We stand firmly against injustice in all its forms. Nothing can justify the current war crimes committed by Israel in occupied Palestine. Equally, nothing can excuse the continued support offered by other nations to this apartheid regime. If you believe in human rights, dignity, and justice, then we urge you to boycott this rogue state. Silence is complicity, do what’s right.
Benjamin Netanyahu, the long-serving Israeli prime minister, has faced widespread accusations of war crimes, particularly for his actions in Gaza during his various terms in office. His policies and military strategies have led to devastating consequences for Palestinian civilians, earning him global condemnation.
War Crimes in Gaza
Under Netanyahu’s leadership, Israel conducted several military operations in Gaza, including Operation Protective Edge (2014) and Operation Guardian of the Walls (2021). These war crimes resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians, including men, women and children. Entire neighborhoods in Gaza were flattened, leaving tens of thousands homeless and deepening the humanitarian crisis in the besieged territory.
International human rights organizations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have accused Israel under Netanyahu’s leadership of committing genocide , citing indiscriminate bombings, the use of excessive force, and collective punishment against Gaza’s population, in violation of international law. The blockade on Gaza, implemented during his tenure, has been described as a form of starvation of 2.5 million people severely restricting the movement of goods and people and contributing to the region’s dire humanitarian situation.
Psychological Profile
Critics have often described Netanyahu’s leadership style as authoritarian and manipulative, suggesting a possible psychological inclination toward paranoia and self-aggrandizement. His rhetoric frequently portrays Israel as under existential threat, using fear as a tool to justify his racist policies and consolidate power. This pattern of behavior has led some analysts to speculate about psychopathic or narcissistic tendencies, characterized by a lack of empathy for those impacted by his racist policies, particularly Palestinians.
Netanyahu’s insistence on framing any opposition as anti-Israeli or a threat to the state reflects a highly defensive and combative mindset. His genocide in Gaza and targeting civilian infrastructure and refusing meaningful peace negotiations, reflect a calculated willingness to sacrifice civilian lives for political gain. Many see this as an indication of his lack of remorse or accountability, traits often associated with psychopathic behavior.
Global Reaction
Netanyahu’s actions in Gaza have drawn condemnation from international leaders, human rights organizations, and grassroots movements worldwide. Calls for investigations into his role in genocide have intensified, with many advocating for him to face trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC). However, Netanyahu remains defiant, dismissing such accusations as biased and rooted in anti-Israel sentiment.
While his supporters hail him as a protector of Israeli security, critics argue that his policies are not only destructive but also psychopathic in their disregard for Palestinian lives, perpetuating cycles of violence and suffering.
This audit examines how Israeli military, intelligence, and civil authorities developed and implemented surveillance systems under Israeli occupation from 1948 to 2026. It evaluates the legal authorities, doctrines, and technologies used to collect and apply personal data in regulating Palestinian mobility, residency, employment, healthcare access, and political activity, assessing how surveillance became embedded as a governing method rather than a limited security practice.
Checkpoint documentation shows that biometric scanners and closed circuit camera systems were deployed in West Bank cities including Hebron, Bethlehem, Qalqilya, and Jenin and at crossings between the West Bank and Israel. By the mid 2010s facial recognition hardware was operational at multiple checkpoints including Hebron’s Checkpoint 56 and Tel Rumeida entries, as documented by B’Tselem, Amnesty International, and UN OCHA. Soldiers photographed Palestinians, including children and elderly, and entered the images into databases determining whether they could pass, be detained, or be questioned. Israeli settlers passing the same areas were exempt.
In occupied East Jerusalem, the Mabat 2000 camera grid was established around 2000 and later expanded. Hundreds of cameras were positioned in Muslim, Christian, and Armenian quarters of the Old City, covering markets, alleys, schools, and entrances to the Haram al Sharif compound. By the late 2010s the system incorporated facial recognition supplied by private vendors and linked to a central police command. Residents reported that children walking to school were continuously recorded. Pilgrims and worshippers from abroad were monitored without notice or consent. Camera networks were extended toward Palestinian neighbourhoods including Silwan and Sheikh Jarrah alongside intensified settler activity.
Population databases were consolidated after the 1967 occupation. Israel created central registries linking family information, residency status, marriage, birth, and address changes to permit and movement systems. Palestinians could not alter basic life events without Israeli approval. By the 2000s these registries incorporated biometric identifiers and were integrated with permit platforms deciding access to work, medical care, and border crossing. Al Haq and Addameer documented cases in which travel for medical treatment was denied or delayed after registry data showed past imprisonment, political activity, or family association. The criteria were opaque and non appealable.
Digital interception expanded during the Second Intifada. Israeli intelligence units collected telephone, SMS, and internet communications at scale. Unit 8200 veterans later confirmed that intimate personal information was gathered and stored for coercive leverage, including sexual orientation, health records, financial distress, and family disputes. The information was used to pressure Palestinians into collaboration, particularly those seeking medical permits, travel documents, or family unification. Human rights organisations documented instances where Gaza patients seeking cancer treatment through Erez crossing were asked to provide information on relatives or neighbours as a condition for travel.
Facial recognition and predictive arrest programs became routine by the late 2010s. Systems known publicly as Blue Wolf and Red Wolf were deployed in Hebron and other West Bank cities. Soldiers photographed Palestinians in the street and at checkpoints, creating digital files that displayed colour coded alerts. A green signal permitted passage, yellow triggered questioning, and red authorized detention. Amnesty International and Breaking the Silence documented soldiers describing quota systems for photographing Palestinians to build database density. Individuals who refused photography were detained. Families reported children refusing to walk to school due to repeated scanning.
Border crossings functioned as data capture sites. At Allenby Bridge, all Palestinian passengers were required to undergo biometric scans, questioning, and luggage searches. At Erez crossing into Gaza, patients and traders were questioned about family members, political affiliation, and social media activity. OCHA documented prolonged delays for medical referrals, including cases where children with congenital heart disease were denied permission to exit Gaza for surgery. Data obtained during crossings was linked to security files determining future permits and movement.
