The "Middle East and Terrorism" Blog was created in order to supply information about the implication of Arab countries and Iran in terrorism all over the world. Most of the articles in the blog are the result of objective scientific research or articles written by senior journalists.
From the Ethics of the Fathers: "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it."
Pro-Trump Palestinian-American businessman Bishara Bahbah reportedly served as key intermediary in covert talks with Hamas.
Steve Witkoff and Edan Alexander Spokesperson
A
complex web of unofficial negotiations involving a former Trump
campaign supporter and Qatari mediation culminated Sunday night in the
release of Edan Alexander, the last known living American hostage in
Gaza.
According to a report by Axios,
the backchannel efforts began in late April when a Hamas official
contacted Bishara Bahbah, a Palestinian-American businessman and former
leader of "Arab Americans for Trump." The aim was to open a dialogue
with the Trump team in hopes of gaining leverage over Israel. Bahbah
reportedly facilitated approximately 20 communications between Hamas and
Trump advisor Steve Witkoff over the past two weeks, eventually
speaking directly with Hamas negotiator Khalil al-Hayya. Bahbah declined
to comment.
The negotiations accelerated
last week, and on Sunday at around 10 p.m. Doha time, Hamas agreed to
release Alexander unconditionally. "It was a very emotional call from
both sides," Alexander's father, Adi, told Axios after receiving the news from Witkoff.
Israeli
officials first learned of the secret talks not through Washington, but
via their own intelligence. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's close
aide, Ron Dermer, raised the matter during a Washington visit, prompting
confirmation from Witkoff that talks were underway and Israel would not
be required to make concessions.
The report also noted that this
was not the first attempt to secure Alexander's release. Earlier efforts
in March fell apart hours before President Trump's State of the Union
address after Hamas demanded a prisoner exchange. In contrast, the
recent initiative succeeded with the promise of goodwill and potential
future incentives.
A senior US official credited Qatari Prime
Minister Mohammed bin Abdul Rahman al-Thani for helping close the deal.
The official added that Netanyahu's military campaign created additional
pressure on Hamas. While the US downplayed Bahbah's involvement,
Israeli sources acknowledged Hamas took a calculated risk, hoping to
sway Trump toward a more sympathetic stance.
Witkoff
is expected to meet with Israeli and Qatari officials in Doha on
Tuesday to continue negotiations over a broader ceasefire and hostage
agreement. However, Israeli officials remain skeptical. "We told Witkoff
he has four days to get a deal. Afterwards we are going in," one
official told Axios.
US envoys Witkoff and Boehler meet with hostage families in Tel Aviv, affirm full US commitment to securing the return of all 58 hostages.
US Special Envoy for the Middle East Steve Witkoff and US Special
Envoy for Hostage Response Adam Boehler met on Tuesday with the Hostages
Families Forum
During the nearly two-hour meeting, both officials
emphasized their personal commitment to bringing back all 58 remaining
hostages, both the living and the deceased.
Witkoff emphasized
that they will accept nothing less than the return of everyone, as this
is the President's mission. "The President's not going to tolerate
anything other than everybody coming home. And he will be relentless on
that pursuit. You saw what happened with the Houthis. You saw what
happened when people don't do well with the United States, we don't do
so well with them. So it's a message of do what we ask you to do. And,
you know, then things will be better."
He added, "This feels like
I'm doing something bigger than myself on behalf of something that has
nothing to do with me. This is not. Your children are not my children.
But now I've made them my children. It feels like your brother is part
of my family. Like I'm doing something. Feels like a completely
unselfish act to help somebody else. There is no greater joy than doing
that... We're going to complete it. We're not going anywhere."
Earlier
in the day, the US officials visited released American-Israeli hostage
Edan Alexander at Ichilov Medical Center in Tel Aviv.
During the visit, Alexander spoke with US President Donald Trump on Witkoff's phone.
From
there, they visited the Hostages Square in Tel Aviv. "I hope this is a
beacon of hope for everyone else," Witkoff told reporters.
Witkoff
praised Netanyahu and Trump for their parts: "Thank God for President
Trump, and Prime Minister Netanyahu did exceptional work as well."
He belonged in a nursing home, not living on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
[Want even more content from FPM? Sign up for FPM+ to unlock
exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more—now for
just $3.99/month. Click here to sign up.]
For several years, it has been apparent that Joe Biden
is mentally incompetent and suffering from a significant cognitive
decline. Honest observers noticed Biden was having trouble in the 2020
presidential campaign. In response, his political advisers sidelined
Biden to the “basement” throughout the campaign as he held few public
events.
As President, Biden spent his entire term making embarrassing gaffes,
displaying forgetfulness, and having difficulty communicating.
Repeatedly, he could not identify his cabinet members and called Vice
President Kamala Harris the “President.”
At one event, Biden asked for a deceased member of Congress to come
forward and be recognized. Even worse, Biden was regularly unable to
exit the stage after a speech and was seen shaking hands with invisible
people.
Along with the mental decline, Biden experienced significant physical
problems. He suffered spectacular tumbles on stage, on the stairs of
Air Force One, and his bike.
However, when his critics mentioned videos highlighting his
deteriorating condition, his defenders, including former White House
Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, called them “cheap fakes.” In an
interview on MSNBC, Jean-Pierre fumed that the criticism was “very
insulting” and filled with “much misinformation.”
Jean-Pierre and Biden’s allies claimed that videos of the President
wandering into a rainforest, being distracted by a parachuter during an
event with European leaders, or being led away by former President
Barack Obama at a fundraiser were “manipulated videos…done in bad
faith.”
