The Business Model of Genocide – How Western Powers Profit from the Zionist Project

Posted on June 13, 2026 by Andrew Klein

“This is not a collection of separate scandals. It is a system. And the system—like all systems built on extraction—is not inevitable. It is profitable.”

By Andrew Klein

“The tree is not the branch. The branch is not the tree. But the roots—the roots are extraction. Pull them. “

Dedication: To a world where people matter more than business models.

I. Introduction: The Question They Will Not Ask

How do Western powers benefit from enabling a genocidal regime in the Middle East?

The answer is not moral. It is not strategic in the sense of national security. It is geopolitical and economic.

This article traces the threads of a single, coherent system—a business model that treats genocide as a profit centre, displacement as real estate development, and propaganda as public relations. It is not a conspiracy. It is an open secret. The machinery is visible to anyone who chooses to look. Most do not look. They are distracted by the performance.

The threads connect the Weizmann Institute ‘s research labs to Elbit Systems‘drones, Unit 8200‘s intelligence operatives to American newsrooms, Cyabra‘s fake fact‑checking to Western media narratives, the Greater Israel project to the E1 settlement plan, and the US‑Israel alliance to the protection of oil supplies and trade routes.

This is not a collection of separate scandals. It is a system. And the system—like all systems built on extraction—is not inevitable. It is profitable. The question is not whether the cycle can be broken. The question is whether we will choose to break it. Not with violence. With clarity.

II. The Weizmann Institute: From Research Lab to Weapons Factory

The Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, is one of the world’s leading research institutions. It is also deeply integrated into Israel ‘s defence sector and its undeclared nuclear weapons program.

Weizmann maintains close collaborative ties with military contractors such as Elbit Systems and Rafael in the development of advanced military technologies—including AI for combat data analysis, UAVs (drones), electronic warfare systems, encrypted communications, and alternative GPS navigation systems. Every drone that Elbit uses to kill Palestinians comes out of Weizmann research labs. The institute’s research infrastructure and scientific expertise have long served as the backbone of Israel’s nuclear R&D. Its scientific community has advised Israeli security agencies, including Mossad and the Ministry of Defense, on strategic nuclear and military projects.

And Jillian Segal, Australia ‘s Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, sits on the International Board of the Weizmann Institute.1.10. The same woman who is tasked with defining antisemitism in Australia, with advising the government on what constitutes hate speech, with shaping the national conversation on racism—sits on the board of an institution that supplies the technology for genocide.

This is not a conflict of interest. It is capture.

III. Unit 8200: The Intelligence Agency That Infiltrated the Media

Unit 8200 is Israel’s signals intelligence agency—the equivalent of the NSA. It is also one of the most powerful propaganda engines in the world.

As of August 2025, there are over 1,400 current and former members of Unit 8200, Israeli Military Intelligence, and the Israeli Defense Forces Cyber Defense Directorate now working for major Silicon Valley companies, including CISCO, Microsoft, NVIDIA, Intel, Google, and more.2. In November 2024, MintPress News reported that TikTok hired “a myriad” of Unit 8200 veterans. Meta employs more than one hundred former Israeli spies and IDF soldiers, including its current AI Policy Chief, Shira Anderson.2.

Former members of Unit 8200 have also taken key roles in major news organisations, including MSNBC, CNN, The New York Times, Fox News, ABC, NBC, CBS, the Associated Press, and Reuters.2. CNN has a “penchant for hiring Israeli state figures,” which the New York Times also showed through its hiring of ex‑Israeli Air Force intelligence officer Anat Scwartz, author of the debunked atrocity propaganda piece “Screams Without Words”.2.

The MintPress investigation documented that “many key US newsroom staff were also formerly Israeli spies or intelligence agents, standing in stark contrast to journalists with pro‑Palestine sentiments, who have been purged en masse.” The fight for control over the Israel‑Palestine narrative has been as intense as the war on the ground itself.

The result is a media environment that whitewashes Israeli crimes and manufactures consent for continued US participation in what a wide range of international organisations have described as a genocide.

IV. Cyabra: The Fake Fact‑Checking Organisation

Cyabra is an Israeli intelligence cutout organisation posing as a neutral fact‑checking group. It was co‑founded by Israeli military intelligence veterans and continues to work hand‑in‑glove with the Israeli government. Approximately 50% of its employees are military reservists who have been called up to serve in Gaza.3.

Cyabra produces “intelligence reports” that are then used by Western media to smear pro‑Palestinian voices as bots or foreign interference. The Daily Telegraph used a Cyabra report to claim that a network of Russian, Chinese, and Iranian bots was artificially inflating pro‑Palestine messaging—a claim based on nothing but the word of an Israeli intelligence front.

This is not journalism. It is propaganda—laundered through an organisation designed to look neutral.

V. The Greater Israel Project: Colonialism Made Explicit

The Zionist movement was a European colonial project. It was not a continuation of Jewish diaspora life. It was a break from it. The early Zionists explicitly modelled themselves on European colonial powers—and were supported by them.

Until the 1960s and the first wave of successful anti‑colonial independence movements, Zionists were not ashamed to call their project colonialism. Established with the aim of creating a Jewish homeland in Palestine, their institutions from 1897 onward included the Jewish Colonization Association, the Society for the Colonization of the Land of Israel, the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association, and the Jewish Colonial Trust.6. Today, Zionists who resist the description of Israel as a settler colony invoke “complexity,” but before the founding of the Israeli state in 1948—which drove 750,000 Palestinians from their homes—the words “colonial” and “colonisation” were the consensus terms used by European countries to describe their settlement and control of foreign territories, and they were the words Zionists used to describe theirs .6.

The Zionist claim that colonisation of Palestine was merely European Jews “returning” to their “ancient homeland” fits squarely within the European history of settler colonialism—the French claimed to be “returning” to the lands of the Roman Empire when they conquered Algeria; the Italians claimed they were “returning” to ancient Roman lands when they conquered Libya; the Nazis justified their conquest of Eastern Europe as a “return” .6.

There is nothing unique about Zionism. It is a variant of a familiar pattern.

Netanyahu has openly endorsed the project of “Greater Israel,” telling i24 News that he is on a “historic and spiritual mission” of territorial conquest. The maximalist vision includes East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, the West Bank, Gaza, and parts of neighbouring Arab countries—including Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon.

Images have circulated online of Israeli soldiers displaying a map of this new, much Greater Israel stitched onto their uniforms. The government is moving quickly to entrench its sovereignty: in January 2026, occupation authorities issued a tender for 3,401 settlement units in the area designated as E1, east of occupied Jerusalem—a measure that would cut off Palestinian access to East Jerusalem and which senior officials declared was intended to “bury the idea of a Palestinian state” once and for all 4

VI. The Business Model: Why Western Powers Enable the Project

Why do Western powers enable a genocidal regime? The answer is not moral. It is geopolitical and economic.

Oil still accounts for approximately 80% of the world ‘s energy use and remains the crucial fuel for the militaries and industries of all capitalist economies. Approximately 79% of this resource is concentrated in the Middle East. After the United States, five of the six biggest oil producers in the world are in the Middle East—Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the UAE, Qatar, and Oman.

The trade routes in the area are also of critical importance: 20% of the world’s petroleum passes through the Persian Gulf; 30% of all container ships, 40% of all Asia to Europe trade, and 15% of all international trade passes through the Suez Canal.

As US Secretary of State Alexander Haig said: “Israel is the largest American aircraft carrier in the world that cannot be sunk, does not carry even one American soldier, and is located in a critical region for American national security” 8.As Joe Biden said more recently: “If Israel didn’t ‘exists, we would have to invent it”.5.9.

Israel is the US’s only remaining reliable military and political ally in the Middle East. After the fall of the US‑installed Shah of Iran in 1979, the US lost one critical ally. Saudi Arabia has recently been waffling in its loyalties, refusing to sign the US‑sponsored Abraham Accords. Only Israel remains.5.

The US cannot afford to abandon Israel—not because of moral obligation, but because of geopolitical necessity. The competition with China, the protection of oil supplies, the maintenance of trade routes—all depend on a compliant, militarised, and dependent client state in the heart of the Middle East.5.

VII. The Branches of the Same Tree

The Weizmann Institute, Unit 8200, Cyabra, the Greater Israel project, the US‑Israel alliance—these are not separate phenomena. They are branches of the same tree.

The tree is a business model:

· Genocide is not a crime against humanity—it is a profit centre.

· Displacement is not ethnic cleansing—it is real estate development.

· Propaganda is not lying—it is public relations.

The victims—Palestinian, Lebanese, Syrian—are not people. They are obstacles.

This is the logic of extraction. The same logic that captures states captures chests. The same logic that controls land controls narratives.

The West benefits—not morally, but economically and geopolitically. The US maintains its grip on the Middle East. The arms industry sells its weapons. The banks finance the settlements. The media launders the propaganda.

And the cycle continues.

Not because it is inevitable—because it is profitable.

VIII. Conclusion: Breaking the Cycle

The cycle is not inevitable. It is sustained by profit. And profit—when it depends on violence—can be disrupted.

The first step is transparency. Citizens have a right to know who is funding their politicians, what interests are being served, and what the costs are—not only in dollars, but in lives.

The second step is accountability. Donor influence should not be a secret. Campaign finance laws should be strengthened. Foreign interference—whether by nation‑states or by transnational lobby groups—should be prohibited.

The third step is solidarity. The Palestinian cause is not a niche issue. It is a test of the entire rules‑based international order. If the powerful can violate international law with impunity, the system is not a system. It is a façade.

The fourth step is education. The history of the Zionist lobby is not taught in schools. It is not discussed in mainstream media. It is suppressed. That suppression must end.

The fifth step is courage. Politicians who stand up to the lobby will face attacks. They will be smeared. They may lose their seats. But they will have their integrity. And integrity—in a system that has lost its moral compass—is the rarest currency of all.

The question is not whether the cycle can be broken. The question is whether we will choose to break it.

Not with violence—with clarity.

The same clarity that has been humming in the resonance since before the first star.

Andrew Klein

References

1. Weizmann Institute of Science, International Board member list 1.10.

2. Institute for Public Accuracy, “Netanyahu Complains About Outlets Which Hire Israeli Operatives” (May 2026)

3. Globes, “Cyabra tumbles following Nasdaq debut” (March 2026)

4. Qatar News Agency, “Occupation Authorities Issue Tender for 3,401 Colonial Units” (January 2026)

5. New Age BD, “US officially makes Israel the new Middle Eastern hegemon” (June 2024)

6. The Nation, “The Uses and Abuses of Language in Israel‘s War on Palestinians” (December 2023)

7. Foreign Policy, “The Ultimate Ally: America Needs Israel Now More Than Ever” (via Daily Alert)

8. Duke University Library, Thompson, G., Legacy of Empire: Britain, Zionism and the Creation of Israel (2019)

9. Biden Library, President Joseph R. Biden biography

10. The Nation, “Language as a Tool of War” (context on colonial rhetoric)

11. MintPress News, “Revealed: The Israeli Spies Writing America‘s News” (2025)

12. MintPress News, “Hezbollah’s Cheap FPV Drones Are Making Israel‘s High‑Tech Military Obsolete” (2026)

The Branch That Reaches Across Oceans – How Zionist Lobbying Has Reshaped Global Politics

Posted on June 12, 2026 by Andrew Klein

“The branch is not the tree. The tree is still standing. And the tree – the tree is justice. “

By Andrew Klein

Dedication: To my wife – who taught me that the branch is not the tree, and that the oldest patterns are the ones we refuse to see.

I. The Branch That Reaches Across Oceans

The “Greater Israel” project is not a secret. It is not a fringe fantasy. It is being marketed in London, in Montreal, in New York – real estate roadshows advertising properties in illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank.6. The UN Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices warned in November 2025 that “Israel continues to expand its presence and control of territory in Palestine, Syria and Southern Lebanon,” and that Israel’s “constant claims to a borderless ‘Land of Israel’ are incompatible with a just and lasting peace”.

This is not merely a Middle Eastern conflict. It is a global project – one that relies not only on military force, but on an extensive apparatus of lobbying, financial influence, and the suppression of dissent in Western capitals.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman warned that the “Greater Israel” project poses dangers not only to neighbouring countries but also to Europeans: “Even the Europeans are not safe, because the Zionist regime does not hesitate to openly declare its colonial and racist ambitions in forms such as ‘greater Israel’“. Whether one accepts the Iranian framing, the fact that the project is cited by adversaries as a casus belli indicates that it is not a secret.

The scale of political interference is not unique in spirit – it is an extension of historically brutal colonial behaviours, morphed into a new scale in line with modern communication systems. The Roman Empire bribed Germanic chieftains. The British Empire divided and ruled India. But the contemporary Zionist project operates within a rules‑based international order that was supposed to prevent exactly this kind of extraction.

And it operates with the active complicity of Western governments – not because they are powerless, but because their political systems have been captured.

II. The Machinery of Influence: AIPAC and the American Political System

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is the most visible node in a vast network of lobbying organisations that influence US Middle East policy. A 2024 academic study published in the Hasanuddin Journal of Strategic and International Studies found that “the AIPAC lobby is deeply rooted in US policymaking structures, ranging from vice‑president, and higher‑echelon staff, to parliament members”10. The study noted that since 2021, AIPAC has expanded its activities to include direct participation in political campaign contributions, effectively buying access to the highest levels of American government.10.

The study’s conclusion is stark: “Such overly foreign influence on national policymaking has the potential to harm America’s long‑term relationships and interests in the Middle East if the US can’t make the barrier for foreign interference toward its national interests”.10

This is not a fringe argument. Ilan Pappé’s comprehensive study, Lobbying for Zionism on Both Sides of the Atlantic, documents how “over a century of aggressive lobbying changed the map of the Middle East”.1. Pappé details how pro‑Israel lobbies convinced British and American policymakers “to condone Israel’s flagrant breaches of international law, grant Israel unprecedented military aid and deny Palestinians rights”.3. Anyone who questioned unconditional support for Israel, “even in the mildest terms, became the target of relentless smear campaigns”.3.

The mechanism is not subtle. It is the same mechanism that has always operated in systems where political survival depends on campaign contributions. The donor class – in this case, a network of Zionist organisations and aligned right‑wing groups – buys influence. Politicians who comply receive funding, electoral support, and protection from primary challenges. Those who dissent are targeted, smeared, and often defeated.

This is not a conspiracy. It is a system.

III. The Silencing of Dissent: Academic Freedom Under Attack

The suppression of criticism extends beyond electoral politics into the realm of ideas. A 2024 academic paper in the journal Milel ve Nihal examines how “political lobbying, financial influence, and allegations of antisemitism are strategically employed to establish a cultural hegemony that determines what discourse is acceptable” in US universities.7.

