Blog

Belgium seizes arms shipment sent from Britain to Israel

Two shipments from Britain of military components bound for Israel have been seized in Belgium, which has banned aircaft carrying military equipment for Israel from stopping in the country or using its airspace. 

Last month, the British news website Declassified, Belgian NGO Vredesactie, Irish news website The Ditch, and the Palestinian Youth Movement alerted authorities in Brussells of a shipment travelling from Britain to Israel through Liege airport. 

The consignments left Britain on 23 March and were siezed at Liege airport in Belgium on 24 March.

They were searched by a specialised engineer who found “fire control systems and spare parts for military aircraft”, which had not been properly declared.

Belgian authorities reportedly opened a criminal investigation into the affair but have declined to name the firms involved in the complaint.

Keep reading

The Winner at the DNC’s Latest Meeting? Israel, Ethnic Cleansing and Genocide

In the aftermath of last week’s big meeting of the Democratic National Committee in New Orleans, supporters of the U.S.-Israel alliance have been quite content. “We’re pleased that the DNC Resolutions Committee rejected a set of divisive, anti-Israel resolutions,” the president of Democratic Majority for Israel said. The CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, a former national security advisor to Kamala Harris, expressed gratitude to the DNC’s leadership.

Why did pro-Israel groups voice so much pleasure and praise – not only for the sidelining of pro-human-rights resolutions but also for the process that sidelined them? The answer has to do with the DNC’s mechanism that thwarted changes in positions on Israel. A panel named the Middle East Working Group gummed up all efforts to align the DNC with the views of most Democratic voters, even while supposedly hard at work.

Last Friday, the transparent thinness of the pretense caused Politico to headline an article this way: “Inside the DNC’s Middle East (Not) Working Group.” But the not-working group had been functioning quite well – as a charade for delay and obfuscation.

The day before the derisive headline appeared, the DNC Resolutions Committee dispensed with a resolution about events in Gaza and the West Bank. Its provisions included a declaration that the DNC “supports pausing or conditioning U.S. weapons transfers to any military units credibly implicated in violations of international humanitarian law or obstruction of humanitarian assistance.”

That resolution critical of Israel went nowhere, which is to say it went to the so-called working group, also known as a “task force.”

Assisting the diversion as chair of the Resolutions Committee was political strategist Ron Harris, described in his home state of Minnesota as a “longtime Democratic Party insider.” He made false claims during the meeting: “I know that the task force has met once a month since it was created…. I have the confidence that work is happening…. These are people working really really hard over a very thorny issue…. They are doing their work…. They’re hearing from experts and all sorts of things.”

The falsehood that the task force had met “once a month,” when actually it had scarcely met, was enough reason for me to contact Harris and ask where he’d gotten that (mis)information. He replied that it was “according to the DNC staffer coordinating the process.”

The basic problem with the working group is not only that it hasn’t done much of anything in the nearly eight months since DNC Chair Ken Martin announced it with great fanfare. The underlying hoax is that it was set up not to reflect the views of registered Democrats nationwide.

Polling is clear. Three-quarters of Democrats agree that “Israel is committing genocide,” and a large majority are more sympathetic to Palestinians than to Israelis by a 4-to-1 margin. But only a minority of the Middle East Working Group’s eight members has a record of supporting Palestinian rights, while several are firm supporters of Israel. The oil-and-water mix seems destined for stalemate or mere platitudes. But stalemate and platitudes appear to be just fine from here to the horizon for DNC leadership.

Such stalling mechanisms and scant real representation are as old as the political hills. In this case, an unfortunate boost has come from James Zogby, who for decades bravely worked inside the Democratic Party and elsewhere to advocate for the human rights of Palestinians, in sharp contrast to U.S. foreign policy.

Keep reading

Blue Double Standards: California’s Swalwell Case

Media outlets across the country lit up in mid-April with the same jaw-dropping headline: California’s top Democratic contender for governor had just been forced out of the race over explosive sexual misconduct accusations.

In a matter of hours, Rep. Eric Swalwell lost every major endorsement, watched his campaign collapse, and was effectively tossed into the political dumpster.

On the surface it looked like another MeToo reckoning in a party that loves to lecture the rest of us about women’s rights. But scratch the surface, and the real story is far uglier – a textbook case of Blue double standards.

California’s 2026 gubernatorial race was already shaping up as a nightmare for Democrats.

Golden State voters are fed up with years of progressive experiments that delivered sky-high taxes, rampant homelessness, and a cost-of-living crisis that’s driving families out.