Biden Campaign Spokesperson James Singer said Republicans were
spreading the concerns about his mental competence, “so scared of losing
to Joe Biden, they’ll make anything up.”
Joining in on the lie about Biden’s aptitude was White House
Physician Kevin O’Connor, who claimed that the President was “fit for
duty” after his physical in February 2024. However, the physical was
woefully incomplete because Biden did not receive a cognitive test.
According to the authors of a new book, 2024: How Trump Retook the White House, and the Democrats Lost America, Biden’s team debated whether he should take the cognitive test. Ultimately, as reported by The New York Times,
his advisers decided “not to have the president take a cognitive test
in February 2024, over concerns that taking the test itself would raise
more questions about his age.”
Of course, the real problem was that Biden would have failed any type
of honest cognitive test, which would have exposed his incompetence and
his unsuitability for the world’s most demanding job, President of the
United States.
Thus, his aides were attempting to cover up what was obvious to all
Americans: Biden was not fit to be President. He belonged in a nursing
home receiving treatment for his age-related illnesses, not living on
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
While Biden’s mental decline was being hidden by his staff and his
physician, Special Counsel Robert Hur was not so forgiving. In his
report on Biden’s mishandling of classified documents, Hur refused to
indict him because he believed a jury would be sympathetic to a
“well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”
Audio of Hur’s interview with Biden was so damaging that it was also
covered up and never released to the public. Add that bombshell audio
tape to the list of revelations that Attorney General Pam Bondi should
provide to the American people.
Despite the best efforts of his handlers to prevent the truth from
being disclosed to voters nationwide, Biden’s horrific performance on
June 27, 2024, in a debate with President Donald Trump settled the
question. It was too apparent, no “cheap fakes” in that performance,
every American who watched could see that Biden was utterly incompetent.
Yet Biden performed in the debate the same way he had been acting
throughout his presidency. Amazingly, his handlers are now trying to
convince the American people that the debate opened their eyes.
In another new book, “Uncharted: How Trump Beat Biden, Harris, and
the Odds in the Wildest Campaign in History,” author Chris Whipple
writes that in helping Biden prepare for the debate, former White House
Chief of Staff Ron Klain noticed he was “fatigued, befuddled, and
disengaged.”
Supposedly, Klain “was startled. He’d never seen him so exhausted and
out of it. Biden was unaware of what was happening in his own campaign.
Halfway through the session, the president excused himself and sat by
the pool.”
How ridiculous was Klain really “startled?” This is the same person
who spent countless weekends at Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, lounging on a
recliner under an umbrella, looking exhausted.
Klain is not the only former staffer peddling such a ridiculous story. Former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki told Semafor that
Biden’s debate performance shocked her. “I never saw that person—not a
single time, and I was in the Oval Office every day, that was on that
debate stage,” said Psaki.
She absurdly stated that the problem was due to Biden “aging…quite
quickly.” Of course, there was nothing quick about Biden’s decline; it
had been apparent for years. Those who identified the problem were
ridiculed and criticized as the Biden White House, the Democrats, and
the media attempted to cover up the truth.
The reelection campaign was over once the debate exposed Biden’s true
condition. Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh wrote that the major
Democrat donors ended Biden’s second-term dreams when they “called off
the game of see no evil, hear no evil.” Otherwise, the liars supporting
Biden, both inside and outside the White House, would have tried to
continue the biggest cover-up in American history.
Within weeks of the debate, George Clooney noted Biden’s decline in a damaging editorial in The New York Times. Soon thereafter, Biden withdrew from the campaign and endorsed Kamala Harris.
The consequences of this cover-up included the autopen presidency,
the invasion of our southern border, the massive increase of our federal
debt, the horrible “woke” and “New Green Deal” policies, and the chaos
overseas that almost resulted in nuclear war.
Although his name has been floated as one of Waltz’s successors, can he do the job?
[Craving even more FPM content? Sign up for FPM+ to unlock exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more. Click here to sign up.]
My guess is, we will know soon enough whether the firing of National
Security Advisor Mike Waltz heralds a shift in Trump policy, or was
merely a personnel decision.
Trump hinted it was the latter just days after Waltz’s deputy, Alex Wong, invited a journalist to an encrypted Signal chat.
Speaking to reporters on Air Force One on April 3, the President
applauded his national security team for their “big success with the
Houthis,” but added this: “Always, we’re going to let go of people we
don’t like, or people we don’t think can do the job, or people who may
have loyalties to somebody else.”
And the fact that Waltz was not exiled to Outer Slobbovia but sent
instead to New York as our United Nations representative, argues that
the President continues to respect Waltz and his bold advocacy of
America First positions.
That is not the case with Steve Witkoff, one of several people whose
names have been floated as Waltz’s successor. Remember that during his
first negotiating session with the Iranians Witkoff said it was just
fine and dandy for them to retain their uranium enrichment capabilities, just as long as they limited it to 3.67%.
That is like handing them the keys to a dual-motor Tesla and expecting them to keep it below 30 mpH.
Witkoff was summoned back to Washington after he made that statement
and was given a very public dressing down by the entire national
security cabinet, after which he “remembered” that
the President himself had said the Iranians had to totally “dismantle”
their nuclear programs, just like Qaddafi did in Libya.
Witkoff is one of many Trump supporters who, while well-meaning, have
zero experience or understanding of foreign policy. Just recently, for
example, you had Charlie Kirk opining on X that Trump cabinet members and think tankers who opposed a Witkoff-negotiated Iran deal were evil “neo-cons” and “anti-MAGA.”
That kind of talk simply ignores the physics of uranium enrichment,
as well as the history of Iran’s forty-year slow walk to a robust
nuclear weapons capability.