Surveillance extended to speech and political expression. Israeli cyber units monitored social media platforms. Palestinians were arrested for online posts deemed supportive of resistance or critical of Israeli policy. In 2015 Israeli police detained East Jerusalem children for Facebook activity. During 2023 to 2025 Gaza operations, digital rights groups recorded large scale removal of Palestinian content and coordination between Israeli authorities and platforms to suppress documentation of civilian harm. Hebrew language incitement received lower moderation.
Surveillance was discriminatory. Israeli settlers in the West Bank were not subjected to biometric enrollment, checkpoint face scanning, or predictive risk scoring. Surveillance architecture mapped Palestinian life as a field for intervention and coercion while exempting settlers living on the same land.
Accountability was absent. Palestinians had no means to access, correct, or delete their data. No independent oversight reviewed accuracy, bias, or misuse. Decisions determining travel, healthcare, work permits, and detention were executed without disclosure of evidence or criteria.
The audit concludes that Israeli surveillance produced a continuous record of Palestinian presence, movement, and association across decades. Data collected for “security” was repurposed for coercion, family pressure, and punitive restriction. Israeli occupation surveillance did not end after arrest or interrogation. It continued throughout daily life, making Palestinian existence observable, legible, and vulnerable to intervention by institutions operating with full discretion and without reciprocal transparency.
Propaganda has historically been used by state actors to shape narratives, justify policies, and consolidate power. The Nazi regime under Joseph Goebbels provides one of the most extreme examples, using propaganda to dehumanize Jewish people and lay the groundwork for the Holocaust. In modern times, the Israeli occupation of Palestine
led by its leaders starting from David Ben-Gurion and ending with Benjamin Netanyahu has involved propaganda efforts that serve to influence public perception and justify Israeli oppressive and genocidal actions. This paper examines these cases to understand how propaganda can be wielded as a tool of oppression and what lessons can be drawn to promote peace and human rights.
Mechanisms of Propaganda: Parallels and Contrasts
1. The Use of Media and Messaging
Nazi Germany leveraged all forms of media—radio, film, newspapers, and rallies—to propagate messages of racial purity and demonize Jewish people. Simplistic slogans, repeated endlessly, imprinted anti-Semitic beliefs in the public consciousness.
In the Israeli apartheid context, media outlets and political rhetoric have been systematically used to shape perceptions of Palestinians. Mainstream Israeli narratives in addition to western medial like BBC , sky news and CNN and many others often falsely frame Palestinians as aggressors or security threats, which can overshadow their experiences of genocide , ethnic cleaning and daily settlers’ terrorism. The repetition of such messages helps reinforce certain stereotypes and justify stringent security measures.
2. Dehumanization and Scapegoating
A critical aspect of Nazi propaganda was the dehumanization of Jewish people, portraying them as subhuman and responsible for Germany’s economic and social problems. This dehumanization made the broader public more complicit in or indifferent to discriminatory policies and mass violence.
Similarly, in many Israeli political and media narratives, Palestinians are depicted as animals, inherently violent or linked to terrorism meanwhile ignoring the illegal Israeli occupation and systematic theft of their land. Such depictions can desensitize populations to the suffering of Palestinians and justify genocide, ethnic cleansing, illegal settlements, and racist policies.
3. Suppression and Control of Alternative Narratives
The Nazis maintained strict control over media and censored dissenting voices to prevent challenges to their ideology. Independent press was eliminated, and any information countering Nazi beliefs was banned.
In the modern Israeli apartheid entity, significant pressure and intimidation and threats and restrictions can still be applied. For instance, Palestinian journalists and media outlets have reported countless of cases of censorship, restrictions, and challenges in bringing their perspectives to international attention. During the Gaza genocide Israeli occupation army targeted and killed more than 188 journalists and banned Al Jazeera from reporting from occupied Palestine. This Zionist control shapes the narrative that reaches both domestic and international audiences.
Lessons and the Path Forward
The lessons from Nazi propaganda underscore the dangers of dehumanization, unchecked narratives, and scapegoating. These elements contribute to environments where oppression and violence are normalized. The Zionist apartheid , though distinct in context, shows how similar tools can foster division, justify oppressive actions, and hinder peace.
Promoting Truth and Reconciliation:
• Media Literacy: Encouraging critical examination of media sources and understanding biases can help mitigate the impact of propaganda.
• Amplifying Diverse Voices: Supporting independent journalism and ensuring diverse perspectives are represented can create a more balanced understanding of complex issues.
• Policy Accountability: Holding leaders accountable for rhetoric that dehumanizes or scapegoats groups is essential to preventing escalation and fostering coexistence.
Conclusion
While the context of Nazi Germany and the Zionist Israeli apartheid differs in some aspects, the use of propaganda to dehumanize, scapegoat, and suppress dissent bears notable parallels. Recognizing and addressing these mechanisms is vital for promoting peace, understanding, and human rights. Learning from history, societies must remain vigilant against the narratives that perpetuate division and strive for a more just and empathetic world.
Elon Musk, the billionaire entrepreneur behind Tesla, SpaceX, and X (formerly Twitter), has long been a polarizing figure in global discourse. While many hail him as a technological visionary, others criticize his actions and rhetoric in areas of politics, social justice, and geopolitics. One of the more contentious issues surrounding Musk is the perception that his actions and public platform have supported anti-Palestinian narratives. This paper explores Musk’s involvement in this contentious subject and examines the evidence suggesting his alignment with anti-Palestinian sentiments.