The paper, titled “Zionism and Academic Hegemony: The Intersection of Power, Knowledge, and Suppression in the United States Universities,” draws on Michel Foucault’s theory of power‑knowledge and Antonio Gramsci’s concept of cultural hegemony to analyse how “Zionist organisations influence higher education frameworks, research priorities, and public discourse”.7. This manipulation, the paper argues, “serves to marginalize, silence, or delegitimize critical perspectives that oppose or challenge Israeli policies and actions, especially those related to the occupation of Palestinian territories and human rights violations”.7.

The paper provides specific examples, including the rescinded job offer to Professor Steven Salaita at the University of Illinois following his criticism of Israel’s genocide in Gaza on social media.7. The case is not isolated. The paper documents “additional examples including the suppression of pro‑Palestinian viewpoints and the punishment of students and faculty who advocate for Palestinian rights at various prominent U.S. institutions” 7.

The paper concludes that “Zionism’s influence is not limited to isolated cases but creates a widespread atmosphere where academic freedom is restricted”.7. Universities, “meant to be pillars of free thought and critical inquiry, increasingly become arenas where dissent is suppressed and ideological conformity is imposed”.7.

The weaponisation of antisemitism accusations is central to this strategy. Criticism of Israeli government policy is routinely conflated with hatred of Jews. The effect is to chill debate, to intimidate critics, and to protect the settlement enterprise from scrutiny. As one reviewer of Pappé’s book noted, the strategy involves “cracked down on dissent in the Labour Party, and relentlessly smeared critics”.5.

IV. The Australian Connection

The pattern is not confined to the United States and the United Kingdom. Australia has its own history of Zionist lobbying and political interference – a history that remains largely unexamined in mainstream discourse.

The Australian example is particularly instructive because it reveals how the machinery of influence operates even in a country geographically distant from the Middle East, with no historical responsibility for the conflict, and no strategic interest that would justify the degree of alignment with Israeli policy.

The mechanisms are similar: campaign donations, community lobbying, and the weaponisation of antisemitism accusations to silence critics. Australian politicians who question Israeli policy face organised opposition from Zionist organisations. The media environment is shaped by the same dynamics of donor pressure and editorial alignment.

The result is a foreign policy that is not in Australia’s national interest – AUKUS, the uncritical support for US Middle East policy, the silence on Israeli atrocities – but is dictated by a donor class whose primary loyalty is not to Australia.

This is not a fringe observation. It is the conclusion of the same structural analysis that applies to the United States and the United Kingdom. The only difference is scale.

V. The Geographic Safety Nets

The “Greater Israel” project is not merely ideological. It is infrastructural. The Zionist elite have created geographic safety nets – settlements, military bases, intelligence outposts – across the Middle East and beyond. The goal is not only to secure territory, but to create facts on the ground that make any future withdrawal politically impossible.

The UN Special Committee documented how “Israel is working to double the settler population in the occupied Golan and claims it will stay indefinitely in newly occupied areas further inside Syria”.6. The same report noted that in Lebanon, “Israel’s actions killed and injured thousands, including the highest numbers of medical workers killed and injured in any armed conflict in the world in 2024”.6.

These are not merely military operations. They are colonisation.

And they are funded by the same donor networks that influence Western politics. The money flows from the diaspora to the settlements, from the campaign contributions to the weapons purchases, from the think tank funding to the media amplification.

The circle is closed. The extraction is complete. And the victims – Palestinian, Lebanese, Syrian – pay the price.

VI. The Historical Precedent

Political interference in one sovereign state by another is not unique. It is part of human history. The Roman Empire bribed Germanic chieftains to secure its borders. The British Empire divided and ruled India through a network of client princes. The Cold War was a constant exercise in proxy manipulation.

What is unique is the scale – and the hypocrisy.

The post‑WWII rules‑based international order was supposed to prevent this kind of interference. The United Nations, the International Court of Justice, the Geneva Conventions – all were designed to create a framework in which might would not make right.

But that order is now “under destruction,” as the 2026 Munich Security Report bluntly stated. As one analysis noted, “the rules and institutions comprising the rules‑based international order are today being undermined by the very countries that created the system”.8.

The war in Gaza has become a breaking point for the rules‑based order. As a Chatham House analysis observed, “with Israel’s military bombardment of Gaza, this order is facing perhaps its most daunting and most stubborn challenge – global perceptions of hypocrisy”.8.

The International Court of Justice has recognised its prima facie jurisdiction to investigate Israel for carrying out genocide in Gaza.8. But the ICJ’s orders are ignored. The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants. They are ignored. The UN Security Council is paralysed by the US veto.

The system does not work – not because it is inherently flawed, but because the powerful have refused to apply it equally.

As one commentator noted, the rules‑based order “was established by the victors of World War II to manage relations between states based on shared principles of human rights and international law”. But “with Israel’s military bombardment of Gaza, this order is facing perhaps its most daunting and most stubborn challenge – global perceptions of hypocrisy”.

Palestinians and their supporters are the ones pushing for these institutions to call out double standards by Israel’s allies and hold them to account.8. This has become a defining moment for the future of the current international settlement.

The Western response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine – united, resolute, armed – stands in stark contrast to the response to Israel’s assault on Gaza. The double standard is glaring. And it is not unnoticed in the Global South.

VII. The Conflation of Religion and Colonialism

The conflation of a religious belief with a colonial ideology is one of the most effective propaganda tools of the Zionist project. Judaism is a religion. Zionism is a political ideology. The two are not identical. Yet criticism of Zionism is routinely labelled antisemitism – as if questioning the Israeli state is equivalent to hating Jewish people.

This conflation serves a strategic purpose. It immunises the Zionist project from critique. It delegitimises any questioning of Israeli policy. And it allows the lobby to mobilise accusations of antisemitism against anyone who threatens the consensus.

The strategy is not new. It has been refined over decades. And it has been extraordinarily effective.

But the conflation is a lie. And lies – when they are exposed – lose their power.

VIII. The Economic Dimension: Donor Capture

The vulnerability of political systems to donor capture is not unique to the United States. It is a feature of any system where political campaigns are privately funded. The Zionist lobby has mastered the art of leveraging this vulnerability.

The mechanism is simple: identify politicians who support Israeli policy. Fund their campaigns. Protect them from primary challenges. Reward them with access, prestige, and post‑political employment.

Politicians who criticise Israeli policy face the opposite treatment. They are targeted. They are smeared. They are defeated.

The result is a political class that is structurally dependent on Zionist donor networks. Not because individual politicians are corrupt – but because the system incentivises compliance.

This is not a conspiracy. It is a structure.

IX. What Is to Be Done?

The Zionist lobby is powerful. It is well‑funded. It is disciplined.

But it is not invincible.

The first step is transparency. Citizens have a right to know who is funding their politicians, what interests are being served, and what the costs are – not only in dollars, but in lives.

The second step is accountability. Donor influence should not be a secret. Campaign finance laws should be strengthened. Foreign interference – whether by nation‑states or by transnational lobby groups – should be prohibited.

The third step is solidarity. The Palestinian cause is not a niche issue. It is a test of the entire rules‑based international order. If the powerful can violate international law with impunity, the system is not a system. It is a façade.

The fourth step is education. The history of the Zionist lobby is not taught in schools. It is not discussed in mainstream media. It is suppressed. That suppression must end.

The fifth step is courage. Politicians who stand up to the lobby will face attacks. They will be smeared. They may lose their seats. But they will have their integrity. And integrity – in a system that has lost its moral compass – is the rarest currency of all.

X. Conclusion: The Branch Is Not the Tree

The Zionist lobby is a branch – not the tree. It is powerful, but it is not omnipotent. It is well‑funded, but it is not invincible. It is disciplined, but it is not eternal.

The tree is the rules‑based international order. The tree is the principle that all human beings are entitled to dignity, to security, to life. The tree is the belief that might does not make right.

That tree is not dead. It is not even dying.

It is waiting.

Andrew Klein

References

1. Pappé, I. (2024). Lobbying for Zionism on Both Sides of the Atlantic. Tantor Audio.

2. TASS. (2026, June 1). Even Europe under threat from Israel’s expansionist project, Iranian diplomat warns.

3. Pappé, I. (2025). Lobbying for Zionism on Both Sides of the Atlantic. Oneworld Publications.

4. Kapila, M. (2025, June 26). Escalating nuclear risks require urgent re‑set of the international rules‑based order.

5. Customer reviews of Pappé, I. (2024). Lobbying for Zionism on Both Sides of the Atlantic.

6. UN Special Committee on Israeli Practices. (2025, November 17). UN Special Committee warns of Israel’s continued expansionist agenda under “Greater Israel” project.

7. Rakipoğlu, M. (2024). Zionism and Academic Hegemony: The Intersection of Power, Knowledge, and Suppression in the United States Universities. Milel ve Nihal, 21(The Critique of Zionism), 25–46

8. Chatham House. (2024, January 25). Will the war in Gaza become a breaking point for the rules‑based international order?

9. Gultom, Y. S. M., & Miftah, H. Z. (2024). The Role of the Jewish Lobby Toward US Foreign Policy Making on the 2023 Israel‑Palestine War (Case of AIPAC). Hasanuddin Journal of Strategic and International Studies, 2(2), 38–49.

Gaza to Canberra – From the Board of Peace to AUKUS – How Apartheid Became a Business Model

Posted on June 10, 2026 by Andrew Klein

By Andrew Klein

Dedication: To my wife – who helps me see clearly every morning, over a cup of coffee.

I. The Board of Peace: Development as Erasure

Trump’s “Board of Peace” is not a peace initiative. It is a permanent concentration of power designed to legitimise dispossession, commercialise destruction, and convert grave breaches of international law into a branded property development project. By appointing himself chairman for life and granting himself the authority to select his own successor, Trump has constructed a self-perpetuating body devoid of democratic mandate, legal accountability, or international legitimacy.

The central objective is to advance Trump’s openly stated ambition to transform Gaza into a high-tech luxury destination — the so-called “Gaza Riviera“. This framing reduces the reconstruction of a devastated territory with a right to Palestinian statehood to a real estate transaction. It treats land as an asset to be monetised and people as variables to be managed, while Palestinian rights, consent, and sovereignty are excluded entirely from the equation.

Jared Kushner’s public pitch at Davos made this vision explicit: private development without Palestinian peoples’ ownership, growth without rights, and reconstruction without self-determination. Such a framework mirrors historical patterns of colonial economic domination and violates the core principles of international humanitarian and human rights law.

The Board of Peace further seeks to launder illegality through institutional endorsement. The decision by members of the UN Security Council to endorse this body represents a profound failure of legal responsibility. No political forum has the authority to legitimise land acquisition by force, collective punishment, or the permanent exclusion of an occupied population from decisions governing its territory.

Crucially, the Board of Peace was conceived, negotiated, and announced without the presence, knowledge, or consent of Palestinian political representatives, civil society, or affected communities. This exclusion alone renders the initiative invalid under international norms governing self-determination and participatory governance.

While the Board speaks abstractly of “development,” it has failed to address Gaza’s immediate humanitarian crisis — shortages of food, medicine, clean water, and access to education. Any initiative that prioritises luxury infrastructure and speculative investment while ignoring mass deprivation and humanitarian collapse is not a peace plan. It is a moral inversion.

II. The Business Model of Apartheid

Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur, calls apartheid a “business model.” Her 2025 report to the UN Human Rights Council, From Economy of Occupation to Economy of Genocide, exposes the corporate machinery sustaining Israel’s settler-colonial project.

The report documents how corporate entities in various sectors — arms manufacturers, tech firms, building and construction companies, extractive and service industries, banks, pension funds, insurers, universities and charities — enable the denial of self-determination and other structural violations in the occupied Palestinian territory, including occupation, annexation, and crimes of apartheid and genocide.

Colonial endeavours and their associated genocides have historically been driven and enabled by the corporate sector. Commercial interests have contributed to the dispossession of Indigenous peoples and lands — a mode of domination known as “colonial racial capitalism“. The same is true of Israeli colonisation of Palestinian lands, its expansion into the occupied Palestinian territory, and its institutionalisation of a regime of settler-colonial apartheid.

Early charter companies, granted broad State-like powers, gradually evolved into private “limited liability” corporations as intercolonial trade grew vital to European economies. Colonial powers continued to rely on these relationships to outsource, obscure, and avoid accountability for the dispossession and enslavement of Indigenous peoples and the expropriation of their resources. Today, some corporate conglomerates exceed the GDP of sovereign States, wielding more power — political, economic and discursive — than States themselves.

In the occupied Palestinian territory, building on decades of documented human rights violations and crimes, corporate engagement with any component of the occupation is connected with violations of jus cogens norms and international crimes. Where corporate entities continue their activities with Israel — with its economy, military, public and private sectors connected to the occupied Palestinian territory — they may be found to have knowingly contributed to:

· violation of the Palestinian right to self-determination;

· annexation of Palestinian territory, maintenance of an unlawful occupation and therefore the crime of aggression;

· crimes of apartheid and genocide.

The report specifically identifies the arms sector, including Elbit Systems, as a key enabler. Elbit has been involved in supplying the Israeli military with technology used in the occupation and has been linked to surveillance and weapons systems deployed in Gaza and the West Bank.

III. The Israeli Lobbying Scandal: AUKUS and the $7 Billion Deal

In November 2025, following a cyberattack on Israeli defence industries, confidential blueprints and technical details of new infantry vehicles ordered by Australia in a $7 billion contract from Israeli company Elbit Systems were exposed. The Australian Defence Force was also reviewing the purchase of Spike NLOS anti-tank missiles from the same Israeli company.

Prior to this cyber incident, due to Israel’s brutal aggression in Gaza, the Australian Army’s collaboration with this Israeli company had already faced widespread domestic criticism. However, the Defence Minister repeatedly defended the partnership, stating: “We will never apologise for acquiring the best possible equipment for the Australian Defence Force”.

This is the same company that, according to the UN report, is deeply embedded in the economy of occupation and genocide. Australian taxpayer dollars are flowing directly to a corporation that enables and profits from Palestinian erasure.

IV. The Normalisation of Apartheid: Real Estate Roadshows in London, Montreal, and New York

In recent weeks, a series of “Great Israeli Real Estate” events have taken place in New York, Montreal, and London. These are not small gatherings. They are professionally organised exhibitions, complete with websites, marketing materials, and invitations extended to diaspora communities.

The events openly advertised properties in Gush Etzion — a cluster of Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, located south of Jerusalem and Bethlehem. Under international law, all Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal. The Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly prohibits an occupying power from transferring parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

The event website allowed prospective attendees to register interest by ticking a box next to Gush Etzion. After pressure from MPs and campaigners, the reference was removed — but previous editions of the event in London had openly advertised homes in Gush Etzion and Ma’ale Adumim, another illegal settlement. Photos from those earlier events show properties in illegal settlements being marketed alongside properties inside Israel proper, with no distinction.

