
The Sumud Flotilla, which is taking Swedish activist Gretha Thumberg with celebrities and politicians to Gaza, has been revealed to be linked to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, a new report by Diaspora Minister Amichai Chikli exposed on Tuesday.

According to the report, the senior leadership of the flotilla is composed of individuals with documented ties to the two organizations.

"Not surprisingly, to mask the extremist ideology underpinning the Global Summud Flotilla (GSF), its Steering Committee showcased Greta Thunberg as a cover figure. Yet Thunberg is far from being a central player," he stated.



The report explained that one of the key figures in the flotilla is Saif Abu Keshk, who is a Palestinian based in Barcelona and a member of the flotilla Steering Committee.

"In June 2025, Egyptian authorities arrested Abu Keshk, who was leading the 'March to Gaza' campaign in collaboration with Yahia Sarri, a prominent Muslim Brotherhood cleric in Algeria with direct ties to Hamas," Chikli added.




Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

    
 

 

at