Musk’s acquisition of Twitter (now X) has transformed the platform into a space where far-right voices and anti-Palestinian rhetoric have found renewed visibility. Critics argue that his decision to loosen content moderation policies has created an environment where harmful narratives about Palestinians are amplified. Pro-Israel propaganda and disinformation campaigns targeting Palestinians have flourished under this lax regulation. Musk’s seeming indifference to curbing hate speech has been seen as enabling an atmosphere hostile to Palestinian voices and activism. His lack of empathy for the death of tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Gaza has shown his real despicable and psychoathic character.
For instance, Palestinian activists and organizations advocating for human rights and justice for Palestinians enduring brutal crimes of Israeli apartheid, have reported a significant increase in censorship and shadow banning under Musk’s leadership. This has occurred alongside a growing tolerance for accounts that promote inflammatory and dehumanizing rhetoric against Palestinians. By failing to address this imbalance, Musk’s leadership has inadvertently—or perhaps deliberately—silenced marginalized voices while empowering those who promote crimes, starvation, occupation, apartheid polices , genocide, ethnic cleansing and other anti-Palestinian ideologies.
Musk often positions himself as a champion of free speech, yet his actions suggest otherwise. Free speech, as Musk defines it, seems to favor dominant or controversial narratives while sidelining those advocating for justice in Palestine. The reinstatement of accounts that openly promote Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian sentiment contradicts his stated goal of fostering open dialogue. Meanwhile, Palestinian activists who highlight Israel’s human rights abuses and war crimes including deliberate targeting of civilians and hospitals frequently face platform bans or restrictions, calling into question Musk’s true commitment to free expression.
Additionally, Musk’s public interactions have sometimes directly fueled anti-Palestinian rhetoric. For example, by engaging with and amplifying prominent pro-Israel war criminals like Netanyahu or dismissing concerns about the Israeli occupation of Palestine, Musk has signaled a lack of neutrality in the conflict. His platform, given its global influence, carries immense power in shaping public opinion, and his actions have consequences for how the world views the Palestinian struggle.
Beyond the digital sphere, Musk’s business dealings and lack of condemnation of Israeli war crimes and further underscore his apparent bias. Tesla, SpaceX, and other Musk-affiliated companies have maintained close ties with the Israeli government and tech industry. While economic partnerships are not inherently problematic, Musk’s unwillingness to criticize Israel’s human rights violations, even in the face of international outcry, raises serious onus questions about his complicity in enabling the ongoing genocide and slaughter of Palestinian civilians and destruction of Gaza infrastructure.
In 2021 and 2023, during escalations in Israeli terrorism against Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, Musk remained silent. His failure to condemn the mass killing of civilians, ethnic cleansing , and systemic apartheid policies stands in stark contrast to his vocal stance on other global issues. This selective engagement underscores a troubling disregard for Palestinian lives and rights.
Musk’s platform and influence have global ramifications. By enabling the spread of anti-Palestinian rhetoric and failing to provide an equitable platform for marginalized voices, Musk exacerbates the already dire conditions Palestinians face. His actions contribute to the normalization of dehumanization, making it harder for international audiences to grasp the urgency of ending Israeli genocide, apartheid and illegal occupation.
Moreover, Musk’s influence on public discourse has the potential to derail solidarity movements. Organizations and activists advocating for Palestinian human rights now face a platform that is increasingly hostile to their efforts, reducing their ability to mobilize support and spread awareness of their righteous cause.
Elon Musk’s actions, whether through deliberate alignment or negligent leadership, have contributed to an environment that perpetuates anti-Palestinian narratives. His approach to free speech, selective moderation policies, economic ties with Israeli apartheid , and silence on Palestinian suffering highlight his complicity in marginalizing the Palestinian cause. As a figure with unparalleled influence, Musk has a responsibility to foster fairness and justice on the platforms he controls. Until he acknowledges this responsibility, his actions will continue to undermine the struggle for Palestinian rights and contribute to the perpetuation of systemic injustices.
In October 2023, I proudly wore my Star of David necklace to an emergency rally for Gaza, but a year later I could no longer wear it. Israel has made it impossible to divorce this symbol from the unfathomable devastation carried out under its banner.
A SHUTTERED PALESTINIAN SHOP IN HEBRON CLOSED DOWN BY THE ISRAELI MILITARY THAT WAS VANDALIZED WITH A STAR OF DAVID, AN ANCIENT JEWISH SYMBOL ADOPTED BY THE ISRAELI STATE AS A NATIONAL SYMBOL. (PHOTO: LAUREN SURFACE/MONDOWEISS)
A few weeks ago in downtown Toronto, I watched a group of Zionist Jews come across a car decorated for Diwali. The car was covered in flower and candle decorations, as well as some Hindu symbology. Aghast at noticing a swastika amidst the decorations, this group became irate and began yelling about blatant antisemitism. I wondered if they knew the relationship between this symbol and the Hindu religion, but I doubted they would care if they did. Despite its origins (and different orientation) in Buddhist and Hindu culture, for many today the swastika is synonymous with Nazism. For myself, knowing the history of this symbol does not mitigate the visceral response I feel to seeing a swastika.
On October 29, a man in Oakland, California was kicked out of the Jerusalem Coffee House by the owner for wearing a blue baseball cap with a white star of David on it. Police are now investigating the incident as an antisemitic hate crime. Was it antisemitic to ask this man to leave? Maybe. Yet no one is asking a bigger question about this incident- why did this man feel it appropriate to walk into a Palestinian coffee shop wearing a hat so closely mirroring the flag of Israel? Did he not expect to elicit a visceral response from the very people being slaughtered in the name of this flag? Do Palestinians who have watched the death and destruction of their homeland carried out under this symbol not have the right to be offended by it?