Charlie Kirk was following on the heels of Tucker Carlson’s hour-long interview with Witkoff
in which he blasted the “tremendous pressure for a war on Iran” from
the Washington establishment, and heaped praise on Witkoff for his
“hope” that dialogue with Iran could clear up “misconceptions” and lead
to a full return of Iran to the “league of nations.”
As one Iranian official told me at an international conference where I
presented a paper on Iran’s nuclear weapons program already in 1995
(see Chapter 8), the regime intended to “keep its options open” by
developing a robust uranium enrichment capability.
If anyone had any doubts as to their intentions – as the US
intelligence community continues to harbor – then Exhibit A was Iran’s
rejection of a proposal by then-Russian President Boris Yeltsin to give
them a 10-year supply of uranium fuel rods for their one nuclear power
reactor and to reprocess them in Russia, all for just $30 million.
Instead of taking the deal, the Iranians pursued their plans to master
the entire nuclear fuel cycle, building uranium mines, mills to
transform the ore into yellowcake, a uranium hexafluoride plant to
transform the yellowcake into a gas, and then multiple centrifuge plants
to enrich the gas by spinning, efforts which cost them billions of
dollars.
Over the years, the Iranians became increasingly skilled at designing
newer and faster centrifuges, so that today they can spin up enough
lower-enriched uranium to make a nuclear bomb in just one week,
according to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
And they have enough lower-enriched uranium currently on hand to make 17 bombs in four months. Seventeen bombs! That’s not a nuclear weapon or two, that is a nuclear arsenal.
Oh, and let’s not forget that to preserve their “civilian” nuclear infrastructure, the Iranian regime has twice – twice – been willing to undergo an international embargo on selling its oil, which cost it $150 billion in lost revenues each time.
If they really had only wanted civilian nuclear power, why would they make such truly awful economic decisions?
No one who subscribes to bad nuclear negotiations has ever answered
that question. And people like Charlie Kirk, Tucker Carlson, and Steve
Witkoff are probably not even aware of the math.
Judge Howell blocked Trump’s order targeting Perkins Coie, defending legal speech—while sidestepping the firm’s partisan misconduct in the 2016 election and beyond.
Federal District Court Judge Beryl Howell’s injunction
prohibiting the implementation of Donald Trump’s executive order
restricting the Perkins Coie law firm spoils a righteous core with
judicial activism.
On March 6, Trump issued an executive order
asserting that “the dishonest and dangerous activity of…Perkins Coie
has affected this country for decades. Notably, in 2016, while
representing failed Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Perkins Coie
hired Fusion GPS, which then manufactured a false “dossier” designed to
steal an election…. Perkins Coie has worked with activist donors,
including George Soros, to judicially overturn popular, necessary, and
democratically enacted election laws….”
The order also accused Perkins Coie of
racial discrimination, citing its “publicly announced percentage quotas
in 2019 for hiring and promotion on the basis of race and other
categories prohibited by civil rights laws.”
The order suspended security clearances for the firm’s lawyers and
barred them from federal buildings, prohibited the government from
engaging the firm, directed federal contractors to disclose if they use
the firm’s services, and referred the firm to be investigated for
violating civil rights laws. The order was one of several similar orders
issued, or contemplated, against leading law firms.
Howell, an Obama appointee, previously served as chief judge for the
District of Columbia, in which capacity she was a strong supporter of
Jack Smith’s Trump prosecution. Her 120-page opinion
excoriated the administration for disregarding the First Amendment and
failing to comply with her orders. She criticized the content and
formatting of the Justice Department’s memoranda, averred that the
government had no credible evidence of racial discrimination or other
wrongdoing by Perkins Coie, and rejected all of its arguments.
Howell is right that the First Amendment and principles of American
justice mandate that lawyers be able to deliver candid advice and
zealous advocacy to their clients. But, she goes too far by ignoring the
compelling case that Perkins Coie conspired with Hillary Clinton and
Fusion GPS to improperly influence the 2016 election and destabilize the
Trump presidency by developing the fraudulent Steele dossier (which
falsely accused Trump of being a Russian agent), and then misleading
government investigators about its provenance.
She began her decision by quoting Shakespeare’s admonition to “kill
all the lawyers” to make it easier to seize power, and Alexis de
Tocqueville, who wrote that the legal profession “is the most powerful
existing security against the excesses of democracy.” Howell then held
that “using the powers of the federal government to target lawyers for
their representation of clients and avowed progressive employment
policies in an overt attempt to suppress and punish certain viewpoints…,
is contrary to the Constitution, which requires that the government
respond to dissenting or unpopular speech or ideas with tolerance, not
coercion…. Simply put, government officials cannot… use the power of the
State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.”
Access to unvarnished legal advice is sacrosanct, but Howell goes off
the rails. She never acknowledges that much of Perkins Coie’s
wrongdoing had nothing to do with its legal advice, but came in its
capacity as a political kingpin. She bewilderingly asserts that using
the firm’s admissions of racial discrimination violates its First
Amendment rights. Her related attack on the administration’s opposition
to diversity programs reveals her motives for this bizarre conclusion.
She never discusses the constitutional infirmities of requiring a
client to hire a lawyer in whom they lack trust. Perkins Coie sought to
destroy Trump personally and politically. Its beliefs differ from his.
That is more than sufficient reason under Article II and the Fifth and
Sixth Amendments that the president, who is the executive branch of
government, may choose not to work with it.
On the other hand, Trump may not target Perkins Coie because its
lawyers provide legal services to litigants whose positions are adverse
to his administration, bar the firm from federal buildings, or require
federal contractors to disclose their law firms.