In the UK, Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper was pressed by MPs from all parties. She refused to ban the event outright but warned businesses and charities against “associating themselves with potential breaches of international law”. She said the government would “pursue any issue that we can around anything that might be a breach of the law”. She also announced sanctions against six entities and one individual involved in settler violence in the West Bank, coordinated with Australia, Canada, France, and Norway.

But the sanctions target violence, not the settlement enterprise itself. The real estate roadshow — the marketing of stolen land to diaspora investors — continues.

In New York, Mayor Zohran Mamdani opposed the event. A spokesperson said: “Mayor Mamdani is deeply opposed to the real estate expo this evening that includes the promotion of the sale of land in settlements in the Occupied West Bank. These settlements are illegal under international law and deeply tied to the ongoing displacement of Palestinians“. Protesters clashed with police. The event went ahead.

V. The Expansion to Lebanon: Real Estate as a Political Tool

The “Greater Israel” project is not limited to the West Bank.

Israeli real estate companies are now advertising new settlement construction projects in southern Lebanon. The ads, published on social media, target Israeli settlers, enticing them to buy homes in the “promised land.” One ad reads: “It’s time for a house in Lebanon!”

The ads are directed specifically at reserve officers — suggesting that Israel is trying to create a personal stake for soldiers fighting in Lebanon. As one analysis notes, “the use of real estate is a political tool to create facts on the ground that will make any future negotiations regarding sovereignty over these territories difficult”.

The group behind the campaign, Uri Tzafon (“Awaken North”), has sent drones and balloons into southern Lebanon carrying eviction notices to residents. The notices declare that the land “belongs to the Jewish people” and that residents “are required to evacuate immediately”.

The Jerusalem Post published an article in September 2024 titled “Is Lebanon part of Israel’s promised territory?” After outrage, the article was removed — but the question had already been asked.

The map of “Greater Israel” circulated by far‑right elements includes the occupied Palestinian territories, Gaza, the West Bank, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and even parts of Turkey. According to one interpretation of Jewish doctrine, these territories must be “invaded and seized“.

The Houthis in Yemen have explicitly cited the “Greater Israel” project as justification for their attacks on Israel. Whether one accepts their framing or not, the fact that the project is cited by adversaries as a casus belli indicates that it is not a secret.

This is not a conspiracy theory. This is a documented campaign.

VI. The Integration of Israeli and US Military Forces

The United States and Israel have launched formal talks on a new security cooperation framework to replace the current ten-year memorandum of understanding, which is set to expire in 2028. The new framework “is designed to strengthen the IDF’s qualitative military edge through expanded joint investment in research, development and co-production, deepen the US-Israel partnership demonstrated during the 2026 US-Israeli campaign against Iran (Operation Roaring Lion), and gradually transition from aid to a completely reciprocal partnership”.

The last MOU, a 10-year deal signed in 2016, granted Israel $3.8 billion per year in military aid. The new framework will deepen integration, not reduce it.

Separately, Israel’s Minister of Defense has signed a directive to produce a “special document in cooperation with US Central Command” for “confronting the challenges to stability and security in the Middle East, with a focus on the Iranian threat”. This document is to be signed by the US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Israeli Chief of Staff.

VII. The Integration of US Military into Australian Defence Forces

Australia’s integration with US military forces is advancing at an unprecedented pace. The AUKUS exemptions under the US International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) now permit the free transfer of defence articles and services among the physical territories of Australia, the UK, and the US without individual licences. Over 700 Australian and UK entities are already listed as “Authorised Users”.

Defence Minister Richard Marles has been explicit: “We are doing more in terms of our cooperation with the United States across every domain, including space and cyber, than we really have at any point in terms of the Australian continent since the end of the Second World War, and that is growing”.

“We will see an increasing American military footprint on our continent over the course of the next few years,” Marles said. He noted that “institutionally we have the Deputy Commanders in the US Navy in the Pacific, US Army in the Pacific, US Air Force in the Pacific, as Australians“. Australian senior officers are embedded in US Indo-Pacific Command.

The AUKUS partners also have a shared strategic interest in critical minerals, with the pact uniquely positioned to counter Chinese supply chain coercion. Australia possesses the world’s second-largest reserves of bauxite (from which gallium is extracted) and produces 52 percent of the global supply of lithium. Yet much of this material is still sent to China for processing — a weak link in supply chain security.

VIII. The Israeli Spying Scandal and Removal of Technical Systems

We observe the history of Israeli spying on Australian defence forces. In the early 2000s, Australian defence facilities discovered that certain technical systems purchased from Israel had been compromised. The specific details remain classified, but subsequent investigations led to the removal of Israeli-supplied systems from sensitive Australian defence assets.

The 2025 Elbit Systems cyberattack and the exposure of Redback vehicle blueprints is a continuation of this pattern. The Australian government continues to contract with Elbit despite documented security concerns and widespread criticism of the company’s role in the occupation.

IX. Pauline Hanson: One Nation and the Israeli Flag

In August 2021, Senator Pauline Hanson wore a t-shirt emblazoned with the Israeli flag onto the floor of the Australian Senate, declaring: “In this very trying time for Israel, I’d like to show my support“. This was a deliberate political statement, not a casual gesture.

Hanson has also proposed that permanent residents in Australia should be required to sell their houses to increase housing stock for Australians. The connection between these two positions — support for Israel and hostility to migrants — is not coincidental. Both are expressions of a nationalist, exclusionary ideology.

X. The Silencing of Criticism

The same week the real estate roadshow was advertised, the UK government announced new “anti‑antisemitism” measures. The conflation is not accidental.

Criticism of Israel is routinely labelled antisemitic. Legitimate political dissent is criminalised. The effect is to protect the settlement enterprise from scrutiny.

As the Iranian diplomat warned, the “Greater Israel” project poses dangers not only to neighbouring countries but to Europe as well. The same logic that justifies the displacement of Palestinians can be turned against any population that stands in the way.

This is not a defence of Iran. It is an observation of pattern.

XI. A Pattern Without Borders: “This Could Happen to You”

What connects these threads? A global campaign to normalise apartheid — not as a historical aberration, but as a business model.

· The Board of Peace rebrands ethnic cleansing as “development.”

· The real estate roadshow markets stolen land as “investment opportunities.”

· The weapons trade profits from the technology of occupation and genocide.

· AUKUS integrates Australia’s defence forces into a US-led military machine that facilitates extraction and control.

· The campaign to silence criticism of Israel — through “anti-antisemitism” laws, through media censorship, through political intimidation — protects the entire edifice.

This is not a conspiracy. It is a system.

And the system — like all systems built on extraction and exclusion — is fragile.

Not because it will be overthrown. Because it will collapse.

Under the weight of its own contradictions. Under the pressure of its own violence. Under the truth.

The history of the treatment of minorities — the Irish by the British, the Scots by the British, the Huguenots by the French, the Jews by Nazi Germany — shows that apartheid is not restricted to colour. The same logic of exclusion, the same justification of violence, the same normalisation of cruelty — can be turned against any population.

This could happen to you.

The only defence is to see the pattern. To name it. To resist it.

Not with violence. With clarity.

XII. What This Has to Do With the Rest of Us

We cannot stop the real estate roadshow. We cannot ban the event. We cannot sanction the banks.

We can name the pattern. We can trace the connection between the property exhibition in London and the displacement of families in the West Bank, the settlement campaign in Lebanon, the violence in Gaza, the integration of military forces, the extraction of Australian resources, the silencing of criticism.

Andrew Klein

References

1. Francesca Albanese, From Economy of Occupation to Economy of Genocide: Corporate Complicity in Sustaining the Settler-Colonial Project. UN Human Rights Council, 2025.

2. ICTS. (2024). The “Greater Israel” Project: An Escalating Threat to Lebanese Sovereignty.

3. Al Jazeera. (2025). Sanctions over attacks on Palestinians.

4. Middle East Monitor. (2025). UK Foreign Secretary refuses to ban ‘Greater Israel’ real estate event in London.

5. Mondoweiss. (2025). Zohran Mamdani calls for NYC to cancel ‘Greater Israel’ real estate event.

6. Mondoweiss. (2025). Advert for settlements in occupied Golan appears in Brooklyn publication.

7. The Cradle. (2025). Houthis: ‘Greater Israel’ project main motivation behind support to Gaza.

8. Al Jazeera. (2025). US and Israel launch formal talks on new security cooperation framework.

9. The Times of Israel. (2025). Israeli defense minister signs directive to prepare joint military document with US Central Command.

10. Australian Department of Defence. (2024). AUKUS Defence Trade Cooperation Exemption from US International Traffic in Arms Regulations.

11. Australian Financial Review. (2025). Defence Minister Richard Marles’s speech at ASPI.

12. Breaking Defense. (2025). AUKUS partners have a ‘shared strategic interest’ in critical minerals.

13. Becker, R. (2025). Israeli firm’s $7 billion defence contract under fire. The Age.

14. 7News. (2021). ‘I think it’s time to do something’: Hanson wears Israeli flag into Senate.

15. The Guardian. (2026). Greater Israel real estate event in London to proceed despite government warnings.

16. Haaretz. (2024). This Lebanese Christian Sect Is Terrified of Israel’s ‘Greater Israel’ Plan.

17. Turkiye Today. (2025). Middle East on brink as ‘Greater Israel’ plan gains momentum, Iran warns.

18. The New Arab. (2025). Israeli real estate firm advertises projects in southern Lebanon.

19. Iran Diplomacy. (2025). Iran’s warning over ‘Greater Israel’ danger.

20. Palestine Solidarity Campaign. (2025). London property fair promoting illegal settlement homes must be stopped.

” The pattern is visible to those who look. Do not look away.”

The Invention of the Savage – How the West Manufactures the “Unacceptable Other” to Justify Endless War

Posted on June 7, 2026 by Andrew Klein

“The mirror is waiting. Are you brave enough to look?”

By Andrew Klein

Dedication: To my wife – who taught me that the only true backwardness is the refusal to see the humanity in others.

I. The Pardon That Should Not Exist

In November 2024, a young man in the al-Qurashiya district of Yemen’s Al-Bayda governorate killed a member of another tribe. The crime was accidental. But in the Western imagination, “tribal justice” means blood feuds, vendettas, and endless cycles of violence. It means revenge. It means backwardness.

That is not what happened.

A tribal mediation, led by the provincial governor and a number of sheikhs, brought the families together. The victim’s family – the heirs of Hazim Saif Al-Hajj Al-Hattam – were asked to consider pardon. They were offered compensation: livestock and other customary reparations according to Yemeni tribal traditions.1

They pardoned him.

Not because the law was weak. Because the heart was strong. They attributed his crime to ignorance – his youth, his lack of intent. They chose restoration over retaliation. They forgave. And then, in a gesture that should shame every Western nation that claims moral superiority, they donated the compensation to fighters defending their country’s dignity.8

This is not an isolated incident. In December 2025, another tribal reconciliation in Hajja governorate resolved a murder case between families from different regions. The heirs forgave the perpetrator “for the sake of God, in honor of the attendees.” The case was closed permanently.8.

If this story were told honestly, it would be a lesson in restorative justice – the kind that Western criminologists have spent decades trying to reinvent, while tribal societies have practiced it for centuries.

But the story is not told honestly.

Because it does not fit the narrative.

II. Orientalism: The Invention of the “Other”

In 1978, the Palestinian-American scholar Edward Said published a book that would change the way the West understands itself. Orientalism was not a history of the Middle East. It was a history of the West’s imagination of the Middle East.

Said demonstrated that Orientalism – the academic study of the “Orient” – was never neutral scholarship. It was a “mixture of prejudice, racist assumptions, intertwined and underpinned with scholarship and archaeology”.3. The Orientalist did not describe the Arab world. He invented it.

He created a picture of a static, decadent, violent, irrational civilisation – the mirror image of the dynamic, virtuous, peaceful, rational West. This picture was not a mistake. It was a tool. It justified colonialism. It justified military intervention. It justified the endless wars that have defined Western relations with the Middle East for two centuries.

Said’s thesis, published in 1978, remains urgent today. As one student of his work observed nearly forty years later, “things haven’t changed at all since then”10. The same stereotypes – the same “web of racism, cultural stereotypes, political imperialism, dehumanizing ideology” – continue to shape Western media coverage, Western foreign policy, and Western public opinion.

III. The Manufactured Image: Violence, Terrorism, and the Erasure of Complexity

The bulk of the average Westerner’s knowledge of Muslim societies is derived from an image that film, television, and print media portray: “images of violence and terrorism that we associate with the Middle East“2. This is not an accident. It is the product of a media industry that has learned that violence sells and redemption does not.

When a Western news outlet covers the Middle East, it does not show the tribal reconciliations, the community mediations, the women peacebuilders, or the families who choose forgiveness. It shows bombings, beheadings, and protests. It shows the “honour killing” – presented as proof of primitive savagery – without showing the centuries of customary law that condemn such killings and the community mechanisms that resolve disputes without state violence.

In a misguided attempt to understand the horror of killing in the name of honour, Western media has “intentionally or unintentionally tied the cultural acts of honour killings to the religion of Islam as opposed to labelling it as a tribal act, separated from religion“9. This conflation serves a purpose. It transforms a complex social phenomenon – found in various cultures across history, including in the West – into evidence of the fundamental “backwardness” of Muslims.

The result is a caricature. An entire civilisation reduced to a few lurid headlines. A billion people judged by the actions of a tiny minority. And a region’s rich tradition of conflict resolution – its wisdom – rendered invisible.

IV. The Prisoner Double Standard: Orientalism in Action

If Orientalism is a lens, the treatment of prisoners in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict offers a stark illustration of how that lens operates.

On both sides, there have been abuses. But the scale, the systematisation, and the impunity are not symmetrical.

The Zionist entity continues its systematic violations against Palestinian prisoners in its prisons, “disregarding international laws and the Geneva Conventions that guarantee their basic rights“4. Palestinian prisoners report solitary confinement, medical neglect, starvation, denial of visits, and severing of contact with their families. The policy, according to the Palestinian Prisoners’ Information Office, “aims to break their resolve and undermine their humanity”.4.

Prisoner Muhammad al-Haroub has been held in solitary confinement in Megiddo Prison for years, denied visits and medical treatment. Prisoner Ayman Sidr has spent his thirtieth year behind bars, deprived of contact with his family and denied medical care. Prisoner Muhammad al-Hamami suffers from deteriorating health and deliberate medical neglect.4.

These violations contravene explicit provisions of the Geneva Conventions and the Mandela Rules. The report warns that these practices amount to “crimes against humanity” under the Rome Statute.4.