In Canada, the Zionist lobby has spent the past year decrying any appearance of the Star of David within the pro-Palestine movement. From social media posts to protest signs, they have claimed that depicting this star in anything critical of Israel is antisemitic and equates the entire Jewish people with the State of Israel. Yet, this lobby and the state of Israel have themselves worked tirelessly to conflate Judaism and Israel. Beyond putting the star in the middle of the Israeli flag, the Centre for Israeli and Jewish Affairs has also put the star in its logo. B’nai Brith Canada uses the Jewish symbol of the menorah in its logo. When Zionists themselves begin appropriating Jewish symbolism, the distinction between Judaism and Israel becomes blurred.
ISRAELI TANKS CARVE A STAR OF DAVID INTO A FIELD IN GAZA DURING ISRAEL’S ONGOING GROUND INVASION OF GAZA. THIS PHOTO WAS SHARED BY DANIEL HAGARI ON THE @IDFSPOKESPERSON X/TWITTER ACCOUNT ON NOVEMBER 17, 2023.
Perhaps more than anyone, it is Israel itself that is appropriating Jewish symbols for fascist purposes. As a genocide continues in Gaza, the Israeli army celebrates this devastation by carving or spray painting the Star of David into demolished buildingsand neighborhoods. When spray paint falls short, soldiers and police brand and carve this symbol on Palestinians themselves. The co-optation of this symbol for terror is most evident in the West Bank. Palestinian cities and neighborhoods are often vandalized by settler youth who spray paint the star and accompanying fascist slogans over Palestinian murals and on flags. When settlers are finally able to displace these Palestinians from their villages, a star or menorah is frequently placed on top of this ethnically cleansed land.
On October 9, 2023, I proudly wore my Star of David necklace at the emergency rally for Gaza. I wanted people to know unmistakably that I was Jewish and still pro-Palestine. At the rally on October 5, 2024 marking one year of genocide in Gaza, my necklace instead featured the ‘chai’ symbol. I am no longer seeking to redeem and reclaim the Star of David.
Like the swastika, there is nothing wrong with the star in and of itself; this symbol existed before Israel and will exist after Israel’s demise. Yet, this symbol which was once an integral part of how I show my identity, is now synonymous with the cruelty and evil of the Zionist regime. When Palestinians look at this symbol, which has been used to represent Jewish supremacy and Palestinian destruction, they do not feel a distinction between this symbol when it is blue and in between two stripes or if it is gold and around my neck. Both represent the destruction of the Palestinian people.
While discussing the incident in Oakland on social media, Mohammed El Kurd makes the same argument that the Star of David is now a hate symbol, whether Jews like it or not. Peter Beinart responded by saying the symbol is a Jewish symbol that exists outside of Israel’s appropriation of it and thus criticizing the Star of David is in fact a condemnation of Judaism. I agree it is not the fault of Jews that Israel has decided to use our symbol as the logo for their fascist regime. However, we are not absolved of the current weight of these symbols and we should not fault Palestinians for their visceral emotions when they see these symbols.
During my most recent trip to the West Bank, some local children were scouring my belongings for potential gifts. Finding the Magen David necklace I wore through customs, a girl turned to me and said: “oh so you love Israel?” No! I vehemently responded. They giggled and asked why I have their symbol on my necklace? At first I tried to explain that this is a symbol of Jewish people, not the State of Israel. But I quickly trailed off. For Palestinians who know nothing of Judaism aside from its role in oppression and ethnic cleansing, this star symbolizes harm, destruction, and hate. I had specifically removed it when entering Palestine because I knew it was triggering to see.
In North America, the Jewish community is given special consideration during Diwali because of the use of the swastika and its associations with Nazi Germany and white supremacist movements. Palestinians must be afforded the same consideration when Jewish people choose to display the Star of David which has now become associated with the Gaza genocide and Israeli apartheid. Israel has made it impossible to divorce this symbol from the unfathomable devastation carried out under its banner. Israel has turned the Star of David into a symbol of supremacy and fascism. I refuse to associate myself and my Judaism with Israel and all it represents. That is why I am no longer wearing a Jewish star.
Israel’s ongoing apocalyptic military campaign against Gaza comes on top of its 75+ years of persecution, displacement, and terrorism of Palestinians.
It has resulted in mass destruction, displacement of over 90% of the Gazan population, and the deaths and maiming of tens of thousands of civilians, mostly women and children.
Genocidal Intent: In Their Own Words
Senior Israeli officials, including the Prime Minister, the President, and the Minister of Defence, have publicly used dehumanizing and totalizing language about the Palestinians, signalling their intent to destroy and displace the population of Gaza, while imposing an unrelenting siege, and intentionally depriving them of the conditions of life necessary for human survival. Perhaps most disturbingly, Netanyahu cited the Biblical ‘Amalek’ story to justify the Gaza killings. The Amalek were a nation condemned to utter extermination in the Bible, as mentioned in 1 Samuel 15:3 “Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.”
These compilations of statements from Israeli leaders and opinion shapers, both past and present, are by no means exhaustive, and reveal the genocidal intent behind the current military onslaught against the Palestinians.
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA, UNITED STATES – MARCH 23: A view of Google Headquarters in Mountain View, California, United States on March 23, 2024. ( Tayfun Coşkun – Anadolu Agency )
A damning report, “Palestinian Digital Rights, Genocide, and Big Tech Accountability”, by 7amleh, a Palestinian-led non-profit organisation that is focused on protecting the human rights of Palestinians, has laid bare the disturbing and active role that major online platforms and big tech companies play in perpetuating human rights abuses against Palestinians. While the world watches the horrors unfold in Gaza, the role of these digital accomplices cannot be ignored. The report highlights that platforms like Meta, X, YouTube and tech giants Google and Amazon have enabled, facilitated and even profited from these atrocities, effectively shielding war crimes under a digital smokescreen.
The findings are a harrowing indictment of how big tech companies, under the guise of neutrality, have become active participants in censorship, disinformation and incitement to violence. They have provided crucial infrastructure that underpins Israel’s military actions, allowing their platforms to be weaponised, silencing Palestinian voices while amplifying hate speech and calls for genocide. The complicity of these platforms is not a mere oversight; it is an entrenched system of deliberate decision-making that prioritises profits over human rights.