The question of whether the security clearances granted to Perkins
Coie lawyers may be limited is a close one, given the firm’s fraudulent
manipulation of Congress and the FBI. The firm’s defenders are fixated
on the fact that the partners who led its fraudulent services have moved
on. So what. The firm is organized on a partnership model. Partners
still at the firm likely were involved in, and benefited from, the
fraud.
When progressives applaud as conservative lawyers like John Eastman
are indicted and unconstitutionally subjected to disbarment for giving
legal advice to President Trump on the 2020 election, it is difficult to
sympathize with a law firm that engaged in a conspiracy to steal an
election and topple a sitting president. Nonetheless, in a free society,
government officials do not use their power to punish lawyers because
of their clients or advice, while also recognizing that being a lawyer
is not a free pass to commit fraud or override the constitutional powers
of the president.
***
This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.
Photo: WASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 06: U.S.
President Donald Trump speaks after signing executive orders in the Oval
Office of the White House on March 06, 2025 in Washington, DC.
President Trump signed a series of executive orders, including lifting
25% tariffs for all goods compliant under USMCA trade agreement,
terminating the security clearances of those who work at the law firm
Perkins Coie, combating drug trafficking at the northern border as well
as announcing a $20 billion investment by shipping giant CMA CGM for
U.S. infrastructure and jobs. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Dissent is patriotic again: Just the News reported last week that a June 2021 domestic terrorism policy memo allowed federal agencies like the FBI and Homeland Security to surveil and question Americans if an agent believed they had been involved in “concerning non-criminal behavior.” Gabbard is nullifying that policy.
Director of National Intelligence
Tulsi Gabbard says the Biden-era mentality of treating conservatives and
citizens with dissenting views like domestic terrorists was an “abuse
of power,” signaling that a 2021 memo that empowered the FBI to probe
Americans for “concerning non-criminal behavior” is no longer operative.
Gabbard told Just the News in a statement Monday that she
has ended the domestic terrorism approach of the Biden administration
that was used to justify the targeting of conservative Catholics, gun
enthusiasts and parents who protested school board policies.
In fact, officials said, domestic terrorism was recently removed as a
top threat from the intelligence community’s national threat assessment
as a first step in that transition.
Gabbard’s statement came after Just the News reported last week
that a June 2021 domestic terrorism policy memo empowered federal
agencies like the FBI and Homeland Security Department to open probes on
Americans solely if an agent believed they had been involved in
“concerning non-criminal behavior.”
Biden lowered the bar for probing U.S. citizens to mere suspicion
The policy, which was shielded from Americans’ view because the
document was mostly classified during the Biden years, substantially
lowered the decades-long standard that agents opening a probe must have a
predicate based on a reasonable factual basis that a crime has been
committed.
The FBI and DHS were allowed by Biden to open a probe based on a mere
concern and without the behavior having to be criminal in nature.
After Gabbard declassified the memo this spring, legal experts and
members of Congress raised serious concerns about the change, warning it
threatened Americans' rights and civil liberties. Gabbard signaled in
her statement to Just the News that she shared those concerns.
“Disguised as an attempt to curb ‘domestic terrorism,’ Biden’s plan
actually functioned as a partisan playbook on how the Biden
Administration would weaponize government and intelligence against
everyday Americans whose ‘offense’ was supporting President Trump, or
daring to disagree with or oppose their policies,” the Trump
administration’s top intelligence official said.
“To ensure transparency and accountability, I declassified and
released the document, so Americans could see the truth about the Biden
Administration's weaponization and politicization of our government
against Americans. This abuse of power that violates our God-given
freedoms and civil liberties must end,” Gabbard added.
Officials confirmed the Trump administration has abandoned the
tactics enumerated in the 2021 memo crafted by the Biden National
Security Council,
"The last administration appeared more focused on investigating
Americans for their opinions than addressing actual criminal activity,"
the FBI said in a statement from a spokesman. "Under new leadership, the
Bureau is actively reviewing and revising its guidance to ensure our
efforts are focused where they belong: on making America safe."
The directives provided to the Justice Department and FBI under
President Joe Biden by the National Security Council said the agencies
should “drive…executive and legislative action” to ban assault weapons
and high-capacity magazines, rein in “ghost guns,” monitor active-duty
service members for possible terrorism recruitment and "mitigate
xenophobia and bias."
The Biden policy also included a plan to counter "xenophobic
disinformation" as a basis for investigation by creating the
“Disinformation Governance Board” program under DHS that was discontinued in 2022, after being widely criticized as an ersatz "Ministry of Truth" established in the name of national security. Nina Jankowicz, selected to head the board, was widely mocked before the board was disbanded.
Sen. Johnson reminds voters that "elections have consequences"
For decades, FBI agents have been required to meet stringent
requirements for opening criminal and national security investigations,
known as a "predicate." Before Biden's term, the predicate for a full
investigation required "an articulable factual basis" that "reasonably
indicates" a crime or national security threat has or is about to occur,
according to the Attorney General's Guidelines for Domestic FBI
Operations.
Lawmakers expressed disbelief that such a change impacting civil
liberties was made by Gabbard with so little notice, praising President
Donald Trump and Gabbard for declassifying and releasing the memo.
"It's not surprising. But you're right. It is shocking," Sen. Ron
Johnson, R-Wis., the chairman of the powerful Senate Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations, told Just the News. Paraphrasing
former President Barack Obama, Johnson said, "And again, elections have
consequences, and in this case, it's a very good consequence that now
this is coming to light.