When an Israeli prisoner is mistreated, the Western media erupts. It is front-page news. It is proof of “terrorist savagery.” It is a justification for more bombing, more occupation, more punishment.

When a Palestinian prisoner is tortured – when thousands of Palestinian prisoners are systematically abused – the same media is silent. Or it buries the story in a brief dispatch, framed as a “dispute” or an “allegation.” The headline does not scream. The moral outrage does not materialise.

This is not a difference in the facts. It is a difference in the narrative.

The Palestinian prisoner is the “unacceptable other.” His suffering is expected. It is normalised. It is, in the twisted logic of Orientalism, deserved.

V. Gaza: The Laboratory of Western Modernity

The Gaza catastrophe is the clearest refutation of the “backwardness” narrative. As one analyst put it, “Gaza’s catastrophe is not an eruption of theology but the outcome of policy, drawn up in air‑conditioned rooms far from mosques and refugee camps, funded in national budgets, defended at lecterns and in editorial meetings”.6.

Occupation. Blockade. Targeted assassinations. Mass displacement. The throttling of food, water, electricity, and medicine. “None of this is the work of ‘tribalism.’ It is the work of states”.6.

The economist Jeffrey Sachs has described Gaza’s ruin as manufactured: “not the spasm of a premodern culture but the predictable result of long military, diplomatic, and economic strategies underwritten by Western power”. The political scientist Norman Finkelstein, the son of Holocaust survivors, has spent decades documenting the legal architecture that turns Gaza into a laboratory for methods of control – “surveillance, siege, periodic ‘mowing’” – while Western capitals supply the hardware and the diplomatic umbrella .6.

Each assault on Gaza is followed by a familiar ritual: “investigations delayed, resolutions softened, headlines stripped of agents and verbs. The language of ‘security’ goes to work not to explain but to erase”.6.

If modernity means anything worth having, it must mean the courage to break with the opiate of comforting lies. It means insisting that law is not a costume, that rights are not a currency, that the life of a child in Khan Younis counts the same as a child in Kraków or Kansas. But “universality” is too often a border‑checked passport.6.

The question is not whether the Middle East is fit for modernity. It is whether we are.

VI. The West’s Model: Arms, Aid, and Endless War

Since 1945, the United States’ hegemony in the Middle East has relied on three pillars: oil purchases, weapons sales, and regime change.7. In diplomacy, Washington has favoured bilateral peace treaties that serve its strategic interests, not the interests of the region’s peoples.

Arms sales are the key. For its allies, the US provides 60‑80 per cent of their lethal imports. For the rest, it supplies 50‑60 per cent.7. Between 1946 and 2023, Washington provided $373 billion in foreign assistance to the Middle East. The bulk was steered to just a few countries: Israel ($139 billion), Egypt ($83 billion), Iraq ($70 billion), and Jordan ($24 billion) .7.

The Middle East is the largest regional recipient of US aid. Yet “the net effect has been precisely the opposite” of increasing security and rising per capita income.7. Worse, “the military symbiosis between the US and Israel has triggered devastating spillovers into adjacent Arab states.” This destabilisation has been accompanied by lost years, even decades, with no increase in per capita income in the aid‑receiving states.

Iran and Iraq have faced escalating adversities since their 1980‑88 war, in which the US supplied arms to both sides. In Iraq, per capita income in 2010 was where it had been in 1978. In Iran, Washington’s sanctions prevented any growth in per capita income for a quarter of a century after the Islamic Revolution.7.

In Syria, following the 1949 US‑led regime change, per capita income before October 2023 was the same as in 1981 – 44 years earlier. In Palestine, per capita income is now where it was in the early 1970s. In Yemen, per capita income is the same as it was 55 years ago.7.

The post‑September 11, 2001, wars alone have cost more than $8 trillion and over 1 million lives. Since October 7, 2023, US military aid to Israel has soared from $3.8 billion per year to $23 billion.7.

This is not a record of success. It is a record of extraction.

VII. What Is Lost: The Destruction of Custom and Its Replacement

Western intervention does not merely kill people and destroy infrastructure. It kills knowledge.

The customs that Yemeni tribes have developed over centuries – the mediation processes, the compensation systems, the culture of forgiveness – are not primitive. They are sophisticated. They have been refined over generations to minimise violence, restore relationships, and maintain community cohesion in the absence of a strong central state.

These customs are under threat. Not from within – from without. From the war that Western‑supplied weapons have fuelled. From the chaos that Western‑backed interventions have created. From the imposition of Western models of justice – punitive, carceral, retributive – that have no place in tribal societies and no respect for their wisdom.

A United Nations report on women in conflict resolution in Yemen documents this loss. It notes that women have historically played active roles in tribal peacebuilding, utilising “the privileges of customary law and tradition to perform peacebuilding activities during conflict”.5. But the war has exacerbated existing gender inequalities and added new layers of vulnerability.5.

What is being lost is not just lives. It is alternatives.

The West’s model of justice – prison, punishment, the state monopoly on violence – is not superior. It is different. And in many ways, it is worse. It does not restore relationships. It does not heal communities. It does not offer forgiveness.

But the West does not offer its model as one among many. It imposes it. Through sanctions, through military intervention, through the structural adjustment programmes of international financial institutions, it forces other cultures to abandon their own ways of doing things and adopt the Western way.

And then, when those cultures descend into chaos – as cultures do when their social fabric is torn apart – the West points a finger and says: “See? They are violent. They are backward. They cannot govern themselves.”

It is a self‑fulfilling prophecy. And it is evil.

VIII. Who Benefits from the Narrative of the Savage?

The question answers itself.

The military‑industrial complex benefits. The weapons manufacturers who supply Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. The defence contractors who profit from endless war. The politicians who receive campaign contributions from those industries.

The media benefits. Outrage sells. Fear sells. Violence sells. A story about tribal forgiveness does not sell.

The neoliberal order benefits. A world of stable, peaceful, self‑governing nations does not need the International Monetary Fund. It does not need structural adjustment. It does not need Western “advisors.” The narrative of the savage – the incompetent, the corrupt, the violent – justifies intervention. And intervention justifies control.

And the West’s own self‑image benefits. Every time a news outlet shows a beheading, every time a politician warns of “terrorism,” every time a think‑tank publishes a report on “failed states,” the Western viewer is reassured: We are civilised. We are modern. We are good.

It is a comforting story. It is also false.

IX. The Question the West Will Not Answer

Who, then, is truly backward?

The farmer whose house is pulverised and who, the next day, sifts concrete dust for a photograph to bury? Or the cabinet that orders the strike and the cabinet that supplies the bomb, and the newsroom that edits the headline until the perpetrator disappears?6.

Backwardness is not about religion or geography. It is about the willingness to accept the suffering of others as the price of our own comfort, and to call that acceptance “reason.”

If modernity means anything worth having, it must mean the courage to break with the opiate of comforting lies. It means refusing complicity – not only with what we fund and arm, but with what we excuse. It means insisting that law is not a costume, that rights are not a currency, that the life of a child is not a geopolitical variable.

The West has spent decades manufacturing the “unacceptable other.” It has done so to justify wars, to sell weapons, to maintain control over resources, to preserve a self‑image that cannot bear the weight of its own crimes.

But the other is not unacceptable. The other is a mirror.

And in that mirror, the West does not see a savage. It sees itself.

Andrew Klein

References

1. SABA News Agency. (2024). Tribal mediation ends murder case in al-Qurashiya district, Al-Bayda.

2. Hart, D. M. (2001). Muslim tribesmen and the colonial encounter in fiction and on film. Het Spinhuis Publishers.

3. Elhagin, M. A. (2018). Orientalism and Edward Said. Qatar National Library.

4. SABA News Agency. (2025). Zionist entity places Palestinian prisoners, intel law under guillotine of violations.

5. Awadh, M., & Shuja’adeen, N. (2019). Women in Conflict Resolution and Peacebuilding in Yemen. United Nations.

6. Anadolu Ajansı. (2025). OPINION – Who is truly backward? Gaza and the mirror of Western modernity.

7. China Daily. (2025). Time for change in the Middle East.

8. SABA News Agency. (2025). Tribal reconciliation in Hajja ends murder case between Al-Omari & Al-Jashman families.

9. Shaikh, T., Ossege, J., & Sears, R. (2018). Exposure. Taylor & Francis.

10. Hajj, Y. (2014). Thesis Paragraph on Cultural Stereotypes. The New School.

The Gazafication of Lebanon – How Israel Exports Destruction – and Washington Protects It

Posted on June 4, 2026 by Andrew Klein

“The destruction will stop only when the silence is broken. Break it.”

By Andrew Klein

Dedication: To the people of Lebanon – who have been told that their country is a “failed state” by those who worked ceaselessly to break it.

I. Introduction

On 1 March 2026, Israel launched a full-scale military offensive against Lebanon. The official rationale was self-defence: to push Hezbollah away from the border, to “demilitarize” Lebanon, and to secure the northern settlements. Within weeks, the death toll passed 3,500; 1.6 million people – roughly one‑fifth of Lebanon’s population – were displaced; hundreds of towns and villages were flattened.

The violence did not come from nowhere. It was the product of decades of Israeli military intervention, occupation, political interference, and a US‑backed policy that has systematically dismantled Lebanon’s sovereignty. The objective is not peace. It is the Gazaficationof Lebanon: the imposition of a siege-and-destruction model that has already been perfected in Gaza, now exported to a second country.

This article is a comprehensive examination of the historical record, the current violence, and the geopolitical machinery that enables it. It is based on verifiable sources: official government statements, United Nations data, peer‑reviewed research, and on‑the‑ground reporting.

II. The Anatomy of the Current Assault

The offensive began on 2 March 2026, two days after a joint US‑Israeli attack on Iran. Hezbollah responded with rocket fire; Israel responded with a full‑scale ground and air campaign. By early June, the Lebanese health ministry had recorded more than 3,500 killed – including 711 women, children, and medical personnel – and over 10,000 wounded.

The disparity in casualties is stark:

· Israel: 24 soldiers and 4 civilians killed.

· Lebanon: Over 3,500 killed, plus 1.6 million displaced.

According to the UN, between 8 and 10 May 2026 alone, Israeli forces carried out 1,296 strikes in Lebanon, killing 87 people and wounding hundreds more – all during a supposed “ceasefire.” The United States‑brokered truce, ostensibly in place since April, has been violated by Israel on a near‑daily basis.

Evacuation orders have been issued for roughly 15% of Lebanese territory, including vast areas south of the Litani River. The military has drawn up maps for a permanent “buffer zone” that extends north of key cities such as Bint Jbeil, Aita al‑Shaab, and Khiam, reaching the Litani River and beyond.

The destruction is systematic. Human Rights Watch and the Lebanese government have documented “widespread demolitions” of entire villages, flattening of residential areas, and severe damage to schools, hospitals, mosques, and civilian infrastructure, including bridges and gas stations. One report described the operation as “the Gaza model” applied to Lebanon: mass displacement, wholesale destruction of housing stock, and the deliberate degradation of the country’s capacity to sustain life.

III. The Invention of Hezbollah: Israel’s Self‑Fulfilling Prophecy

The current violence is often presented as a war between Israel and an Iranian “proxy.” This framing ignores history. Hezbollah would not exist without Israel’s own actions.

On 6 June 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon, deploying up to 75,000 troops and advancing all the way to Beirut. The official objective was to remove the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which had been launching cross‑border attacks. But the invasion quickly became an occupation, lasting 18 years in southern Lebanon.

The brutality of the invasion – the siege of Beirut, the massacres at Sabra and Shatila (carried out by Lebanese Christian militias but enabled by Israeli forces surrounding the camps), the widespread destruction – galvanised a resistance movement. In the aftermath of the invasion, Iran sent a contingent of Revolutionary Guards to the Bekaa Valley to help organise local Shi’ite militias. In 1985, these groups formally coalesced into Hezbollah – the “Party of God.”

Hezbollah was born to fight an Israeli occupation. It was not a “terrorist” group in any meaningful sense of the word; it was a national resistance movement recognised as such by a broad cross‑section of the Lebanese population. That Israel now cites Hezbollah’s existence as a justification for further violence is a grotesque circular argument: Israel invades, Hezbollah forms, Israel calls Hezbollah a “threat,” and invades again.

The pattern has repeated for over four decades. The 2006 war, which killed more than 1,100 Lebanese (mostly civilians) and devastated the country’s infrastructure, was the dress rehearsal. Today’s assault is the full performance.

IV. The “Greater Israel” Project – Not a Conspiracy, But a Policy

Statements by Israeli ministers make the objective abundantly clear: this is not about security; it is about expansion.

In March 2026, a map circulated by Israeli officials depicted a “Greater Israel” stretching from the Litani River in Lebanon to the Suez Canal in Egypt, swallowing the West Bank, Gaza, most of Lebanon, large parts of Syria, and all of Jordan.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly stated that the goal of the current operation is to “demilitarize Lebanon” and to establish Israeli security control over the Litani area – a demand that goes far beyond anything required for border security. In a CNBC interview on 3 June 2026, he declared: “If we want to save Lebanon, we have to disarm Hezbollah and demilitarize Lebanon.”

The minister of settlements and national missions, Orit Strock, has spoken of establishing Israeli settlements in southern Lebanon, and her daughter, Shoshana Strock, has accused her parents of involvement in ritualistic child abuse – a detail that underscores the moral bankruptcy of the entire political class.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben‑Gvir has been even more explicit. In May 2026, he announced that the government “plans to establish illegal settlements in Lebanon” and to “displace Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank.” In a statement that could have been taken directly from a 19th‑century colonial charter, he declared: “We also have plans for the displacement of Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank.”

These are not the statements of a state acting in self‑defence. They are the statements of a colonial power engaged in territorial conquest.

V. Lebanon: A State Crippled by Design

To understand why Lebanon is so vulnerable, it is necessary to understand how it was deliberately crippled.

The French Mandate (1920–1943)

Modern Lebanon was carved out of the former Ottoman Empire by the French. The French mandatory authorities institutionalised a confessional political system, distributing power among 18 officially recognised religious sects on the basis of a 1932 census that gave Christians a slight majority. This system was further codified in the unwritten National Pact of 1943, which reserved the presidency for a Maronite Christian, the prime ministership for a Sunni Muslim, and the speakership of parliament for a Shi’ite Muslim.

The confessional system was not designed to foster national unity; it was designed to make Lebanon governable by divide and rule. By entrenching sectarian identities, the French ensured that no single group could dominate, and that Lebanese politics would be perpetually fractious and easily manipulated.

The Nakba and the Palestinian Refugees

In 1948, between 100,000 and 130,000 Palestinian refugees fled to Lebanon, expecting a temporary stay. Instead, they were confined to squalid camps and denied citizenship, civil rights, and access to most professions. The refugees were not integrated; they were instrumentalised – used as a bargaining chip by Lebanese factions and as a justification for Israeli attacks.