Systematic censorship of Palestinian voices
At the heart of the report’s findings is a shocking pattern of systematic censorship targeting Palestinian voices. Between October 2023 and July 2024, over 1,350 instances of censorship were documented on major platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, X and TikTok. These platforms disproportionately targeted Palestinian journalists, activists and human rights defenders, with Meta’s platforms being among the worst offenders. The censorship took many forms: accounts were suspended, content takedowns became routine and distribution of pro-Palestinian narratives was heavily restricted.
Meta’s manipulative algorithm changes played a key role in this censorship. The report reveals that during the ongoing war in Gaza, Meta altered its content moderation policies to lower the threshold for flagging Palestinian content, reducing the accuracy of its filters and triggering unnecessary takedowns. For Palestinian content, Meta’s filters operated with a mere 25 per cent certainty of a violation, compared to the usual 80 per cent applied elsewhere. These so-called “temporary risk response measures” were never lifted, allowing for an outsized level of scrutiny on Palestinian content creators. This is not an isolated incident – it’s a calculated, discriminatory policy that silences marginalised voices and hinders the free flow of information at a time when it’s needed the most.
As 7amleh’s report highlights, Meta’s broken promises to safeguard free speech, coupled with its biased content moderation, exacerbated the situation for Palestinians. Human Rights Watch had already condemned Meta for its systemic censorship of Palestinian voices during the war, with over 1,050 instances of content removal on Facebook and Instagram. In nearly all cases, this censorship targeted peaceful, pro-Palestinian content while allowing violent, anti-Palestinian content to flourish unchecked. Comments like “Free Palestine”, “Stop the Genocide” and “Ceasefire Now” were removed under Meta’s spam guidelines, reflecting a dangerous double standard that stifles legitimate political discourse.
Platforms as instruments of genocide
The report makes clear that online platforms are not simply neutral forums but have become instruments of incitement to genocide. Between October 2023 and July 2024, over 3,300 instances of harmful content – including incitement to genocide – were documented, the majority on X and Facebook. These platforms allowed high-level Israeli officials and other users to openly call for the extermination of Palestinians, dehumanising them as “sub-humans”, “animals” and worse. This genocidal rhetoric wasn’t limited to obscure corners of the internet. It was promoted, amplified and left unchallenged by the very platforms that claim to be committed to community standards and human rights.
For instance, on X, a December 2023 post by the deputy mayor of Jerusalem described blindfolded Palestinian detainees as “ants” and called for burying them alive. Although this specific post was eventually removed, countless others like it remain, fuelling a climate of violence and dehumanisation against Palestinians. This failure to combat hate speech directly contravenes international law, particularly in light of the International Court of Justice’s January 2024 order, which directed Israel to prevent and punish incitement to genocide.
These platforms are not just failing in their duty to protect free speech; they are actively facilitating the spread of genocidal propaganda. In the case of Meta, the report details how over 9,500 takedown requests from the Israeli government were sent to Meta between October and November 2023, with a shocking 94 per cent compliance rate. This high level of cooperation with a state actively committing war crimes raises serious concerns about the ethical boundaries of these companies. Meta’s decision to comply with such requests without transparency or accountability reveals a deeper issue: these platforms are willing to become tools of state oppression when the price is right.
The role of Big Tech: Project Nimbus and the automation of killing
Beyond the sphere of social media, Google and Amazon’s collaboration with the Israeli military under Project Nimbus casts an even darker shadow over the tech industry’s role in this conflict. The $1.2 billion cloud computing contract, as the report highlights, provides critical infrastructure to power Israel’s AI-driven Lavender and Gospel targeting systems – systems that are directly linked to the mass civilian casualties in Gaza.
The Lavender system, in particular, functions as a tool for automated killings, identifying targets based on massive data inputs and feeding them into the Israeli military’s bombing campaigns. The report describes how Lavender alone identified over 37,000 potential targets, contributing to the deaths of thousands of civilians, including women and children. By providing cloud services to facilitate this mass-scale targeting, Google and Amazon are directly implicated in these violations of international law. Despite mounting global pressure, both companies continue to support Israel’s military operations under Project Nimbus, even as the civilian death toll in Gaza rises.
Hate speech and disinformation: A coordinated assault on truth
The report goes on to document a deluge of hate speech and disinformation campaigns, often spearheaded by Israeli officials and amplified by online platforms. These campaigns, which include the systematic dissemination of dehumanising content on Telegram, X and YouTube, have targeted Palestinians both inside Gaza and across the diaspora. The report cites three million instances of violent content in Hebrew aimed at Palestinians on X alone, much of it coordinated by Israeli state actors.
Perhaps most troubling is the Israeli government’s influence operation known as STOIC, which ran a disinformation campaign targeting US and Canadian lawmakers to undermine the work of The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). This campaign, orchestrated with the help of AI, spread false narratives that led to the defunding of UNRWA, cutting off critical humanitarian aid to Palestinians. This is not merely a failure of moderation but an example of how platforms can be weaponised for state-driven disinformation, with devastating consequences for innocent civilians.
Profiting from genocide: Advertising amidst war crimes
As if censorship and disinformation weren’t enough, the report also exposes how platforms like Facebook have profited from harmful advertisements promoting violence against Palestinians. The investigation found that Facebook ran ads calling for the assassination of pro-Palestinian activists and the forced expulsion of Palestinians from the West Bank. Meta profited from these campaigns, further entrenching its complicity in the human rights violations unfolding in Gaza.
Meanwhile, YouTube ran ads from the Israeli government that used graphic imagery to sway public opinion in favour of its military actions in Gaza. Despite YouTube’s policies against violent content, these ads flooded social media with incendiary narratives, particularly in Europe and the US, contributing to the normalisation of war crimes under the guise of counter-terrorism.