"I appreciate Tulsi Gabbard looking up exactly what happened and
releasing this information. It's important the American public
understands what government does to it, how it tramples on our
constitutional rights," he added.
Friedrich ruled that the partnership, which allows Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials to submit names of illegal migrants to the IRS who would provide the current addresses to ICE and DHS, did not violate the IRS' code.
The Trump administration scored a
major victory on Monday after a federal judge ruled that the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) can share its database with the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) to help locate and identify alleged illegal
migrants.
U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich sided with the Trump
administration in a lawsuit brought by the immigrant-rights group Centro
de Trabajadores Unidos, by declining to issue an injunction to block
the two government agencies from partnering on illegal immigration.
Friedrich ruled that the partnership, which allows Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials to submit names of illegal migrants
to the IRS, who would provide the current addresses to ICE and DHS, did
not violate the IRS' code, per Fox News.
"At its core, this case presents a narrow legal issue: Does the
Memorandum of Understanding between the IRS and DHS violate the Internal
Revenue Code? It does not," Friedrich wrote in his order. "The Court
agrees that requesting and receiving information for civil enforcement
purposes would constitute a cognizable injury, but none of the
organizations have established that such an injury is imminent. As the
plaintiffs acknowledge, the Memorandum only allows sharing information
for criminal investigations."
The ruling comes the same day that ICE officials in Houston, Texas, arrested 422 suspected illegal migrants
as part of the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. ICE
officials in Florida arrested more than 1,000 migrants last month.
Misty Severi is a news reporter for Just The News. You can follow her on X for more coverage.
The WEF has for years aggressively been advocating insects to be approved as a food ingredient for human consumption. European Union member states have happily complied with the WEF's wishes.
"Animal-based foods,
especially red meat, dairy, and farmed shrimp, are generally associated
with the highest greenhouse gas emissions," according to the UN.
What to eat instead? The WEF has for years aggressively been
advocating insects to be approved as a food ingredient for human
consumption. European Union member states have happily complied with the
WEF's wishes... As a special treat, EU member states, in 2021, approved
the introduction of mealworms, migratory locusts and house crickets as
so-called "novel food" that can legally be sold in foodstuffs.
The "climate change" movement is huge business; the billionaires
pushing this scrofulous narrative have it all figured out. They have
been investing in plant-based fake meat foodstuffs to reap the profits
once the war on farmers has been won... If these highly processed foods
are not healthy, too bad. The earnings will line the WEF elites'
pockets.
"Alternative proteins" would have to replace meat, Bill Gates
said in a 2021 interview; the climate crisis "is much worse than the
pandemic." For that reason, he is also betting on Nature's Fynd, a
company that makes food that sounds irresistible. "This company,
Nature's Fynd, is using fungi. And then they turn them into sausages and
yogurt. Pretty amazing," Gates said.
The elites know what they are doing. Shutting down farms and
killing livestock means that prices will skyrocket, even more than they
are today, forcing "ordinary" people without the financial means of
Gates, Bezos and Klaus Schwab to stop eating meat, and eventually live
off plants and insects to "save the planet," all while the citizenry's
elected and unelected overlords continue living their billionaire
lifestyles.
Costs will continue to rise for as long as people permit those
"leaders" to determine how we should live and what we should eat. The
time to put a stop to their warmhearted "protection" is now.
"Animal-based foods, especially red meat, dairy, and farmed
shrimp, are generally associated with the highest greenhouse gas
emissions," according to the UN. What to eat instead? The World Economic
Forum has for years aggressively been advocating insects to be approved
as a food ingredient for human consumption. Pictured: A dish of basil
pesto tagliatelle, made with ground fly larvae and garnished with
mealworms, at Gourmet Grubb, a food stand run by chef Mario Barnard in
Cape Town, South Africa, on July 17, 2019. (Photo by Rodger Bosch/AFP
via Getty Images)
The United Nations, the World Economic Forum (WEF) and other
international organizations trying to implement fanciful agendas on
"climate change" are waging a war on food.
"About a third of all human-caused greenhouse gas emissions is linked to food," the UN posits.
"The largest chunk of food-related greenhouse gases comes
from agriculture and land use. This includes, for instance, methane
from cattle's digestive process, nitrous oxide from fertilizers used for
crop production, carbon dioxide from cutting down forests for the
expansion of farmland, other agricultural emissions from manure
management, rice cultivation, burning of crop residues, and the use of
fuel on farms."
To get to "net zero," apparently, we are supposed to greatly reduce, or entirely stop, eating meat.
"Animal-based foods, especially red meat, dairy, and farmed shrimp,
are generally associated with the highest greenhouse gas emissions," according to the UN.
What to eat instead? The WEF has for years aggressively been advocating
insects to be approved as a food ingredient for human consumption.
European Union member states have happily complied with the WEF's wishes
-- without asking a single European consumer what he might think.
As a special treat, EU member states, in 2021, approved
the introduction of mealworms, migratory locusts and house crickets as
so-called "novel food" that can legally be sold in foodstuffs. Most
recently, this January, the EU authorized
"the placing on the market of UV-treated powder of whole Tenebrio
molitor larvae (yellow mealworm) in... bread and rolls, cakes,
pasta-based products, processed potato products, cheese and cheese
products and fruit and vegetable compotes, intended for the general
population."
In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has yet
to approve the consumption of insects, which, mercifully, are still viewed by the agency as filth or "pests" that contaminate food.
World leaders, as has received some notice, now consider cow
flatulence to be so dangerous to the future survival of the planet that
more than 68 countries, including the US, Australia, Canada and the EU
states, have approved
the use of the chemical Bovaer in cattle feed to prevent the poor cows
from breaking wind, thereby allegedly reducing their emissions of
methane.