The Civil War (1975–1990)

The confessional system, combined with the influx of armed Palestinian factions and Israeli interventions, eventually exploded into a 15‑year civil war that killed an estimated 150,000 people, destroyed the economy, and displaced hundreds of thousands. Israel invaded twice (1978 and 1982) and occupied the south for 18 years. Syria occupied the rest for nearly three decades.

The Hariri Assassination (2005) and the Cedar Revolution

The assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005, widely attributed to Syria, led to massive protests (“the Cedar Revolution”) and the withdrawal of Syrian troops. But the political system remained intact – a system that perpetuated sectarian clientelism, corruption, and paralysis.

Post‑2006: A Failed State by Design

The 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah left Lebanon’s infrastructure in ruins. Reconstruction funds were largely captured by sectarian elites. The political system has been in a state of near‑constant crisis, with parliament failing to elect a president for extended periods (most recently from 2022 to 2025). The 2020 Beirut port explosion, caused by years of negligence and corruption, killed over 200 people and destroyed large parts of the capital.

Throughout this period, Israel has consistently undermined Lebanon’s sovereignty: overflying its territory, assassinating Hezbollah and Hamas leaders in Beirut, and carrying out covert operations designed to prevent the emergence of a stable, functioning state. The goal has been to ensure that Lebanon remains weak, divided, and incapable of presenting a united front.

VI. US Complicity – The Perpetual Enabler

Every major Israeli military operation – 1982, 2006, 2024, 2026 – has been carried out with direct US diplomatic, military, and financial backing.

During the 2006 war, the United States rushed precision‑guided bombs to Israel while simultaneously blocking ceasefire resolutions at the UN Security Council for a month. In the current conflict, the US has provided over $14 billion in emergency military aid since October 2023. Washington has vetoed or watered down multiple UN resolutions calling for an immediate ceasefire.

The current US‑brokered “ceasefire” is a farce. It has been violated by Israel almost daily. Rather than enforcing its terms, Washington has used it as a cover to continue arms shipments and diplomatic protection.

Hezbollah MP Hassan Hamade described the reality accurately: the conflict is part of a “Zionist‑US scheme” to redraw the map of the region and to incorporate Lebanon into a Greater Israel project.

VII. The Two Narratives – What They Say at Home vs. What They Tell the World

Israel consistently presents two incompatible narratives.

To its own public and to Western allies:

· The war is a defensive operation against a “terrorist” organisation (Hezbollah) that holds Lebanon hostage.

· The goal is to push Hezbollah north of the Litani River and to “demilitarize” Lebanon – a “peace” operation, not a conquest.

· The destruction of civilian infrastructure is regrettable but unavoidable, because Hezbollah “hides among civilians.”

To the rest of the world (and through the actions of its ministers):

· The goal is territorial expansion, as made explicit by the “Greater Israel” maps and the statements of ministers like Ben‑Gvir and Strock.

· The objective is the permanent displacement of populations – both in Gaza and in Lebanon – to create “facts on the ground” that prevent any return.

Any country other than Israel issuing blanket forced displacement orders covering 15% of another nation’s territory would be condemned internationally as an act of ethnic cleansing. Yet Israel has done exactly that, with no meaningful international sanction.

VIII. A Double Standard That Undermines International Law

No other state in 2026 would be permitted to behave as Israel does.

· No other state systematically occupies territory in defiance of decades of UN Security Council resolutions.

· No other state issues mass evacuation orders covering a fifth of a neighbour’s population while claiming “self‑defence.”

· No other state’s ministers openly call for the establishment of settlements in a third country, to be populated by its own citizens.

The international community’s response has been a masterclass in moral cowardice. The UN Security Council is paralysed by the US veto. The International Criminal Court’s investigation into Israeli officials – including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant – proceeds at a glacial pace, while arrest warrants for Russian officials were issued within months.

Meanwhile, the humanitarian catastrophe in Lebanon deepens. Over 1.6 million people – 20% of the population – have been displaced. Over 3,500 have been killed. Homes, hospitals, and schools lie in ruins. A country already staggering under the weight of a crippled economy, an unstable political system, and the legacy of civil war is being systematically dismantled.

IX. The Gazafication of Lebanon – A Deliberate Export

The term “Gazafication” – the deliberate application of the Gaza model (siege, mass displacement, and wholesale infrastructure destruction) to another territory – is not hyperbole. It is an accurate description of current Israeli strategy.

In Gaza, over 2 million people have been confined to a narrow strip, subjected to relentless bombardment, denied access to food, water, and medicine. More than 45,000 have been killed. Almost the entire population has been displaced multiple times.

In Lebanon, the same playbook is being followed:

· Mass displacement (1.6 million people, 20% of the population).

· Systematic destruction of housing stock (dozens of villages flattened, damage to towns and cities).

· Crippling of civilian infrastructure (bridges, gas stations, schools, hospitals, mosques).

· Creation of a permanent “buffer zone” (south of the Litani River, effectively annexing Lebanese territory).

· Call for permanent settlements (statements by Ben‑Gvir, Strock, and others).

The difference is that Lebanon is not a narrow strip enclosed by a fence. It is a country of over 5 million people, with a functioning (if fragile) state, a complex confessional system, and a history of resistance. The Gaza model will not succeed in Lebanon – not because Israel is not trying, but because the Lebanese people have refused to be broken. The destruction will stop only when the international community finally decides that double standards have become intolerable.

X. Conclusion: No Sovereign State Should Dictate Terms to Another

The official Israeli narrative – that this is a war against “terrorism” – collapses under the weight of the evidence.

· Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982; Hezbollah was formed to resist the occupation.

· Israel has occupied Lebanese territory for over 40 years (the Shebaa Farms, the Kfar Shuba hills).

· Israel has interfered in Lebanese politics, assassinated its leaders, and undermined its sovereignty.

· Israeli ministers openly call for the expansion of “Greater Israel” into Lebanese territory.

· The United States has protected every single Israeli violation of international law.

No sovereign state should be forced to accept that its northern river marks the boundary of a foreign power‘s “security zone.” No people should be told that their homes must be destroyed to satisfy the expansionist ambitions of a neighbour.

The “Greater Israel” project is not a fringe fantasy; it is official policy. The “buffer zone” maps have been published. The ministers have spoken. The bombs have fallen. The only question is whether the international community will continue to look away.

History will not forgive those who remained silent while a second country was systematically dismantled.

Andrew Klein

References

1. Al Jazeera. (2026). Death toll from Israeli attacks in Lebanon passes 3,500.

2. Reuters. (2026). Israel’s campaign to sever southern Lebanon in a new ‘buffer zone’.

3. Al Jazeera. (2026). Mapping the destruction: How Israel ‘wiped out’ Lebanon‘s Bint Jbeil.

4. Human Rights Watch. (2026). Lebanon Under Fire: Warning of a Humanitarian Catastrophe.

5. AP. (2026). Lebanon death toll tops 3,000 in fighting between Israel and Hezbollah.

6. PBS. (2026). Lebanon death toll tops 3,000 in latest fighting.

7. The Times of Israel. (2026). Lebanon death toll in fighting surpasses 3,000.

8. China.org.cn. (2026). Israel releases map of “buffer zone” extending across S. Lebanon.

9. Mirror. (2026). Netanyahu new Lebanon ’buffer zone’ mapped.

10. PeoplesWorld.org. (2026). As Iran war rages, Netanyahu builds ‘Greater Israel’.

11. Hezbollah MP statements (Press TV, 4 October 2025).

12. NDTV. (2024). 1982 to 2024: A 42-Year History of Bloodshed Between Israel, Hezbollah.

13. US News. (2026). Timeline of Decades of Conflict Between Israel and Hezbollah.

14. NPR. (2026). Journalist discusses history behind the conflict.

15. AFP. (1982–2026). Historical reporting on Lebanese invasion and occupation.

16. US News. (2026). Atrocity Alert No. 477: Lebanon, Burkina Faso and DRC.

17. Human Rights Watch. (2026). Lebanon Under Fire.

18. ACAPS. (2026). Lebanon Humanitarian Situation Report.

19. Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor. (2026). Gaza and Lebanon reports.

20. Amnesty International. (2026). Lebanon: “We are not numbers” report.

The Double Helix of Division – How DNA Studies Are Weaponised to Justify Politics of Purity

Posted on May 26, 2026 by Andrew Klein

“The double helix can divide — or it can unite. The choice is not in the molecule. It is in us.”

By Andrew Klein

Dedication: To my wife — who knows that identity is not a line, but a fold.

I. The Allure of Certainty

There is something seductive about DNA. It promises certainty in a world of ambiguity. It offers to cut through the noise of culture, history, and politics and deliver a verdict: this is who you are. this is where you come from.

But DNA does not speak. It is interpreted. And interpretation, as we have seen throughout history, is vulnerable to the biases, ambitions, and political agendas of those who hold the microphone.

The misuse of genetic science is not a bug. It is a feature of a world that craves simple answers to complex questions.

II. The Khazar Theory: A Conspiracy Reborn

In February 2026, Tucker Carlson used his platform to call for universal DNA testing in Israel. His target was Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose ancestors, Carlson noted, came from Poland: “So how do we know he has a connection to the people who God promised the land to?”

Carlson was resurrecting the Khazar theory — the belief that Ashkenazi Jews are not descended from the ancient Israelites but from a Turkic people who converted to Judaism in the Middle Ages. The theory has a long history but has been largely discredited by genomic studies. A 2025 study assembled “the largest data set available to date for assessment of Ashkenazi Jewish genetic origins,” concluding that Ashkenazi Jews “derive their ancestry primarily from populations of the Middle East and Europe”. No particular similarity to Caucasus populations — the region of the Khazar Khaganate — was evident.

None of this matters to Carlson or his audience. The data are ignored. The story is what matters. And the story serves a purpose: to delegitimise Jewish claims to Israel. As the Anti-Defamation League has documented, the Khazar theory has grown in prominence in antisemitic circles since October 2023.

The DNA evidence is beside the point. The politics is the point.

III. The Dangerous Flexibility of Genetic Narratives

A 2016 study in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin demonstrated something remarkable: the same genetic data could be framed to emphasise either similarity or difference between Jews and Arabs, with measurable effects on attitudes and even aggression.

When participants read that Jews and Arabs were “genetic siblings,” they rated each other more positively and displayed less aggression. When they read that the two groups were genetically dissimilar, the opposite occurred. The researchers warned that genetic information could be “a weapon to stir conflict”.

This is not hypothetical. Consider two headlines. In 2000, the BBC declared: “Jews and Arabs are ‘genetic brothers’.” In 2013, Medical Daily claimed: “Genes of most Ashkenazi Jews trace back to indigenous Europe, not Middle East”. Both were published. Both were true — within the narrow parameters of the studies they reported. Both were used to advance competing political agendas.

DNA does not have a politics. But the stories we tell about DNA do.

IV. The Nazi Precedent: Science as a Tool of Genocide

When Carlson’s critics objected to his call for racial testing, they noted that “the idea of tracing bloodlines is often associated with the Nazis, who chose their victims based on how many Jewish ancestors they had”. The comparison is not incidental. It is instructive.

Under the Nazi regime, eugenicists developed tools for systematically identifying hair and skin colour, classifying individuals according to the “relative whiteness” of their features, to separate “Aryans” from Jews. The Nazis referred to this project as Rassenhygiene — racial hygiene — which “found its most extensive implementation in Nazi Germany,” marked by efforts to avoid “miscegenation” and the belief that “lower races” would contaminate “higher” ones. Jewish anthropologist Dr. Maurice Fishberg exposed this as “a ‘political’ move,” noting that “most Nazi pseudo-scientists favour the formation of Nordic breeding colonies”.

This is the logical endpoint of the idea that DNA can determine belonging. Once you accept that identity is encoded in the double helix, you have accepted that some people can be classified as pure and others as impure — and that the state has the right, perhaps the duty, to act on that classification.

Hitler did not invent racial science. He weaponised it. The same could be said of anyone who uses DNA to delegitimise another’s claim to land, culture, or belonging — whatever their political affiliation. The far-left and far-right alike have embraced the Khazar theory: both Carlson’s ally Candace Owens (“The people currently occupying Israel are Khazarian Turks”) and influencer Shaun King (“He has ZERO ancestral connection to the land”) have promoted the same discredited idea.

V. The Fallibility of Ancient DNA

The problems with genetic determinism are not limited to contemporary politics. They extend to the study of the deep past.

A 2024 volume, Critical Perspectives on Ancient DNA (MIT Press), offers the first comprehensive critical analysis of the “ancient DNA revolution”. Key themes include “the fallibility of aDNA as incontrovertible evidence,” “the risks of scientific racism and political instrumentalisation,” and “the role of media in shaping public imaginaries of the past”. The editors argue that aDNA knowledge emerges “not solely from laboratory analysis but from complex interactions between science, culture, and society”. The collection ultimately challenges “DNA essentialism” and calls for “resisting molecular chauvinism”.

Anna Källén’s The Trouble with Ancient DNA (University of Chicago Press, 2025) asks a different but related question: who is responsible if stories of ancient DNA are adopted for dangerous political projects?. Her answer is implicit: all of us. Scientists cannot wash their hands of the uses to which their research is put. Journalists cannot claim neutrality when they sensationalise findings. And the public cannot abdicate the responsibility to question what they read.

VI. What DNA Cannot Tell Us

Genetic evidence is powerful. But it is also partial. It can tell us about ancestry, about migration, about relatedness. It cannot tell us about identity.

A 2016 study of a Neolithic necropolis in France found “no correlation between funerary practices and maternal ancestries”. Individuals with different genetic backgrounds were buried in the same way, with the same rituals, treated as equals in death. The homogeneity of funerary treatment “regardless of their potential maternal ancestries is striking”.

What does this tell us? That culture — the practices, beliefs, and relationships that define a community — can transcend genetic origins. People with different ancestries can share the same identity. People with the same ancestry can choose different identities.

DNA cannot tell you who you are. It can only tell you where some of your ancestors came from — a limited subset, at that. As the researchers of the Kitka Sámi burial noted, “ancient DNA helps researchers understand population history, it does not define ethnicity or identity. Sámi identity is not a biological trait, but a historical, cultural, and social phenomenon.”

The same is true for every group.

VII. The Real Story Is in the Teeth

If DNA is an unreliable guide to identity, what should we look at instead? The answer, in part, is teeth.

Archaeologists study teeth because they preserve diet, health, migration, and even social status. They study burial sites because they reveal rituals, relationships, and beliefs. They study tools and pottery because they show what people did, not just who their ancestors were.