For the first time since Arnold Schwarzenegger left office in 2011, Republicans have a genuine shot at flipping the state red.

Recent polls told the tale. Conservative TV host Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco were trading the top spots with support in the 14-17 percent range.

Democrats were scattered behind them, with Swalwell – until the scandal hit – polling as the strongest in the fragmented Blue field.

Don’t forget California’s peculiar “jungle” primary system. All candidates run on one ballot in June. The top two vote-getters – regardless of party – advance to November.

That means the general election could feature two Republicans, two Democrats, or one of each. With the Democratic vote split among a half-dozen hopefuls, the math was already terrifying for the party of Gavin Newsom. A strong Republican showing could lock them out entirely.

Then came the bombshell. In the first week of April, detailed allegations of sexual assault and misconduct poured out – including claims from a former staffer who said Swalwell assaulted her in a New York hotel room.

More women came forward with stories of inappropriate messages, unwanted advances, and worse. Within days Swalwell suspended his gubernatorial bid and later resigned from Congress.

Democratic leaders raced to distance themselves. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries called for him to drop out. Nancy Pelosi said the allegations should be handled “outside of a gubernatorial campaign.”

Keep reading

The Collapse is Real – Lebanon Ceasefire Marks a Historic Strategic Defeat

A ceasefire in Lebanon was announced on Thursday by US President Donald Trump, but its reality tells a very different story. The ceasefire was not the product of American diplomacy, nor Israeli strategic calculation. It was imposed – largely as a result of sustained Iranian pressure.

Washington, Tel Aviv, and their allies – including some within Lebanon itself – will continue to deny this reality. Acknowledging Iran’s role would mean admitting that a historic precedent has been set: for the first time, forces opposing the United States and Israel have succeeded in imposing conditions on both.

This is not a minor development. It is a strategic rupture. But it is not the only fundamental shift now underway: Israel’s very approach to war and diplomacy is itself changing.

After failing to secure victory through overwhelming violence, Israel is increasingly relying on coercive diplomacy to impose political outcomes.

Over the past two to three decades, this Israeli strategy has become unmistakably clear: achieving through diplomacy what it has failed to impose on the battlefield.

‘Diplomacy’ as War

Israeli ‘diplomacy’ does not conform to the conventional meaning of the term. It is not negotiation between equals, nor a genuine pursuit of peace. Rather, it is diplomacy fused with violence: assassinations, sieges, blockades, political coercion, and the systematic manipulation of internal divisions within opposing societies. It is diplomacy as an extension of war by other means.

Likewise, Israel’s conception of the ‘battlefield’ is fundamentally different. The deliberate targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure is not incidental, nor merely ‘collateral damage’; it is central to the strategy itself.

Nowhere is this clearer than in Gaza. Following the ongoing genocide, vast swathes of Gaza have been reduced to rubble, with estimates indicating that around 90 percent of the whole of Gaza has been destroyed. According to the Gaza Ministry of Health, women and children consistently account for roughly 70 percent of all of Gaza’s casualties.

This is not collateral damage. It is the deliberate destruction of a civilian population, an act of genocide that is designed to force mass displacement and remake the political and demographic reality in Israel’s favor.

The same logic extends beyond Gaza. It shapes Israel’s wars in Lebanon against Hezbollah and its broader confrontation with Iran.

The United States, Israel’s principal ally, has historically operated within a similar paradigm. From Vietnam to Iraq, civilian populations, infrastructure, and even the environment itself have borne the brunt of American warfare.

Keep reading

Last US Convoy Exits Syria After Brutal 14-Year Regime Change Proxy War

Widespread reports on Thursday say the very last US military convoy has finally departed Syrian territory, with the years-long occupation of the primarily northeast oil and gas rich sector over in a ‘mission accomplished’ fashion.

It brings to a final close the 14-year long bloody proxy war which overthrew the Assad government and ultimately installed a pro-US/Saudi axis puppet, in the person of founding Syrian Al Qaeda Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, now known as President Ahmed al-Sharaa.

Hundreds of thousand of people lost their lives in the regime change war, with the country and its economy left in a sanction-starved and conflict-demolished state of ruins.

The US-backed Syrian Foreign Ministry declared Washington had decided to “complete its military mission” in the country. “The Syrian state is today fully capable of leading counter-terrorism efforts from within, in co-operation with the international community,” it said, happy to now be back in control of the domestic oil and gas supply.

The ministry “welcomes the completed handover of military sites where United States forces were previously present in Syria to the Syrian government,” adding that “the handover of these sites was carried out … in full coordination between the Syrian and American governments.”