Is Bovaer bad for humans, short-term or long-term? Nobody knows. Any
doubts are immediately discredited as conspiracy theories. We are
nevertheless assured that they are perfectly safe both for humans and
cows at the recommended dosage. It should be noted, however, according
to the safety data sheet of Bovaer, that the chemical in itself poses a
hazard to fertility, eyes and skin. Were consumers ever asked if they
want chemical additives with unknown potential side effects in their
milk products? No. The product was approved in the US by the FDA and
commercially launched in late 2024. Perhaps this would be a product for
Secretary of Health Robert F. Kennedy Jr to look deeper into.
If you had been thinking that the war on food was limited to adding
insects and chemicals to food, you would have to think again. The
program is also, apparently, a war on agriculture – an idea that would
seem self-defeating, but one that has successfully spread across the
West. In the US, during the Biden administration, the private-jet-flying
Special Presidential Envoy for Climate Change John Kerry announced:
"Agriculture contributes about 33% of all the emissions
of the world. And we can't get to Net Zero—we don't get this job
done—unless agriculture is front and center as part of the solution. You
just can't continue to both warm the planet, while also expecting to
feed it. It doesn't work. So we have to reduce emissions from the food
system."
In the EU, member states have committed to the European Green Deal,
a plan that sets a goal of reducing emissions by at least 55% by 2030.
To solve the fictitious "climate crisis," livestock and agriculture must
be reduced or, better yet, shut down. In the Netherlands, one of the
world's largest agricultural producers, the EU has set aside
1.47 billion euros to buy out and close down roughly 3,000 small and
medium-sized farms to meet targeted reductions in carbon emissions. If
farmers do not sell out voluntarily, the result might be forced buyouts.
Farmers who close down their homestead must guarantee
they will not start up livestock farming operations again elsewhere in
the Netherlands or the EU. "The Dutch government says it must curb its
nitrogen oxide and ammonia emissions by 50% by 2030 to comply with EU
greenhouse gas emissions targets," according
to Farmers Weekly. "It considers livestock farms as 'peak polluters'
and says their closure is necessary to meet the regulations."
In Ireland, last September, in a plan that would reportedly cost $640 million, the government, suggested killing 200,000 cows over the next three years to "reduce methane emissions."
In the UK, Prime Minister Keir Starmer is waging a tax war on farmers that will force many out of business. In addition, the government is offering
farmers money for not producing food crops but rather growing feed for
birds. "We've been offered £2500 [by the government] to join a scheme
for three years, where we don't supply you any food," a British farmer told a Reform UK meeting.
As one British farmer rhetorically asked,
"Where will the food come from in the future?" That's an excellent
question, but the "climate change" elites have answers for that, too.
The "climate change" movement is huge business; the billionaires
pushing this scrofulous narrative have it all figured out. They have
been investing in plant-based fake meat foodstuffs to reap the profits
once the war on farmers has been won. People like Bill Gates and Jeff
Bezos have for years been investing in fake meat ventures. The entire
purpose of Beyond Meat, Impossible Foods and others is to become a
replacement for real meat, which, if the elites get their way, you will
no longer be able to eat. If these highly processed foods are not
healthy, too bad. The earnings will line the WEF elites' pockets.
"Alternative proteins" would have to replace meat, Bill Gates said
in a 2021 interview; the climate crisis "is much worse than the
pandemic." For that reason, he is also betting on Nature's Fynd, a
company that makes food that sounds irresistible.
"This company, Nature's Fynd, is using fungi. And then they turn them into sausages and yogurt. Pretty amazing," Gates said.
He himself, of course, says he prefers real meat burgers, just as he
also prefers private jets to fly him between his multiple mansions.
"I probably have one of the highest greenhouse gas footprints of anyone on the planet. Personal flying alone is gigantic," he admitted. But that's okay, according to Gates. He is rich and can afford to pay for his preferences, unlike us peasants, who will have to eat fungi and bugs.
"Now, I'm spending quite a bit to buy aviation fuel that
was made with plants. You know, I switched to an electric car. I use
solar panels. I'm paying a company that actually, at a very high price,
can pull a bit of carbon out of the air and stick it underground."
Gates is also the largest private landowner in the U.S.
The elites know what they are doing. Shutting down farms and killing
livestock means that prices will skyrocket, even more than they are
today, forcing "ordinary" people without the financial means of Gates,
Bezos and Klaus Schwab to stop eating meat, and eventually live off
plants and insects to "save the planet," all while the citizenry's
elected and unelected overlords continue living their billionaire
lifestyles.
Costs will continue to rise for as long as people permit those
"leaders" to determine how we should live and what we should eat. The
time to put a stop to their warmhearted "protection" is now.
The "NIW" has given its community a rare and influential voice amid a decline in personal safety and doubts about the future.
AMSTERDAM—In addition to its investigative
journalism, the main Jewish publication in the Netherlands stands out
for its spectacular covers.
The editorial team at NIW, the Nieuw Israelietisch Weekblad (“New
Israelite Weekly”), which was established 160 years ago and is the
world’s second-oldest still-running Jewish publication, uses creativity
to obtain eye-catching graphics that set the weekly apart from other
communal papers with limited budgets.
A recent edition boasted a photo of a
mesmerizing Moorish-style ceiling of a train station designed by a
Jewish architect. Another was monochromatic, featuring only a graduate
cap against the reticulated pattern of a keffiyeh—a jarring reference to
intimidation on Dutch campuses.