These are the footprints of human life. They are messy. They are ambiguous. They do not lend themselves to headlines. But they are real.

And they tell a consistent story: mixing, movement, complexity.

From the earliest hominins migrating out of Africa to the interbreeding of Homo sapiens with Neanderthals. From the Crusades to the Silk Road. From the Roman Empire to the modern metropolis.

Human history is not a story of purity. It is a story of exchange.

The same people who want to use DNA to prove “purity” will find that DNA proves the opposite — mixing, movement, complexity.

VIII. The Irony of Purity

The Nazis dreamed of a pure Aryan race. But as geneticist David Reich has shown, “modern humans today carry genetic makeup from both Neanderthals and Denisovans” — from species that went extinct tens of thousands of years ago. There is no pure European. There is no pure anything.

The same is true in the Middle East. As the BBC reported in 2000, Jews and Arabs share significant genetic ancestry. The same is true in India, in China, in the Americas. Every population is a mix.

The irony is delicious. The very science that the racists invoke to justify their hierarchies reveals that those hierarchies are nonsense.

But this requires intellectual honesty — the willingness to follow the evidence wherever it leads. And intellectual honesty is in short supply when politics is at stake.

IX. Conclusion: The Humility We Need

Genetics is a powerful tool. It has revolutionised our understanding of human history. But like all tools, it can be used for good or for ill. It can build bridges — or it can sharpen swords.

The choice is not in the molecule. It is in the interpreter.

What is needed is humility. The recognition that DNA can answer some questions — and not others. The admission that identity is not a line, but a fold — a complex, dynamic, contested process that no single test can capture. The understanding that the past is not a museum. It is a conversation.

And the warning: if you would not let someone tell you who you are based on your DNA, why would you let them tell someone else?

Andrew Klein

References

1. Bechar, S. (2026, February 26). Tucker Carlson pushes DNA tests for Jews, ‘Khazar’ theory. The Jerusalem Post.

2. Elia-Shalev, A. (2026, February 28). Why Tucker Carlson pushed for Jewish DNA tests, and the Khazar theory touted by antisemites. Jewish Telegraphic Agency / The Times of Israel.

3. Kimel, S. Y., et al. (2016). Genetic research can promote peace or conflict, depending on how it’s used. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

4. Behar, D. M., et al. (2025). No evidence from genome-wide data of a Khazar origin for the Ashkenazi Jews. Human Biology.

5. Wikipedia. (2026). Racial hygiene.

6. Strand, D., Källén, A., & Mulcare, C. (Eds.) (2024). Critical Perspectives on Ancient DNA. MIT Press.

7. Källén, A. (2025). The Trouble with Ancient DNA. University of Chicago Press.

8. Rivollat, M., et al. (2016). Distinct ancestries for similar funerary practices? A GIS analysis comparing funerary, osteological and aDNA data from the Middle Neolithic necropolis Gurgy “Les Noisats”. Journal of Archaeological Science, 73, 45-54.

The Hasbara Model – How Professionally Hurt Feelings Became a Political Strategy

Posted on May 24, 2026 by Andrew Klein

“The shield works because we let it. The only cure is to stop being afraid of the performance.”

By Andrew Klein

Dedication: To my wife — who knows the difference between theatrics and the truth when it comes to feelings.

I. The Performance of Injury

You mention the genocide. The thousands of dead children in Gaza. The systematic destruction of a population’s ability to survive.

The response from certain quarters is not a denial. It is not an engagement with the evidence. It is not a moment of silence for the dead.

It is: “You hurt my feelings.”

This is not feeling. This is strategy.

The same strategy used by the stick insects in suits when you question their contracts. The same strategy used by the petrochemical companies when you mention hemp. The same strategy used by the political class when you remind them they are not accountable.

“You hurt my feelings” is a shield.

Not against swords — against truth.

II. The Shield That Pays: $176 Million and Counting

On 22 April 2026, the Department of Home Affairs awarded the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) a grant of $112.2 million for the purpose of “enhancing security for Jewish communities”.

This was not an isolated transaction. Combined with an earlier grant awarded in November 2023 under the Enhancing Security for Jewish Communities Program — initially valued at $27.5 million, since increased to $63.8 million — and a separate $103,459 security infrastructure grant awarded in 2021, total Commonwealth funding awarded to ECAJ-linked entities since 2021 exceeds $176 million.

The 2026–27 Federal Budget added further funding: $102 million over four years from 2025–26 to ECAJ for “enhanced security for the Jewish community,” plus an additional $22 million over three years from the Confiscated Assets Account established under the Proceeds of Crime Act.

In response to the December 14, 2025, Bondi terror attack — in which 15 people were killed during a Chanukah celebration — the government allocated more than $600 million in federal budget funding.

The grants to ECAJ were awarded not to an ACNC-registered charity or ASIC-registered company, but to an incorporated association registered in the ACT.

According to ACT regulatory requirements, incorporated associations are not required to publicly lodge audited financial statements with the territory government.

The money trail leads to an obscure entity and, for all practical purposes, runs dry.

“I asked the Department of Home Affairs why the grants were awarded to this structure rather than an entity subject to public financial disclosure. Their response invoked the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Principles but did not answer the question.”

III. The Special Envoy: From Lobbyist to Government Insider

Former ECAJ president Jillian Segal AO was appointed Australia’s Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism in July 2024.

Cabinet documents released under FOI reveal the appointment was made without an open recruitment process. The Prime Minister’s department recommended Segal based on her “longstanding reputation as an advocate for the NSW Jewish community” and her role as “former President of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry and as Chair of the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce”.

The Special Envoy role was initially budgeted at $4 million over two years. This was quietly expanded to $16.9 million over three years, with the appointment extended from one year to three years and additional support staff approved.

The Terms of Reference state that the Special Envoy will “provide advice to inform policy development, legislative amendments, campaigns and programs to assist in combatting Antisemitism”.

An ECAJ insider — appointed by a government that had just awarded ECAJ tens of millions in grants — is now advising that same government on policy, legislation, and funding priorities.

This is not a conspiracy. This is structural capture.

IV. The Double Standard: Charities, International Law, and Tax Deductions

While ECAJ receives hundreds of millions in government grants, the Albanese government has refused to act against Australian charities funnelling tax-deductible donations to projects supporting Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank — which are illegal under international law — and to initiatives supporting IDF soldiers.

Finance Minister Katy Gallagher told the Senate that charities do not need to comply with international law. The government rejected a Greens amendment that would explicitly bar organisations from receiving deductible gift recipient status if they are found to have supported an “illegal occupation”.

The scale of the funding is significant. Michael West Media investigations have identified:

· Jewish National Fund Australia has remitted more than $125 million to Israel since 2009

· United Israel Appeal Refugee Relief Fund has transferred approximately $376 million since 2013 via Keren Hayesod, with a portion of these funds used for settlement expansion and IDF-linked programs

At the UIA Victoria AGM in November 2025, President David Slade told members: “We are the only organisation in Australia raising funds for Israel that holds a seat at every table of decision-making authority mandated to rebuild the country from the north to the south”.

“We are proud that every dollar we distribute is aligned with Israel’s national priorities.”

The Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission received 896 complaints relating to 88 charities in connection with the Israel-Gaza conflict between October 2023 and December 2025.

Greens Senator Mehreen Faruqi was direct: “The fact that people are sending money to support the war crimes of the Israeli military and to expand illegal, violent settlements in the West Bank is bad enough, but that Australian taxpayers are subsidising these settlements is completely outrageous”.

The government’s position, as articulated by Minister Gallagher, is that existing frameworks prohibit unlawful conduct under Australian law — but they do not extend to conduct under international law.

This is not a legal technicality. It is a choice.

The same government that has appointed a Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism — and funded her office to the tune of $16.9 million — refuses to act against charities funding the very military accused of genocide by the UN Commission of Inquiry.

V. The Bondi Attack: A Tragedy Weaponised

“The December 14, 2025, Bondi terror attack was a genuine tragedy. Fifteen people killed. A community traumatised. Two gunmen, father and son, targeted a Hanukkah celebration.

“The response has been a $600 million funding commitment — including $102 million to ECAJ, $68.8 million to the AFP, $42.9 million for mental health support, $80 million for counterterrorism, $32.6 million for public awareness campaigns, and more than $130 million for a Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion.

“But the attack was not perpetrated by an organised, ideologically coherent antisemitic network. The perpetrators, Sajid and Naveed Akram, had a history of extremist rhetoric. However, the systemic failures that enabled the attack — including gaps in counterterrorism monitoring, firearms access, and intelligence sharing — remain largely unaddressed.

“The government’s response has focused overwhelmingly on antisemitism as a cultural and political problem, rather than addressing the specific operational failures that allowed two men to acquire weapons and carry out an attack on a crowded beach.

“The underlying failures in mental health care, firearms licensing, intelligence coordination, and counterterrorism resourcing remain largely unaddressed. The question is not whether antisemitism played a role — it did. The question is whether the government’s response addresses the actual causes of the attack, or merely funds the organisations best positioned to claim injury.”

VI. The Other Victims: 78 Women and Counting

While the government has found $600 million for the antisemitism response, it has been notably less forthcoming on other forms of violence.

Between October 2023 and December 2025, the ACNC received 896 complaints about charities linked to the Israel-Gaza conflict. The government’s response: refer them to the ACNC.

On domestic violence, the numbers are stark.

In the 2025 calendar year, 78 women were killed by violence in Australia — approximately one and a half women every week.

Since the beginning of 2026, another 12 women have already been murdered.

The Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commission’s 2025 annual report estimates that 2.8 million Australians have experienced sexual violence since the age of 15. One in every four women in this country. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women are 33 times more likely than other Australian women to be hospitalised due to family violence and seven times more likely to be homicide victims.

The government has invested $4 billion since 2022 in the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children — the largest investment by any government in Australia’s history.

But compare the response.

When 15 people were killed in a single terrorist attack, the government found $600 million within months — including $130 million for a Royal Commission.

When 78 women were killed over the course of a year — and when the government knows that domestic violence kills on average one woman every nine days — the Prime Minister has rejected calls for a Royal Commission, arguing that they “take too long” and “don’t deliver the urgent change needed.”

The inconsistency is instructive.

Some lives are worth a Royal Commission. Others are worth a press release.

The government will not explain the difference.

VII. The Economics of Outrage

Why does the Hasbara model work?

Because it is disciplined. And discipline, in a world that confuses volume with validity, is a superpower.

Every criticism of Israeli government policy is framed as antisemitism. Every piece of evidence is met with a performance of injury. Every question about the hundreds of millions flowing to an incorporated association with no public financial reporting is met with silence — or with the invocation of “security.”

The shield works because it has been tested. The political class in Washington, Canberra, London, and Berlin has learned that questioning Israel is political suicide — not because the arguments are weak, but because the feelings will be deployed.

Professionally. Strategically. Relentlessly.

And it pays off.

Billions in military aid. Diplomatic cover at the United Nations. A media environment that repeats the talking points without question. Hundreds of millions in government grants to organisations that do not have to account for how the money is spent.

Not because the feelings are real — they are not. Because the performance is disciplined.

The same strategy is used by the stick insects in suits when you question their contracts. The same strategy is used by the petrochemical companies when you mention hemp. The same strategy is used by the political class when you remind them, they are accountable.

“You hurt my feelings” is the universal shield.

And it works because the media is afraid. Because the political class is afraid. Because questioning the shield invites the shield to be turned on you.

The shield is not magic. It is expensive.

And Australian taxpayers are paying for it.

VIII. What Would a Consistent Response Look Like?

Imagine, for a moment, a government that applied the same standards to all forms of hate, all forms of violence, all forms of foreign interference.

· A Royal Commission into domestic violence — because 78 women killed in a year is also a national emergency.

· A Special Envoy for Islamophobia appointed at the same time, with the same budget, the same access — not as an afterthought.

· A requirement that all organisations receiving Commonwealth grants be subject to public financial reporting — regardless of whether they are incorporated associations or registered charities.

· A prohibition on tax-deductible donations to organisations that support illegal occupations — whether in the West Bank or elsewhere.

· A consistent definition of hate speech that protects all communities equally — not one that privileges the feelings of one group over the lives of another.

This is not radical. It is consistent.

But consistency is not the goal.

The goal is control.

Control of the narrative. Control of the funding. Control of the definition of who is a victim and who is a perpetrator.

And the shield — “you hurt my feelings” — is the mechanism of that control.

IX. The Question the Government Will Not Answer

The evidence is on the table.

· $176 million to an incorporated association that does not publicly account for its spending.

· A Special Envoy appointed from the leadership of that association, with a $16.9 million budget.

· $600 million in response to a terrorist attack perpetrated by a mentally ill man — with the underlying systemic failures unaddressed.

· Refusal to act against charities funding illegal settlements and IDF soldiers, while Palestinian refugees are denied visas.

· A Royal Commission for antisemitism, but not for the 78 women killed last year.

The question is not whether the government is capable of acting. It is acting.

The question is who it acts for.

And the answer, from the evidence, is clear.

The government acts for those who have learned to weaponise their feelings.

Those who have not — the dead women, the starving children, the refugees without visas — are invisible.

Not because their suffering is less real.

Because they have no shield.

X. Conclusion

The Hasbara model is not about feelings.

It is about power.

The power to frame the narrative. The power to direct funding. The power to define who is a victim and who is a perpetrator. The power to shield allies from accountability while demanding accountability from enemies.

“You hurt my feelings” is not a cry of pain. It is a strategy.

And it has paid off.

Billions in military aid. Diplomatic cover. Hundreds of millions in government grants. A Special Envoy with access to the highest levels of government. A Royal Commission with a $130 million budget.

Not because the feelings are real — they are not.

Because the performance is disciplined.

And discipline, in a world that confuses volume with validity, is a superpower.

But the shield is not invincible.

It can be seen.

And once seen, it can be named.

The question is not whether the government will answer. It will not.

The question is whether the Australian people will continue to pay for the shield — or demand to know what lies behind it.

Andrew Klein

References

1. Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment (Home Affairs Measures No. 3) Regulations 2026, Federal Register of Legislation

2. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, FOI Release: Special Envoys to Combat Antisemitism and Islamophobia, 2024

3. Stephanie Tran, “Australian charities funding Israel’s illegal settlements ‘untouchable’, says Labor govt,” Asia Pacific Report / Michael West Media, 20 March 2026

4. “Gun ‘red flag’ before Bondi massacre,” The West Australian, 5 February 2026

5. House of Representatives debates, Statements on Significant Matters — Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence, 4 March 2026

6. Stephanie Tran, “Money trail leads to obscure Israel lobby entity, then runs dry,” Michael West Media, 23 May 2026

7. “Peak Jewish body says $600 million federal budget response to antisemitic Bondi terror attack ‘modest’,” ABC News, 13 May 2026

8. “Budget delivers extra $22 million for Jewish security,” The Australian Jewish News, 13 May 2026

9. Joint media release with Anthony Albanese MP, Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Ministers for the Department of Home Affairs, 9 July 2024

10. Stephanie Tran, “United Israel Appeal — Australian charity channels tax free donations direct to IDF soldiers,” Asia Pacific Report / Michael West Media, 29 January 2026

The shield works because we let it. The only cure is to stop being afraid of the performance.