While Pentagon propaganda had for years touted an ‘anti-ISIS’ mission, the real purpose of the troop presence was to cut off Damascus under Assad of its sovereign natural resources, and to arm and prop up a Kurdish-Arab coalition called the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). 

All the while, the CIA supported Sunni hardline jihadists who were indistinguishable from ISIS in their ideology in the fight against the Syrian Army, and the civilian population which often largely supported the secular Ba’ath government. The broader strategy has long been to destroy the Tehran-Baghdad-Hezbollah ‘Shia axis’ – even if that meant using ISIS as a tool of regime change.

Ironically, in the process of this US handover of oil and gas facilities back to post-Assad Damascus, the Kurds were thrown under the bus. Their dream for an autonomous enclave (Rojava) once again proved illusory, and in the long term the Kurds will find themselves at the mercy of Sunni fanatics on the one hand, and Turkish state under Erdogan on the other.

Keep reading

NATO Allies Adopt Evasive Policies on US War in Iran

Trump administration officials are discovering that a daunting number of longstanding U.S. allies and security clients are adopting hedging policies or even openly opposing Washington’s decision to wage war against Iran.  That sobering reality has become even clearer over the past week than it was during the earlier stages of the armed conflict.  On April 12, the president called upon NATO members to join U.S. naval forces in blockading Iranian ports. The proposed move was in response to Tehran’s continuing efforts to selectively close the vital Strait of Hormuz to foreign shipping.

However, most of Washington’s alliance partners refused to join the retaliatory blockade. British prime minister Keir Starmer was especially blunt and negative. The U.K. is “not supporting” the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports, Starmer stated, insisting that the country would not get “dragged in” to the Iran war.  Starmer, along with French President Emmanuel Macron, instead proposed intensified international efforts, including a conference, to secure an effective agreement to reopen the strait.

The extensive allied refusal regarding Washington’s blockade plans reflects growing European dissatisfaction with overall U.S. policy toward Iran and, indeed, with Trump’s entire approach to world affairs. Concerned longtime proponents of close transatlantic security cooperation are expressing mounting worries that disagreements between the United States and its principal European allies about Iran policy could lead to a fatal breach in NATO.

European leaders and their publics clearly are getting restless. Serge Schmemann, the Moscow bureau chief for the New York Times, emphasizes the extent of the change.  “Mr. Trump’s war on Iran, about which NATO allies were not consulted and in which they subsequently declined to participate, has made clear that Europeans no longer defer to Mr. Trump as the de facto “‘leader of the free world.’”

At the same time, European leaders have tried to avoid directly antagonizing President Trump.  Achieving such a balance is not easy.  Trump expressed fury at NATO allies who have failed to support Washington’s intervention against Iran. Even before the latest intra-alliance spat over establishing a blockade, the president denounced such allies as “cowards.” Administration officials also are examining ways to punish uncooperative Alliance partners.  Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed and amplified Trump’s earlier doubts about the continuing value of NATO to America’s security. “Why are we in NATO? You have to ask that question. Why do we send trillions of dollars and have all of these American forces stationed in the region, if in our time of need, we won’t be allowed to use those bases?” Rubio said during an interview with Fox News in early April.  The refusal of most NATO members to authorize U.S. airstrikes and other offensive operations against targets in Iran has especially irritated administration officials.

However, as Wall Street Journal columnists Linas Kojalaand and Vytautas Leškevičius point out, with the notable and ostentatious exception of Spain, the most significant and influential Alliance members, including Britain, France, and Italy, have all quietly assisted the U.S. war effort in other ways.  The outcome has been a bit of a muddle. “Politically, the war with Iran has widened the gap between Washington and many European governments. Operationally, it has underscored how heavily the U.S. still relies on Europe – and how cooperative most European governments are.”

Keep reading

Democrat Senator Ruben Gallego Now Accused of Sexual Misconduct

I recently wrote that rumors suggested Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) might be the next domino to fall after sexual misconduct allegations took down Eric Swalwell.

Well, it’s happened. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) has confirmed that the previously unnamed senator she accused of “very disturbing” misconduct earlier this week is, in fact, Gallego.

Luna confirmed this during an interview with CBS News’ Major Garrett, who pressed her about the cryptic X post she made on Wednesday.

When Garrett asked her point-blank who she was talking about, Luna didn’t dance around it.