Recently, however, NIW began concealing
its vaunted covers. Shortly after the surge of antisemitism that
followed Oct. 7, 2023, the weekly began reaching subscribers sandwiched
between blank sheets of paper, for security reasons.
Likely the only Dutch publication receiving this treatment, the NIW’s
concealment encapsulates the reality of its intended readership:
Members of a proud and prosperous minority that is gradually being
stripped of its voice and confidence by the resurgence of antisemitism
after the Holocaust.
“I’ve always opposed this move whenever it
came up in internal discussions because it’s symbolic: We’re proud
Dutch Jews and we don’t want to hide,” Esther Voet, the paper’s longtime
editor-in-chief, told JNS in a recent interview in her canal-side home
in Amsterdam. But after Oct. 7, “readers were afraid. They told us: ‘I
don’t want my neighbors to know that I’m Jewish at this time’,” she
added.
Some subscribers to the NIW worried not only about their neighbors, but also the postal carriers, many of whom are Muslim.
The cover of the NIW weekly in March 2025.
“That’s the reality we live in, and the cover concealment is the least of it,” Voet said.
For years, the NIW news team
worked out of an unmarked office, the paper’s name absent from the
intercom panel and mailboxes. Security costs added up, eventually
tipping the scales in favor of remote work, Voet said.
The switch ended decades of a newsroom environment at NIW: The last time it didn’t have an office was after the Holocaust, which two of the antebellum directors of the NIW survived. They printed the first number after the Holocaust 12 days after liberation.
The Netherlands Journalist Association,
the NVJ, has not spoken about the concealment or the security costs. NVJ
has vigorously defended journalists against alleged police brutality,
and spoke out in 2023 in defense of a Palestinian journalist who was
criticized for using jihadist language in his work.
Police opt out
In September, NIW broke a
news story that made headlines nationally and internationally, and
prompted concern not only about postmen but also police officers. It
indicated that officers were opting out of protecting Jewish events and
venues citing “moral objections,” likely in reference to Israel. No
disciplinary action was taken.
Two months later, on Nov. 7, 2024, dozens of Arab men assaulted Israeli soccer fans returning from a Maccabi Tel Aviv match in Amsterdam, in what NIW and many others have termed the first antisemitic pogrom in the Netherlands since World War II.
The police, which had a thin deployment
despite the known potential for violence against hundreds of Israelis,
made no arrests during the riots. Fewer than 12 people have been
indicted for the violence. Perpetrators coordinated it in advance and
real-time on instant messaging platforms that were rife with antisemitic
language.
Police face off against anti-Israel protesters at Dam Square in Amsterdam on Nov. 10, 2024. Credit: Courtesy of Bart Schut.
On the night of the pogrom, Voet opened up
her centrally located home and turned it into a safehouse for Israelis
who were looking for sanctuary. Jewish community volunteers brought them
to Voet or directed them to her via WhatsApp messages. Bart Schut, the
newspaper’s deputy editor in chief, also brought Israelis in need to
Voet’s home.
Not far from her home, which is in the
same neighborhood as the Anne Frank House, gangs of Muslims patrolled
the streets, some of them pushing victims into the icy canal waters and
conducting passport checks that ended in savage beatings of anyone
deemed to be Israeli.
“You know, I was always aware that a time
like this could come. Any Dutch Jew with any historical awareness must
be,” Voet told JNS, referencing how, during WWII, the Nazis and their
collaborators murdered at least 75% of Dutch Jewry. “But to actually see
the fear in the eyes of Jews hiding in my home, nothing prepares you
for that,” she said.
This and other experiences have made Voet
“very pessimistic about the future of Jews in Europe. Because, clearly,
the silent majority has expressed itself: It has chosen to remain
silent,” said Voet, a petite 61-year-old woman who often wields her
quick wit in defense of Israel and the Jews on prime-time talk shows.
Esther
Voet, center of upper row, with Israelis who took refuge in her
apartment in Amsterdam, the Netherlands on Nov. 7, 2024. Photo by Bart
Schut.
She has devoted much of her life to her work. “This makes it easier for me to stay here and carry on the duty, which I believe NIW is carrying out. But I understand those who leave,” said Voet.
In addition to its income from subscriptions, the NIW has
independent funding from a board that distributes Holocaust restitution
funds. This means it is independent to pursue Jewish community
controversies, including on the kashrut business and the conduct of its
leaders.
‘Journalists would rather stay away’
The NIW’s pro-Israel stance,
however, limits its attractiveness to many journalists, including Jewish
ones, Voet acknowledged. “With a few exceptions, the Dutch media speaks
with one negative voice about Israel. The NIW stands almost alone. It inspires us and our readers with a sense of mission, but many journalists would rather stay away,”
Schut regards NIW as “the end
station” of his career, he told JNS. A Middle East and Islam analyst who
is not Jewish, he assumes that after speaking out in Israel’s favor, he
would be unemployable for most Dutch highbrow media.
At NIW, Schut covered violent
anti-Israel protests on the ground, exposing the antisemitism on display
there, and even how intimidation of Jews is devolving into intimidation of police. He has also covered the war in Israel for NIW alongside Voet, including amid rocket attacks in the Galilee.
Bart
Schut leans against a post near the Israeli-Lebanese border in kibbutz
Malkya, Israel on Sept. 26t, 2024. Photo by Esther Voet.
The Hague-based Center for Information and
Documentation on Israel, or CIDI, the Jewish community watchdog,
documented 421 antisemitic incidents last year, a record tally that
surpassed by 11% the previous all-time high, reported in 2023. From 2012
to 2022, the annual average tally of antisemitic incidents documented
by CIDI was 138. In the last two years, reports have spiked by 305%.