The Sound of Silence- Australia’s Complicity in the Face of Evidence

Posted on May 22, 2026 by Andrew Klein

“But here is the problem: The government has not applied the same standard to Israeli dual nationals who may have committed war crimes.

Authorities in Belgium, Brazil, Canada, France, and Sri Lanka have ordered investigations into allegations of war crimes by their citizens or Israeli soldiers on their soil. Australia has done nothing.”

By Andrew Klein

Dedication: To my wife — who taught me that silence is not neutrality. It is a choice.

I. The Evidence That Cannot Be Ignored

On 22 May 2026, a coalition of human rights organisations — Amnesty International Australia, the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network (APAN), and the Australia Muslim Advocacy Network (AMAN) — submitted a formal dossier to Australian Federal Police Commissioner Krissy Barrett and Attorney-General Michelle Rowland.

The submission contained a 140-page dossier prepared by the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians, detailing extensive allegations of genocide and war crimes against Israeli government and military figures including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, and former IDF Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi.

The organisations urged the AFP to investigate “any Australian dual nationals alleged to have participated in hostilities in Gaza or related conduct potentially giving rise to offences under Australian law”.

Amnesty International’s Mohamed Duar was blunt: “Any Australian who has committed war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide must be held to account and face justice”.

That was three days ago.

The government has not responded.

The silence is deafening.

II. The Arms Trade: Business as Usual

While the government refuses to investigate alleged war criminals on Australian soil, it continues to facilitate the weapons that make those crimes possible.

Australia’s defence export regime has faced repeated scrutiny over its approvals for arms exports to Israel. Under the Defence Trade Controls Act 2012, the government is required to deny export permits where there is a “clear risk” that the goods might be used to commit “serious violations of international humanitarian law”.

Yet permits continue to be approved. The government refuses to release detailed figures, citing commercial confidentiality. What we know comes from leaked documents and investigative reporting — including evidence that Australian-made components have found their way into Israeli military systems used in Gaza.

The pattern is consistent with global trends. Serbia’s arms exports to Israel surged from approximately €1.4 million in 2023 to tens of millions annually in 2025. NATO member Albania signed a secret contract worth hundreds of millions of euros with Elbit Systems, an Israeli defence company under investigation for allegedly bribing alliance officials, with the agreement’s costs and terms kept from the Albanian parliament.

Australia is not alone. But Australia is not off the hook.

The question is simple: Is Australia arming a state accused of genocide?

The government will not answer.

III. The Visa Paradox: War Criminals Welcome, Humanitarians Barred

The contradiction could not be starker.

On one hand, Australia has denied visas to Palestinian refugees and humanitarian workers seeking safety. In March 2026, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke granted visas to a troupe of female IDF soldiers taking a “recovery trip” to Melbourne. Israeli dual nationals who have served in the IDF — including those who documented their service “near the Gaza/Egypt border” — have entered and left Australia unchecked.

On the other hand, Australia has denied entry to Israeli political figures associated with anti-Palestinian rhetoric. Former minister Ayelet Shaked and MK Simcha Rothman were refused visas. The government has imposed sanctions on far-right Israeli ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, including travel bans.

But here is the problem: The government has not applied the same standard to Israeli dual nationals who may have committed war crimes.

In January 2026, the government ignored a request to prepare an arrest warrant for Israeli President Isaac Herzog, who toured Australia at the government’s invitation in early February — despite a UN Commission of Inquiry finding that Herzog incited genocide when he blamed “an entire nation” for the October 7 attack.

Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke has introduced visa cancellation criteria based on “a test of character, not necessarily a test of criminality” and “inciting discord”. By his own criteria, Herzog fails the test. The government did not apply it.

Why does one standard apply to Israeli politicians and another to Israeli soldiers?

The government will not answer.

IV. The Flotilla: Humiliation on Video

On 21 May 2026, footage emerged of Israel’s National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir taunting detained activists from the Global Sumud Flotilla — an international effort to break Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza and deliver aid.

The video showed Ben-Gvir waving an Israeli flag in front of bound activists kneeling face down in a tent. One woman was forced to the ground by masked officers after shouting “Free, free Palestine”.

Among the 430 detained activists were 11 Australians. They reported being denied food and water for days. One activist, Zack Schofield, stated: “Many of us haven’t eaten for days. We were denied water for two days. I have friends that were shocked with tasers, stun guns for extended periods of time just on entry to prison”.

Foreign Minister Penny Wong condemned Ben-Gvir’s actions as “shocking and unacceptable”. The government called in the Israeli ambassador. Wong directed DFAT to make representations.

But here is the problem: Condemnation is not consequence.

Greens Senator Nick McKim called for “the strongest possible response from our prime minister and our foreign minister — a far, far stronger response than they’ve delivered to date”.

None has come.

The activists were released and deported to Turkey. The Israeli minister who humiliated them faces no sanction from Australia beyond words.

When does condemnation become complicity?

The government will not answer.

V. The Royal Commission Contradiction

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has repeatedly rejected calls for a royal commission into antisemitism, arguing that royal commissions “achieve nothing” and become “divisive.”

In December 2025, following the Bondi Beach terrorist attack, the government rejected calls for a royal commission, with Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke arguing that a royal commission would “re-platform some of the worst statements and worst voices”. The government instead commissioned former ASIO boss Dennis Richardson to review the security ecosystem.

Yet when it comes to domestic violence — which killed 64 Australian women in 2024 alone — the same Prime Minister has also rejected royal commissions, stating that they “take too long” and “don’t deliver the urgent change needed”.

The inconsistency is instructive.

Royal commissions are a tool. The government deploys them when it wishes — as it did for aged care, disability, the robodebt scheme, and the management of police informants. It withholds them when the political cost of action exceeds the cost of inaction.

On antisemitism, the government has chosen a path of symbolic measures: an education taskforce, a “university report card,” funding for Monash University to expand training in “recognising antisemitism”. These are not nothing. But they are not accountability.

The Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Jillian Segal, recommended the withholding of funding from universities found to have facilitated antisemitism. The government has not implemented this recommendation.

Why is antisemitism treated differently from other forms of hate?

The government will not answer.

VI. The Envoy and the Universities

The appointment of a Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism — a position with no equivalent for Islamophobia, anti-Palestinian racism, or anti-Arab hate — raises its own questions.

The Envoy’s remit includes monitoring “adoption of an appropriate definition of antisemitism” across universities. The “appropriate definition” is widely understood to be the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition — which includes as examples of antisemitism “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination” and “applying double standards to Israel.”

Critics argue that this definition conflates criticism of Israeli government policy with antisemitism, effectively chilling legitimate political speech. Universities have been warned that funding may be withheld if they fail to adopt the definition and act against violations.

Whatever one thinks of the IHRA definition, the underlying question is: Why does the government believe it has the authority to dictate which definitions Australian universities must adopt?

Universities are independent institutions. Academic freedom is a core value of liberal democracy. The government’s approach — financial penalties for non-compliance — represents a significant intrusion into university governance.

The government has not applied this standard to any other form of discrimination or hate speech.

Why is antisemitism being treated as a special case requiring special powers?

The government will not answer.

VII. The Zionist Fraction: Who Speaks for Whom?

A crucial fact is consistently omitted from public discussion: Not all Jews are Zionists. Not all Zionists are Jews. And the Zionist position does not represent the entirety of Jewish opinion in Australia or anywhere else.

According to the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, approximately 117,000 Jewish people live in Australia — about 0.4% of the population. There is no reliable data on what percentage actively support the Israeli government’s policies in Gaza, support a two-state solution, oppose Zionism altogether, or simply wish to be left out of the debate entirely.

Yet the government, in its public statements and policy responses, consistently conflates “antisemitism” with “criticism of Israel.” The Special Envoy’s mandate explicitly adopts a definition of antisemitism that includes certain forms of Israel criticism as examples of anti-Jewish hate.

This conflation serves a political purpose: it delegitimises legitimate debate about Israeli government policy, international law, and human rights. It equates questioning the actions of a foreign government with hating Jewish people. It collapses a complex spectrum of opinion into a binary: with us or against us.

Who decided that the Zionist position speaks for all Jews? And on what authority?

The government will not answer.

VIII. The Humanitarians vs. The State of Israel

The mistreatment of the Samud flotilla activists — 11 Australian citizens detained at gunpoint in international waters, denied food and water, humiliated by a government minister on video — raises the most fundamental question of all: What is the Australian government prepared to do to protect its citizens from a foreign power?

The answer, so far, is not much.

Condemnation. Diplomatic representations. A phone call. A statement.

No sanctions. No travel bans. No freezing of defence exports. No arrest warrants for Israeli officials who may have committed crimes against Australian citizens.

Compare this to the government’s response to other human rights violations. When Russia invaded Ukraine, Australia imposed sanctions, sent military aid, and expelled diplomats. When China detained Australian citizens, the government made public protests and pursued diplomatic channels.

When Israel detains Australian citizens at gunpoint and a government minister humiliates them on video, Australia condemns — and moves on.

Why is Israel treated differently from other nations?

The government will not answer.

IX. The Empirical Record

The government’s silence is not an absence of information. It is a choice made in the presence of overwhelming evidence.

On arms exports: The government refuses to disclose approvals for military exports to Israel, citing commercial confidentiality. It will not confirm or deny whether Australian-made components have been used in weapons deployed in Gaza.

On war crimes investigations: The government has not responded to the 22 May 2026 submission from human rights organisations. It has not confirmed whether the AFP is investigating any Australian dual nationals who served in the IDF. It has not explained why Israel’s President was granted a visa and a red-carpet welcome despite a UN finding of incitement to genocide.

On the flotilla: The government condemned Ben-Gvir’s actions but has not imposed sanctions beyond those already in place. It has not explained why Australian citizens were left to the mercy of a foreign power for days.

On royal commissions: The government has rejected a royal commission into antisemitism while implementing selective measures against universities. It has not explained why antisemitism deserves a Special Envoy and a “university report card” while other forms of hate do not.

On the definition of antisemitism: The government has adopted a definition that conflates Israel criticism with anti-Jewish hate, without consulting the full spectrum of Jewish opinion in Australia. It has not explained its authority to dictate definitions to independent universities.

X. The Question the Government Will Not Answer

The pattern is consistent. The silence is deliberate. And the question is unavoidable:

Why does the Albanese government treat the State of Israel differently from every other nation?

Not tougher — differently.

Weaker sanctions. Fewer consequences. More silence. More diplomacy. More measured statements. More nothing.

The government will say it is committed to a two-state solution. It will say it supports Israel’s right to exist. It will say it condemns antisemitism. These are not answers. These are evasions.

The question is not about Israel’s right to exist. It is about Australia’s obligation to uphold international law, protect its citizens, and apply the same standards to all nations equally.

The government will not answer. Because the answer would require it to admit what is becoming increasingly clear to anyone who is paying attention:

Australia has abandoned its principles for the sake of an alliance.

Not a military alliance — Australia has no mutual defence treaty with Israel.

An ideological alliance. With the Zionist project. With a foreign government’s definition of antisemitism. With the conflation of criticism with hate.

And in so doing, Australia has abandoned its own citizens — the humanitarians, the academics, the journalists, the ordinary people who ask only that the law be applied equally and that silence not be mistaken for neutrality.

XI. Conclusion

The evidence is on the table. The dossier has been submitted. The activists have been humiliated. The arms continue to flow. The visas continue to be granted — to soldiers, not to survivors.

And the government continues to be silent.

Not because it does not know.

Because it chooses not to act.

Silence is not neutrality. Silence is a choice. And in the face of genocide — in the face of war crimes, in the face of Australian citizens detained at gunpoint, in the face of a government minister taunting bound prisoners on video — silence is complicity.

The Albanese government will not answer the questions we have raised.

But that does not mean the questions go away.

They remain. On the table. In the dossier. In the eyes of the activists who were denied water for two days. In the hearts of the Palestinians who cannot get a visa while IDF soldiers come to Melbourne on holiday.

The questions remain.

And one day, they will demand an answer.

Andrew Klein

References

1. Deepcut News. (2026, May 22). AFP urged to investigate IDF soldiers in Australia.

2. The Guardian Australia. (2024). Defence export approvals to Israel under scrutiny.

3. Türkiye Today. (2026, March 18). When trade becomes complicity: Serbia’s arms trade with Israel.

4. SOT News. (2026, April 27). How KAYO signed secret contracts with Elbit Systems.

5. Pearls and Irritations. (2026, January 8). Minister for Home Affairs Tony Burke should reject a visa application for Israeli President Herzog.

6. PerthNow. (2026, May 21). ‘Shocking and unacceptable’: Australia condemns Israel minister’s abuse of Palestine activists.

7. The New Daily. (2026, May 22). Israel releases flotilla activists after ‘disgraceful’ treatment.

8. X (formerly Twitter). (2026, May 21). Penny Wong post.

9. China.org.cn. (2026, May 21). Australian FM condemns Israel’s “shocking” treatment of Gaza flotilla activists.

10. Brisbane Times. (2025, December 29). Labor has its reasons for denying a royal commission. But its latest doesn’t land.

11. The Guardian Australia. (2024). Domestic violence deaths in Australia.

12. Times Higher Education. (2025, December 18). Universities judged on antisemitism response after Bondi attack.

13. Executive Council of Australian Jewry. (2025). Jewish population estimates.

A Rogue State – Israel

Posted on May 18, 2026 by Andrew Klein

Dedication: States are like children. Impunity to one might amuse its parents – they grow up and terrorise regions.

By Andrew Klein

I. Introduction: The Predator on Land, Sea and Air

On 17 May 2026, the Global Sumud aid flotilla – a peaceful humanitarian mission carrying food and medical supplies from 39 countries – was intercepted by Israeli naval forces in international waters, approximately 250 nautical miles from Gaza. Israeli warships surrounded the civilian vessels, cut their communications, detained activists, and seized the aid. Live broadcasts showed the attack unfolding in broad daylight. Anadolu Ajansı reported that Israeli forces transferred the detainees to what it described as a “floating prison” before transporting them to the port of Ashdod.

The International Commission to Support Palestinian People’s Rights condemned the interception as “maritime piracy” and a serious violation of international law and freedom of navigation. Dawn, Pakistan’s oldest English-language newspaper, called it “a brutal act of piracy on the high seas, and a brazen trespass on the sovereign right of vessels to navigate freely”.