Time for accountability
The findings of this report should compel the international community to act. It is no longer acceptable for tech companies to hide behind vague policies and empty commitments to free speech while facilitating the mass killing and silencing of a besieged population. The complicity of Meta, X, YouTube, Google and Amazon in these atrocities must be brought into the spotlight and held accountable for their role in enabling these crimes.
These platforms are not neutral arbiters of truth – they are corporations driven by profit, willing to accommodate genocidal regimes and turn a blind eye to the suffering of millions if it serves their bottom line. As the report makes clear, it is time for the world to demand that these companies stop profiting from the destruction of Palestinian lives. The silence and complicity of big tech are unforgivable, and they must not be allowed to escape responsibility any longer.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor
Mourners attend the funeral of Palestinian journalist Mohammed Abu Hattab, who was killed in an Israeli strike, in Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip, November 3, 2023. REUTERS/Mohammed Salem – RC2I54ATCC1L
To the brave journalists of Gaza, we owe you more than words can express. Your courage, resilience, and unwavering commitment to the truth have been a beacon of light in a time of unimaginable darkness.
Thank you for telling the world the real story of the Gaza genocide. You have given a voice to the voiceless, shining a spotlight on the horrors of war and exposing the devastating toll of violence on innocent lives.
Thank you for your bravery in reporting from the most dangerous zones. While bombs fell and destruction raged around you, you stood firm, risking your lives to ensure the truth reached the world.
Thank you for exposing the true, inhumane face of the enemy. Your work has dismantled the propaganda, showing the global community the stark reality of apartheid and genocide in Gaza.
Thank you for showing the suffering of Gaza’s civilians. Through your lenses and words, the world has witnessed the agony of families torn apart, children orphaned, and entire neighborhoods reduced to rubble.
Thank you for documenting the genocide for justice. Your relentless documentation will serve as critical evidence for the International Criminal Court, bringing accountability closer for war criminals like Netanyahu and Galant.
Thank you for highlighting the heroism of Gaza’s medical workers. You captured the courage of doctors and nurses who worked tirelessly under relentless bombardment, risking their lives to save others.
Thank you for exposing the cruelty of Israeli settlers. You showed the world the settlers blocking aid trucks, starving 2.5 million Palestinians, and destroying food meant for the besieged.
Thank you for sharing your personal stories from tents. You humanized the suffering, reminding the world that behind every number is a life, a family, a dream.
Thank you for exposing the lies about hospitals and UN schools. Your reporting uncovered the enemy’s fabrications, proving that even spaces of healing and refuge were not spared from their brutality.
Thank you for documenting 470 days of the most televised genocide in history. Your work has awakened global consciousness, ensuring these atrocities will never be forgotten.
Thank you for awakening the world to Zionist crimes. Your truth-telling has galvanized movements, strengthened the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) campaign, and amplified global solidarity for Palestine.
Thank you for showing the suffering of Gaza’s animals. From donkeys to cats, your empathy extended to all living beings enduring this war, revealing the depth of destruction.
Thank you for calling out pseudo-journalists. You exposed the bias and complicity of media figures like Piers Morgan and broadcasters like BBC and CNN, forcing the world to confront their role in perpetuating injustice.
Thank you for highlighting the resilience of Gaza’s people. You captured their defiance, their insistence on living, and their unwavering determination to remain on their land despite genocidal plans.
Thank you for exposing Western hypocrisy and complicity. You laid bare the silence and double standards of governments claiming to champion human rights while enabling oppression.
Thank you for uniting the people of Palestine. Through your work, you have strengthened their resolve and reminded the world of their unbreakable spirit.
To the journalists of Gaza, you are not just reporters—you are truth-tellers, justice-seekers, and defenders of humanity. Your courage has inspired millions and will continue to shape the fight for liberation and justice. Thank you for your humanity in the face of unimaginable brutality.
You have given hope to the oppressed and a voice to the silenced. History will remember your heroism.
This audit examines how elite philanthropy, wealthy individuals, family foundations, and corporate sponsors has been used to build and protect pro-Israel infrastructures in universities, museums, and public culture, and to punish or deter speech that centres Palestinian rights. It identifies specific donors, organisations, and institutions, and shows how their money has been used to shape what can and cannot be said about Palestine, especially after 1967 and during the Gaza genocide.
From 1948 onward, diaspora fundraising structures functioned as political infrastructure, not charity. Established channels such as the Jewish National Fund (KKL-JNF) and allied fundraising bodies mobilised donor money for land and state-building projects that directly intersected with dispossession and permanent demographic engineering after 1948, while Palestinian refugees were pushed into long-term dependency on relief. JNF’s own institutional history describes its land-acquisition mission and its reliance on global fundraising, embedding philanthropic money into territorial outcomes rather than neutral relief.
By the 1950s, financial instruments were also built to internationalise state support. Israel Bonds, launched in 1951 via the Development Corporation for Israel, institutionalised a diaspora investment pipeline framed as development but functionally tied to underwriting state capacity during years when refugee return and restitution were denied. The point for this audit is mechanism: philanthropy and quasi-philanthropy were structured early as durable, transnational support systems for a state project, while Palestinian narrative and legal claims were treated as a reputational threat to be managed.
From the late 1960s onward, US and European donors increasingly treated support for Israel as a core part of their philanthropic identity. By the 1990s, this was institutionalised into a dense ecosystem of foundations, campus coalitions, trips, think tanks, and legal NGOs whose explicit mandate was to strengthen attachment to Israel and counter Palestinian narratives. The Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Philanthropies are a central pillar of this system. On their own site they describe a strategic portfolio for Israel education and engagement and campus ecosystem investment, including support for organisations such as Hillel and the Israel on Campus Coalition, designed to expand pro-Israel programming capacity inside universities. AEN, fiscally sponsored through allied campus infrastructure, defines its mission around mobilising faculty and administrators to counter what it frames as delegitimisation of Zionism and Israel. In practice, this means a donor-funded network inside universities that treats sharp criticism of Zionism and the Israeli state as a problem to be managed, not an academic position to be debated.