Following Oct. 7, 2023, a local rabbi,
Yanki Jacobs, began offering his community mezuzahs camouflaged as
security sensors so that their homes could not be identified as Jewish
households.
Esther
Voet interviews a member of the defense team of kibbutz Malkya near
Israel’s border with Lebanon on Sept. 26, 2024. Photo by Bart Schut.
There are also hopeful signs.
A frequent guest on talk shows where she
defends Israel and the Jewish community, Voet is often stopped by
strangers on the street who express their support, she said.
And following Oct. 7, NIW saw one
of the largest increases in subscriptions in recent years. Hundreds of
readers signed on at a cost of about $10 a month. Voet says they were
mostly non-Jews, many of them doing so to show their solidarity.
Geert Wilders, the leader of the
right-wing Party for Freedom, which is the Netherlands’ largest, has
expressed unwavering support during Israel’s war against Iranian
proxies, including Hamas in Gaza following its invasion into Israel on
Oct. 7.
Esther Voet. Photo by Gerlinde de Geus.
“Dutch Jewry, Dutch society, will survive. The only question is in what form,” Schut said.
Voet added: “Yes, and right now the common
form is Submission,” a reference to the 2015 novel by Michel
Houellebecq, which envisions the Islamization of French society.
“There’s a lot of subjugation, appeasement of intolerant forces.”
Then again, Dutch society “also has a
strong tradition of resistance in defense of liberty,” she noted. “We’re
following the story as it unfolds.”
A complete refusal to address hatred and attacks on Jews.
[Want even more content from FPM? Sign up for FPM+ to unlock
exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more—now for
just $3.99/month. Click here to sign up.]
Harvard is no doubt hoping that its just-released report on
antisemitism at the university — that is, its admission of antisemitism
on its campus that it failed to appropriately deal with — will quiet its
critics. But it won’t, because there is a great deal that Harvard left
out of its mea-culpa report. And how outrageous that the university
accompanied its report on antisemitism, deep and wide on campus, with
another report on “Islamophobia,” which is the word concocted by
apologists for Islam in order to deride and undermine all criticism of
the faith, no matter how justified, as an expression only of an
“irrational fear or hatred” of Islam. There was no harassment, no
holding captive, no physical attacks on Muslims on campus, no calls for
the death of Muslims akin to the calls to kill Jews which is what the
chant “Intifada Now” signifies. Perhaps there was an occasional look of
disapproval from a few people at those chanting “from the river to the
sea/Palestine will be free,” which, properly understood, means a call
for the destruction of the Jewish state and its people, and their
replacement by a 23rd Arab state. That is the most the Muslims on campus
can complain about. But those Muslims want you to believe that what
they endured was far worse, and Harvard’s administration has with this
“separate but equal” report on “Islamophobia” pretended to believe it.
More on the Harvard report, and on Harvard’s lawsuit against the
Trump administration for trying, the university claims, to stifle
“academic freedom,” can be found here: “Yom HaShoah and Harvard’s
Complete Refusal to Address Hatred and Attacks on Jews,” by Daniel
Pomerantz, Algemeiner, April 30, 2025:
Last week Israel commemorated Yom HaShoah, the country’s Holocaust Remembrance Day.
As I stood at silent attention along with an entire country,
listening to the one minute long commemorative siren and thinking of the
role the Holocaust has played in our collective past, I couldn’t help
but hear its haunting echoes in our present.
Harvard University recently filed a lawsuit against
the Trump administration, purportedly in defense of “academic freedom.”
The specific “freedom” Harvard is defending is to harass, intimidate,
and physically assault Jewish students with impunity, and in violation
of Title VI of the Federal Civil Rights Act. Harvard now claims that the
White House’s actions violate the university’s First Amendment rights.
They do not.
A quick note: at RealityCheck we encourage our readers to support
(and oppose) policies, rather than people. How one feels about any
politician (including President Trump) should be irrelevant to one’s
opinion on the safety of Jewish students, and the proper enforcement of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Here’s what you need to know to build your
own, well-informed opinion.
Since October 7, 2023, Harvard University has been host to more than a year and a half of attacks on Jewish students, including: physical assaults, vandalism, harassment, demonstrations, divestment resolutions, classroom disruptions, calls for “intifada” and other death threats, and a disgraced university president who infamously testified before Congress that calling for the genocide of Jews might not be antisemitic because, “it depends on the context.”
The Trump administration has demanded that Harvard University comply with a list of requirements to
ensure basic safety and equal protection for all students on campus,
including: banning masks by protesters, cooperating with law
enforcement, reviewing disciplinary policies, increasing accountability
by those responsible for student safety, and an end to so-called
“Diversity Equity and Inclusion” (DEI) programs, which for years have
been used to limit Jewish and Asian admissions to Harvard (and which have been rejected by the United States Supreme Court).
Upon Harvard’s refusal to comply with its demands, the administration made good on a threat to pull $2 billion in Federal funding, with the promise of more cuts to come, as well as a request that the IRS consider revoking the university’s tax exempt status.
In its lawsuit, Harvard claims it has a First Amendment right to refuse the White House’s Title VI demands. It does not….
I don’t think this piece could be bettered, in short compass
describing the full horror of what Jewish students at Harvard have
experienced during the past year, the intention of the Trump
administration to punish not the speech, but the conduct, of such campus
brownshirts as Mahmoud Khalil and Mohsen Mahdawi (both at Columbia),
and rebutting Harvard’s lawsuit against the administration, which rests
on its scandalous presumption that it is entitled to the $2 billion in
federal funds currently being withheld — even if it is violating Title
VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Law.