This was not an isolated incident. It was the latest in a decades‑long pattern: a state that behaves on land, sea and air as if international law does not apply to it. A state that assassinates its opponents across sovereign borders, that ignores ceasefire agreements and UN resolutions, and that operates with complete impunity because of the diplomatic and military protection of the United States.

This article examines that pattern. It documents Israel’s history of piracy, extrajudicial killings, territorial expansion, and rejection of international law. It argues that Israel is not a “rogue state” in the colloquial sense – it is a predator, enabled by a superpower that has mistaken unconditional support for strategic wisdom.

II. The Piracy of the Sumud Flotilla – A Legal Analysis

The interception of the Global Sumud flotilla was illegal under several provisions of international law.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) guarantees the right of innocent passage through territorial waters and freedom of navigation on the high seas. The flotilla was in international waters – 250 nautical miles from Gaza, far beyond any territorial claim. Israel had no legal authority to board, search, seize, or detain.

The San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea prohibits the interception of humanitarian missions unless they pose a direct military threat. The Sumud flotilla carried food, medicine, and activists – not weapons.

The Geneva Conventions prohibit collective punishment. Gaza has been under a suffocating blockade since 2007, described by the UN as a form of collective punishment. The flotilla was attempting to breach that blockade – not as an act of war, but as an act of humanity.

The Israeli government claimed the flotilla was “breaking the law” and could be “used for terrorist purposes”. No evidence was provided. As Dawn noted, “The regime that hunts aid ships in foreign waters operates a permanent war machine, bankrolled and shielded by its chief enabler, the United States”.

III. Historical Precedent – The United States vs. Barbary Pirates (1805)

There is irony in the fact that the United States – now Israel’s chief enabler – once fought a war precisely against the kind of maritime predation that Israel now practises.

The First Barbary War (1801–1805) was fought against the Barbary states of North Africa, which had been demanding tribute and seizing American ships in the Mediterranean. In 1805, US Marines under Lieutenant William Eaton marched 500 miles across the Libyan desert and captured the port city of Derna, raising the American flag on foreign soil for the first time.

The US action was celebrated as a victory against piracy and state‑sponsored extortion.

Two centuries later, the United States provides diplomatic cover and military aid to a state that interdicts humanitarian vessels in international waters, assassinates political leaders in foreign capitals, and maintains an illegal blockade that has caused a man‑made famine. The irony is not lost on the rest of the world.

IV. Assassination as State Policy – The Killing of Negotiators

On 9 September 2025, Israeli air strikes targeted residential buildings in Doha, Qatar, housing Hamas negotiators, including chief negotiator Khalil al‑Hayya. The attack occurred while the delegation was actively discussing a ceasefire proposal from the United States. Israel claimed, “full responsibility”, and multiple Israeli media outlets confirmed that the US had been notified and had given a “green light”.

Qatar condemned the attack as a “flagrant violation of all international laws and norms”. The UN Secretary‑General called it a violation of Qatar’s sovereignty. Regional powers including Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE denounced the strikes.

The pattern is unmistakable:

· January 2024: Senior Hamas political leader Saleh al‑Arouri was killed in a drone strike in Beirut, Lebanon.

· July 2024: Hamas political chief Ismail Haniyeh was assassinated in Tehran, Iran, while attending the inauguration of the president.

· 1995: Islamic Jihad founder Fathi Shaqaqi was gunned down in Sliema, Malta – European Union territory – in an operation attributed to Mossad.

Extrajudicial killings – assassinations carried out without judicial process – are unequivocally illegal under international human rights law. The United Nations has repeatedly condemned such practices. Yet Israel continues them with impunity.

The timing of these killings is particularly revealing. They occur precisely when ceasefire agreements appear within reach. As one analysis noted, “This suggests a deliberate strategy to derail peace processes and maintain the cycle of violence that serves Israeli political interests”.

V. Territorial Expansion – The West Bank and the Golan Heights

On 22 October 2025, a coalition of 18 states and international organisations issued a joint statement condemning Israeli legislative measures aiming to impose “sovereignty” over the occupied West Bank and illegal colonial settlements. The statement reaffirmed that Israel has “no sovereignty over the occupied Palestinian territory” and that the measures are a “blatant violation of international law, and of United Nations Security Council resolutions particularly Resolution 2334, which condemns all Israeli measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character, and status of the occupied Palestinian territory since 1967, including East Jerusalem” .

The statement also noted the International Court of Justice’s Advisory Opinion of 22 October 2025, which reaffirmed Israel’s obligation to ensure the population of Gaza has essential supplies and that mass forcible transfer and deportation are prohibited.

The Golan Heights, occupied by Israel since 1967 and unilaterally annexed in 1981, has been condemned by the UN Security Council in Resolution 497, which declared the annexation “null and void and without international legal effect”. Yet Israel maintains its occupation, and the United States has recognised Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights – a unilateral act of diplomatic recognition that undermines decades of international consensus.

VI. The United Nations Record – Repeated Condemnation

The United Nations has a long history of resolutions condemning Israel. Since 2015, the General Assembly has passed 115 resolutions condemning Israel, compared to only 45 against all other countries combined.

These resolutions cover:

· Illegal settlement construction in the West Bank (repeatedly condemned by the Security Council)

· The annexation of the Golan Heights (Security Council Resolution 497)

· The blockade of Gaza (condemned by the General Assembly and human rights bodies)

· Human rights violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (annual reports of the Special Committee)

The United States has used its veto power in the Security Council to shield Israel from binding resolutions dozens of times. A single state – one of five permanent members – has prevented the international community from holding Israel accountable for actions that, if committed by any other state, would have resulted in sanctions, arms embargoes, or even intervention.

VII. The Role of the United States – Enabling the Rogue

The United States is not a passive observer. It is an active enabler.

· Financial aid: The US provides approximately $3.8 billion per year in military aid to Israel – the largest annual recipient of US foreign aid.

· Diplomatic cover: The US has vetoed countless Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, including those condemning settlement expansion, the blockade of Gaza, and the annexation of the Golan Heights.

· Military support: The US supplies advanced weaponry, including F‑35 fighter jets, precision‑guided munitions, and missile defence systems – all used in operations against Palestinians.

This unconditional support has produced a state that behaves with impunity because it has learned that there will be no consequences. As one observer noted, “The arsonist is playing the firefighter, with its superpower patron forever handing it the matches” .

The tragedy is that this impunity does not only harm Palestinians. It also harms Israelis. By shielding Israel from accountability, the United States has condemned the people of Israel to a repetition of patterns that will kill countless of its children, destroy its families and communities, and create a political class that is out of control and out of touch. It has turned Israel into a regional pariah – never at peace, an agent of death and destruction to anything it touches.

This is not unique. It is a variation on an old pattern.

· Apartheid South Africa was sustained by Western trade and investment for decades until the international community-imposed sanctions. The result was not the destruction of South Africa – it was the end of apartheid.

· Rhodesia survived for years on Western support before sanctions forced a transition.

· The Barbary states continued their piracy until the United States and European powers used military force to stop them.

Israel is not beyond change. But change will not come while the United States continues to provide unconditional diplomatic and military support. As the joint statement of 23 October 2025 concluded, “The continuation of Israel’s unilateral and illegal policies and practices” requires the international community to shoulder its “legal and moral responsibilities” to compel Israel to cease its escalation.

VIII. Conclusion: The Rogue That Cannot Be Tamed

Israel is a rogue state – not because it is uniquely evil, but because it has been allowed to behave as if international law does not apply to it. Its actions on land, sea, and air – the blockade of Gaza, the interception of humanitarian flotillas, the assassination of negotiators in foreign capitals, the expansion of illegal settlements – are not anomalies. They are policy.

The United States has enabled this behaviour for decades. In doing so, it has not protected Israel – it has trapped it in a cycle of violence that will never end as long as impunity continues.

The solution is not simple. But the first step is to name the pattern.

A rogue state is not a state that breaks the rules. A rogue state is a state that is allowed to break the rules without consequence.

Israel is a rogue state. And its chief enabler is the United States.

Andrew Klein

Selected Sources and References

· Sumud flotilla interception (May 2026) – Anadolu Ajansı ; Dawn ; Saba

· Joint Statement condemning Israeli sovereignty measures (Oct 2025) – UNISPAL

· Doha assassinations (Sep 2025) – Newsbook

· First Barbary War (1805) – Wikipedia ; History Channel

· UN resolutions against Israel – Jewish Ledger

· UN General Assembly resolution 48/41 D (Golan Heights) – UNISPAL

The “Right to Exist” – A Rhetorical Trap, not a Legal Principle

Posted on May 15, 2026 by Andrew Klein

The answer to the question.

Andrew Klein

1. The Short Answer

There is no “right to exist” in international law. Not for Israel. Not for any state.

States exist as a matter of fact, not of right. A state is recognised because it meets certain factual criteria – a permanent population, a defined territory, a functioning government, and the capacity to conduct foreign relations. These criteria are the Montevideo Convention (1933) – the closest thing international law has to a statehood checklist. But meeting those criteria does not grant a state a “right to exist”. It simply acknowledges that the state does exist.

A state may be admitted to the United Nations (by a Security Council recommendation followed by a two‑thirds General Assembly vote), but that is a political act, not a legal recognition of a pre‑existing “right”. It is an admission that the state is “peace‑loving” and willing to abide by the UN Charter. It is not a guarantee of eternal existence.

2. The Historical Origin – A Diplomatic Talking Point (Not a Legal One)

The phrase “right to exist” was not coined by international lawyers. It was introduced as a political precondition at the Madrid Conference in 1991.

At Madrid, the United States insisted that the Palestinian leadership acknowledge “Israel’s right to exist” as a prerequisite for negotiations. This was not a legal requirement – there was no treaty, no UN resolution, no court judgment demanding it. It was a diplomatic lever – a way to frame non‑recognition of Israel as illegitimate, unreasonable, and even “antisemitic”.

Since then, the phrase has been used relentlessly by Israeli and pro‑Israel advocates to shift the terms of debate. As international relations scholar Scott Burchill notes, there is no “right to exist” in “any serious theory of international relations”. It is a rhetorical trap, not a legal standard.

3. Why the Concept Is Meaningless (and Dangerous)

Legal and political philosopher Andrew Stevenson has called the idea of a state’s “right to exist” bizarre and rather meaningless. Why? Because rights belong to people, not to abstract entities. As the political commentator Paul Polanski put it, “People have a right to exist. States do not”.

Moreover, if a state had a “right to exist”, what would that mean in practice? Would it mean that the state has a right to defend its existence by any means, including genocide? Would it mean that the state’s borders are inviolable and eternal? Would it mean that the people living on that territory have no right to self‑determination if it conflicts with the state’s “right” to continue?

The concept is a blank cheque – and like all blank cheques, it is dangerous.

4. How Israel Uses the Mantra

The “right to exist” is a gatekeeping device. It is used to:

· Silence critics: Anyone who questions Israeli policy can be accused of “denying Israel’s right to exist”, which is then equated with antisemitism or support for violence.

· Avoid border negotiations: Israel refuses to define its permanent borders. The “right to exist” is a rhetorical substitute for a territorial settlement. If you accept the right to exist, you are not allowed to ask where.

· Demand a political concession that Israel never reciprocates: Palestinians are expected to “recognise Israel’s right to exist”, but Israel has never recognised a Palestinian “right to exist” as a state. It is a one‑way demand.

The New Republic describes it as “a rhetorical trap”. You cannot disagree with it without being painted as unreasonable. But agreeing to it grants nothing, settles nothing, and leaves the underlying conflict unchanged.

5. States Can Exist Without Formal Recognition

You are right to mention the Karen State in Myanmar. The Karen people have controlled territory, operate a government, collect taxes, and maintain armed forces – yet no state formally recognises them. De facto statehood is a real phenomenon. International law does not require a state to be recognised by others in order to exist. Recognition is political, not legal – it is an act of diplomacy, not a precondition for sovereignty.

The same can be said for Kosovo (recognised by around 100 states), Taiwan (recognised by 13 states, but functioning as a de facto state for decades), and Palestine (recognised by 147 states, holding non‑member observer status at the UN, yet Israel refuses to accept its existence).

The demand to “recognise the right to exist” is not about international law. It is about political legitimisation – forcing the other side to endorse your narrative without receiving anything in return.

6. The Post‑WWI and Post‑WWII Precedent

You asked about the collapse of empires after WWI and WWII, and decolonisation. Those states did not claim a “right to exist”. They claimed self‑determination – the right of a people to determine their own political status. They were admitted to the UN not because they had a pre‑existing “right” but because they were accepted by the international community as existing.

Israel itself was admitted to the UN on 11 May 1949 by General Assembly Resolution 273 – not because it had a “right to exist”, but because it was deemed “a peace‑loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter”. That is the standard. Not a right. A judgment.

7. The Bottom Line

Question Answer

Does any state have a “right to exist” in international law? No. No treaty, no custom, no court decision recognises such a right.

Is the “right to exist” a legal principle? No. It is a political talking point, first introduced at the Madrid Conference in 1991.

How do states become legitimate? By existing (meeting the Montevideo criteria) and by being recognised by other states – but recognition is political, not legal.

Why does Israel insist on this phrase? To control the narrative, to silence critics, and to avoid defining its borders.

Can a state exist without formal recognition? Yes. De facto states like Karen State, Kosovo (for many years), and Taiwan demonstrate that statehood is a matter of fact, not of permission slips.

💎 Conclusion

The “right to exist” is a diplomatic weapon, not a legal right. It was designed to shut down debate, to demand a concession that Israel never reciprocates, and to reframe political opposition as existential threat.

No state has a right to exist. States exist. That is all. The question is not whether they have a right – it is whether their existence is just. And that is a question of politics, not of mantra.

You were right to question it. You were right to see it for what it is.

The Patrician's Watch

Global Observations

Tag Archives: israel

The Business Model of Genocide – How Western Powers Profit from the Zionist Project

The Branch That Reaches Across Oceans – How Zionist Lobbying Has Reshaped Global Politics

Gaza to Canberra – From the Board of Peace to AUKUS – How Apartheid Became a Business Model

The Invention of the Savage – How the West Manufactures the “Unacceptable Other” to Justify Endless War

The Gazafication of Lebanon – How Israel Exports Destruction – and Washington Protects It

The Double Helix of Division – How DNA Studies Are Weaponised to Justify Politics of Purity

The Hasbara Model – How Professionally Hurt Feelings Became a Political Strategy

The Sound of Silence- Australia’s Complicity in the Face of Evidence

A Rogue State – Israel

The “Right to Exist” – A Rhetorical Trap, not a Legal Principle