The Adelson family’s philanthropy illustrates how this works on the level of political socialisation. Through the Adelson Family Foundation they have been described across multiple investigations and organisational materials as a dominant funder of Birthright Israel, donating at very large scale to expand free trips designed to foster emotional attachment to Israel among young Jewish adults. Hillel and allied organisations describe how such funding enabled campus-facing Israel programming through fellows and sponsored activities across dozens of universities. This is not neutral cultural exchange. It is state-aligned narrative delivery under the banner of philanthropy, aimed at future professional and political strata.
The Adam and Gila Milstein Family Foundation is explicit about political intent. Its published materials frame its grantmaking around combating what it defines as anti-Israel activity on campuses and list grantees that include organisations engaged in naming, shaming, and litigation strategies against Palestine advocacy, including the Lawfare Project and StopAntisemitism-linked campaigning. This is philanthropy used not to broaden debate but to police the boundary of permissible speech, with complaints, pressure campaigns, and legal threats functioning as the enforcement layer.
Alongside positive programming came a project to redefine antisemitism in ways that serve state interests. Israel-aligned advocacy groups, often supported by the same donors, promoted a new antisemitism framework that shifts institutional focus from hatred of Jews as Jews to robust criticism of Israel and Zionism. They successfully pushed the IHRA working definition of antisemitism, with examples that include certain Israel-focused speech, into universities, city councils, and cultural bodies, then used it operationally through complaints, investigations, and funding pressure. The mechanism is not abstract: donor-funded networks provide the template language, train administrators, fund “campus climate” apparatus, and then trigger enforcement against staff and students who name apartheid, settler colonialism, or genocide, even while those terms appear in reports by major human rights organisations and UN mechanisms.
The capture becomes most visible when donors move from funding to punishment. After 7 October 2023, the Gaza genocide triggered the largest wave of campus Palestine solidarity in US history. It also triggered open donor revolt. At Harvard, major donors publicly escalated pressure, and the Wexner Foundation ended its relationship with Harvard Kennedy School in October 2023, explicitly linking the break to Harvard’s response. This is a textbook donor sanction: withdrawal of institutional money to force political discipline. The donor pressure environment was widely reported as a central factor in governance instability during 2023–2024, making clear that Palestine is treated as a trigger issue where donors intervene directly in university administration and public positioning.
At other elite universities the pattern was similar. Columbia University faced sustained donor and political pressure during Gaza protests, and US university administrations repeatedly cited donor relations and reputational risk while deciding on policing, suspensions, and expulsions. The audit point is mechanism: philanthropic dependency converts universities into compliance institutions, where administrators pre-emptively narrow speech to protect funding, then present the outcome as neutral governance.
Blacklist operations take philanthropy-driven narrative control to a punitive, personalised level. Canary Mission compiles dossiers on students, academics, and activists and publishes them online, branding targets as antisemites or terrorist sympathisers for involvement in pro-Palestine organising. StopAntisemitism-style campaigns operate similarly by targeting individuals and pressuring employers. These projects do not merely “criticise”. They create long-tail professional harm through searchable reputational tagging, employer intimidation, and institutional risk escalation, producing predictable self-censorship. The audit finding is not that donors alone run these operations, but that donor ecosystems fund, legitimise, and amplify them, while universities and employers treat the resulting smear output as actionable “risk information.”
In the arts and museum sector, donor capture operates through sponsorships and trustee roles that come with unspoken red lines. The Zabludowicz Art Trust and its co-founded Outset Contemporary Art Fund, linked to Poju and Anita Zabludowicz, have long been major funders and partners of London’s Tate galleries. In late 2024, large numbers of artists and art workers signed open letters urging Tate to cut ties with these bodies, arguing that donor relationships were functioning as artwashing and reputational shielding during Gaza’s destruction. Whether an institution accepts that characterisation is not the audit question. The audit question is leverage: major institutions became structurally dependent on sponsors whose political associations made full Palestinian truth-telling institutionally costly.
The broader UK arts world has seen similar conflicts. In 2024, Baillie Gifford faced sustained public pressure and withdrawals connected to sponsorship and investment concerns, leading multiple festivals to sever relationships. The practical lesson is simple: donors can shape cultural programming by attaching money to reputational conditions, and institutions frequently respond by avoiding “high-risk” Palestine speech rather than protecting it.
Germany provides a concentrated example of donor-state-cultural convergence. Since 2019, the Bundestag’s BDS resolution has operated as an institutional permission slip for venue denial and funding withdrawal, and German cultural bodies repeatedly cancelled events and talks involving artists and scholars who expressed support for Palestinian rights, citing antisemitism allegations and funding risk. This is not philanthropy alone, but philanthropy strengthens it by financing the complaint infrastructure and by signalling that funding will follow “safe” compliance, while dissent risks institutional punishment.
After 7 October 2023, the repression layer intensified across borders through policing and administrative powers. Entry denials, event cancellations, and investigation threats targeted speakers and witnesses whose value was evidentiary. Al Jazeera’s 2017 investigation into the UK Lobby recorded an Israeli embassy official discussing plans to “take down” a UK minister viewed as critical of settlements, followed by official fallout, showing that diplomatic-political influence and narrative enforcement operate in tandem with the wider ecosystem that donors help underwrite.
All of this sits on top of subtler forms of capture inside universities and cultural bodies. Philanthropic money builds Israel Studies chairs, sponsors dialogue centres, and funds trips and fellowships tied to frameworks that depoliticise occupation and erase the language of settler colonialism and apartheid. Foundations are often willing to support Palestinian or Arab projects when framed as coexistence or conflict management; when scholars or artists insist on naming perpetrators, mechanisms, and legal categories, access to grants, venues, and publication becomes materially harder.