“We are talking about an Arizona senator that was very closely tied to Eric Swalwell,” she said, confirming it was Gallego when Garrett named him directly. She also noted that she’d already been in contact with Thune’s chief of staff and that the matter had been referred to Senate Select Committee on Ethics for investigation.

So what exactly is “very disturbing”? Luna laid it out, albeit carefully. “Without, I guess, getting too graphic, there is a woman that allegedly is coming forward with attorneys, wants to go on record about an incident that occurred between the two of them at the same time, and the event was sexual in nature, allegedly.”

Luna added that the allegations extend beyond that, pointing to what she described as two separate campaign finance violations.

Luna was clear that she was not positioning herself as an investigator. She’s one House member, not a prosecutor, not an ethics committee, and not the Senate. But she made it clear she has no interest in doing what she says too many of her colleagues have done.

”I’m not going to be like some of my colleagues that waited, you know, forever and a day to bring this information forward,” she said. “I think that if this is happening, that it needs to be dealt with.”

When Garrett asked whether any of the allegations against Gallego sounded criminal to her, she said, “I think that if it involves people that were potentially trafficked, yes.”

That’s a serious word, and Garrett pushed her on it, but Luna didn’t back down: “I think any time that you are knowingly engaging in purchasing someone for sex, that that is something that should be taken seriously.” She noted the U.S. already ranks among the worst countries in the world for human trafficking according to the State Department’s own Trafficking in Persons report.

Luna connected the dots to a broader pattern she says has been an open secret in Washington: “A lot of this behavior was circulating publicly. People had heard about it, but they didn’t present it to the appropriate authorities.” She also took direct aim at Congress’s infamous slush fund used to settle sexual harassment and assault claims quietly. Three-quarters of Congress voted to protect that fund, she noted. House Committee on Oversight had to subpoena the records, which she expects to arrive the following week.

She even acknowledged the obvious counterargument: that false allegations exist and ruin careers. But given what’s already surfaced about Swalwell and the fact that multiple members of Congress are now reportedly under active ethics scrutiny for similar conduct, she concluded that the risk of inaction outweighs the discomfort of speaking out. “Most people don’t have these types of allegations. Most people don’t have these types of rumors floating around about their offices,” she said.

“I don’t want to serve with these people. I don’t think that they should be in positions of power, and I definitely don’t like what I’ve seen in regards to how they’ve treated women specifically. It’s actually really gross when you hear about it.”

Keep reading

Justice Clarence Thomas: Progressivism, Declaration of Independence Cannot ‘Coexist Forever’

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas used a speech at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law on Thursday to contend that progressivism has increasingly conflicted with the principles of the Declaration of Independence, telling students that the movement cannot permanently coexist with the founding ideals of natural rights and limited government.

Thomas, 77, was speaking at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law, commemorating the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. The justice, who was appointed by Republican President George H.W. Bush in 1991, is the longest-serving current member of the Supreme Court and the second-longest-serving justice in the Court’s history.

During the address, Thomas traced the rise of progressivism in the American mainstream to the beginning of the 20th century and identified President Woodrow Wilson as its most prominent advocate.

Thomas said progressivism had “made many inroads into our system of government and our way of life” since Wilson’s presidency and asserted that it stood in opposition to the Declaration.

“It has coexisted uneasily with the principles of the Declaration because it is opposed to those principles,” Thomas stated. “It is not possible for the two to coexist forever.”

Thomas maintained that Wilson and other progressive thinkers believed that “America needed to leave behind the principles of the founding and catch up with the more advanced and sophisticated system of relatively unimpeded state power, nearly perfect, perfected.”

“Progressivism seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence and hence our form of government,” Thomas explained. “It holds that our rights and our dignities come not from God, but from government.”

Quoting Coolidge, Thomas said: “If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with unalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final.”

Thomas argued that Wilson’s distrust of popular government reflected his preference for European-style systems of centralized state power. According to Thomas, Wilson described Americans as “selfish, ignorant, timid, stubborn and foolish,” complained that they did “too much by vote and too little by expert rule,” and praised Germany because its people were “docile and acquiescent.”

Thomas contended that those ideas produced disastrous consequences in the 20th century. “The century of progressivism did not go well,” Thomas said. “The European system that Wilson and the progressives scolded Americans for not adopting, which he called nearly perfect, led to the governments that caused the most awful century that the world has ever seen.” Thomas pointed to the regimes of Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Mao Zedong, saying they were intertwined with the rise of progressivism and opposed to natural rights.