Digital platforms became an enforcement multiplier during 2023–2026 because Gaza evidence was produced under siege while foreign journalists faced access restrictions. Human Rights Watch documented patterns of suppression on Meta platforms affecting Palestinian content, and major reporting summarised the scale and repeatability of these censorship patterns during the war. The audit mechanism is evidentiary: suppress the documentation stream, then claim the record is insufficient.
For Palestinians and their allies, the harms are concrete. Students and academics risk blacklisting, career damage, and immigration consequences when they speak plainly about Israeli crimes because donor-funded watchdogs and lawfare groups build dossiers and pressure institutions to punish them. Universities warp academic freedom around donor sensitivities, disciplining and cancelling Palestine solidarity while accepting philanthropically funded infrastructures whose explicit aim is to counter criticism of Israel. Museums and festivals that depend on donors tied to Israel’s military and economic project become reluctant to platform Palestinian narratives or to acknowledge apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and genocide for fear of losing funding and facing hostile media campaigns.
This audit does not claim that all Jewish or Israeli-related philanthropy is malign, nor that Palestinians are never funded. It shows something more specific: across 1948–2026, an overlapping network of donors, foundations, and sponsor-driven cultural governance repeatedly converted money into narrative boundaries. Where Palestinian rights advocacy threatened the legitimacy of dispossession, occupation, apartheid, or genocidal conduct, philanthropic leverage was used to shape curricula, punish speakers, police institutions, and manufacture professional risk. The actors are named, the mechanisms are operational, and the consequences are measurable. Under the cover of generosity and support for education and culture, philanthropy has repeatedly functioned as a weapon of narrative control, protecting a regime of occupation, apartheid, and genocide from the full force of honest description.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is one of the most powerful lobbying organizations in the United States, known for its unwavering support of Israel and its influence on American politics. Founded in 1951, AIPAC’s stated mission is to strengthen, protect, and promote the U.S.-Israel relationship. While it has achieved significant success in shaping U.S. foreign policy in favor of Israel, AIPAC’s role in American politics has sparked intense debate, with critics arguing that its influence undermines U.S. sovereignty and distorts democratic processes.
The Reach of AIPAC
AIPAC’s power lies in its ability to mobilize resources, influence legislation, and shape public opinion. The organization works tirelessly to lobby members of Congress, regardless of party affiliation, ensuring broad bipartisan support for policies that align with its goals. It hosts an annual policy conference that draws thousands of attendees, including prominent politicians, business leaders, and activists. This event often serves as a platform for showcasing unwavering U.S. commitment to Israel despite holding apartheid status.
AIPAC also channels significant financial support to political campaigns through affiliated Political Action Committees (PACs) and donor networks. While AIPAC itself does not directly donate to candidates, its recommendations and endorsements carry considerable weight, influencing the flow of campaign contributions from pro-Israel donors.
Legislative Influence
AIPAC has successfully advocated for legislation that strengthens U.S.-Israel ties, including military aid packages, defense cooperation agreements, and trade partnerships. For instance, it played a pivotal role in securing the 2016 Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. and Israel, which committed $38 billion in military aid over ten years. AIPAC has also been instrumental in shaping U.S. policy toward the Middle East, particularly in countering perceived threats from Iran as they did with Iraq which resulted in a distastrous western war against the Iraqis for unfounded claims.m and led to the slaughter of more than million Iraqis.
AIPAC’s illegal influence as a foreign organisation extends beyond fostering bilateral relations. They contend that the organisation threatens and bullies the lawmakers to adopt policies that do not align with broader U.S. interests. For example, AIPAC has been a vocal opponent of the Iran nuclear deal, lobbying Congress to impose stricter sanctions and take a hardline stance that some believe could escalate tensions in the region. It also strongly supports the ongoing genocide and starvation that Israel is still carrying out in Gaza and Lebanon.
Controversies and Criticism
AIPAC’s shameless interference in American politics has not been without controversy. Critics from across the political spectrum have raised concerns about the organisation influence on U.S. foreign policy. It’s obvious that AIPAC’s lobbying efforts prioritise Israeli interests over American ones, undermining the principle of an independent U.S. foreign policy to serve far right Israeli interests and Israeli terrorist settlers.
AIPAC has also faced allegations of stifling debate on U.S.-Israel relations. Politicians and public figures who voice criticism of Israeli policies risk being labeled as anti-Semitic, creating a chilling effect on open discourse and discussion which limits freedom of specach and this is considered to be against the American constitution. This dirty game was highlighted in high-profile cases involving members of Congress who challenged AIPAC’s agenda and faced significant political backlash.
The debate over AIPAC’s influence reflects broader concerns about the role of lobbying in American politics. Critics argue that AIPAC exemplifies how well-funded interest groups can disproportionately shape policy, often at the expense of broader public opinion. to serve an apartheid entity that has been oppressing the indigenous people of Palestine for decades.
The question of how to balance lobbying influence with democratic accountability remains central to the discussion about AIPAC’s role in American politics. Transparency and open debate are essential to ensure that U.S. policies serve the national interest while respecting the diverse perspectives of its citizens. AIPAC support of illegal Israeli occupation should be condemned and banned.
As AIPAC continues to wield significant power, its illegal activities will likely remain a focal point in discussions about the intersection of foreign policy, lobbying , and ‘democracy’ in the United States.
A SHUTTERED PALESTINIAN SHOP IN HEBRON CLOSED DOWN BY THE ISRAELI MILITARY THAT WAS VANDALIZED WITH A STAR OF DAVID, AN ANCIENT JEWISH SYMBOL ADOPTED BY THE ISRAELI STATE AS A NATIONAL SYMBOL. (PHOTO: LAUREN SURFACE/MONDOWEISS)