Thomas linked progressivism to Supreme Court decisions such as Plessy v. Ferguson and Buck v. Bell. He argued that Wilson’s claim that natural rights must give way to historical progress helped justify segregation in Plessy. Thomas also observed that progressives embraced eugenics and believed Darwinian science had shown the superiority and inferiority of different races, leading Wilson to resegregate the federal workforce and later contributing to sterilization programs upheld by the Court in Buck v. Bell.

Near the end of the speech, Thomas remarked, “In my view, we must find in ourselves that same level of courage that the signers of the Declaration have so that we can do for our future what they did for theirs.”

Keep reading

Scientists Can’t Seem To Stop Going Missing Under Mysterious Circumstances

Ten U.S. researchers and scientists have reportedly died or disappeared over the past 33 months amid increasing speculation about the cause of some of the disappearances.

Steven Garcia, a 48-year-old government contractor who allegedly had top-level clearance at a key nuclear facility disappeared in August 2025 after reportedly leaving behind his phone, wallet and keys, taking a gun and leaving his home in New Mexico on foot, NewsNation reported Thursday. Moreover, retired Air Force Maj. Gen. William Neil McCasland similarly went missing on Feb. 27 after leaving his home in Albuquerque on foot, the outlet reported.

Eight other well-known scientists and researchers in the U.S. have reportedly died or gone missing over the past few years, raising questions about whether some of these cases might involve suspicious circumstances. However, U.S. officials have not identified any definitive connection between the cases, according to an April 9 Newsweek report.

Kansas City National Security Campus (KCNSC), who Garcia served as a contractor for, produces 80% of the non-nuclear material part of the U.S.’ nuclear weapons, The Daily Mail reported, citing an anonymous source.

“Over the past year, 10 different US specialists, ranging from scientists working on aerospace, nuclear and UAP research have all gone missing. Most of the cases have been labelled as old person wandering off, or disappearing when hiking,” professor and independent journalist Adam Cochran wrote in a Tuesday X post responding to the Daily Mail’s story. “But it’s way too many to be a coincidence especially when many of them worked together, and all happened to work on top US secrets…”

During a Wednesday press briefing, Fox News’ Peter Doocy asked White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt about whether the U.S. government is planning to investigate the spate of reported disappearances and deaths.

“There are now 10 American scientists who have either gone missing or died since mid-2024,” the reporter said. “They all reportedly had access to classified nuclear or aerospace material. Is anybody investigating this to see if these things are connected?”

Keep reading

Here’s Who Donated to Eric Swalwell’s Now-Dead CA Gubernatorial Campaign

Former Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) had a long list of top donors for his unsuccessful gubernatorial campaign, which was derailed by multiple women’s allegations of rape and sexual misconduct. In less than three days, his career was essentially over. The allegations intensified last weekend, when on Sunday, he announced his withdrawal from the gubernatorial race, in which he was the frontrunner. By Tuesday, he officially resigned, just hours after another woman came forward claiming that the former congressman had raped her in 2018.

The New York Post compiled a list of donors to this man, whose known creepiness was widely recognized in Democratic and journalistic circles. He was an attack dog against the Trump administration and served a purpose that earned him protection. But once he ran for office and faced scrutiny, that protection evaporated, especially when rape is involved.

From Hollywood heavyweights to corporate titans and everyday Californians, Eric Swalwell’s donor list spans the elite to average joes.

The California Post reviewed public records and identified more than 1,700 contributors to the disgraced politician’s campaign, with donations ranging from $100 to more than $78,000.

[…]

The Post’s review of Swalwell’s campaign records shows that the ex-congressman was able to raise more than $7.3 million from about 1,700 different contributors.

Swalwell courted big money from Hollywood A-listers and special interests to bankroll his campaign, but his fake squeaky clean image also managed to fool hundreds of working-class people who forked over their hard-earned money.

[…]

Swalwell’s most prominent backers included Hollywood A-listers like Robert De Niro and Jon Hamm — both of whom gave $10,000 — while Sean Penn gave $15,000. Others who plunked down thousands of dollars believing the hype included the late actor and director Rob Reiner ($10K), actors Jon Cryer ($10K) and Ed Helms ($5K), and Bryan Lourd, CEO of Creative Artists Agency ($12,500).

[…]

Money also poured in from businessmen such as venture capitalist Bradley Tusk ($39,200) and Jon Henes ($5K), CEO of C Street Advisory Group, while Elizabeth Naftali ($39K) — a Los Angeles philanthropist and major Democratic donor — funded Swalwell’s campaign along with longtime San Francisco attorney and AI advisor Karen Silverman ($10K).

Keep reading